Lynn or Cobb? Who is your first choice?

[maybenxtyr]

I believe Lynn will sign in Baltimore by this Friday. 3 years at about 15 million per.

[Teddy OBP]

3 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

I prefer Cobb.....I'm guessing the Orioles are going to play the two against one another and take the best contract deal.

Like they did with Javy Lopez and Pudge?  Wish they'd done that a little differently, although I was thrilled at the time.

I'd be happy with either one...I'd really prefer Archer but I'd rather spend just money and not prospects. 

[wildbillhiccup]

1 hour ago, MDtransplant757 said:

The brewers and reds were also bad for most of Lynn's time in St Louis

...which kinda offset by the fact that the Cubs and Astros have had stacked lineups for the last few years. Ranked 1 and 4 respectively in runs scored last season. Cincy has been middle of the road the past few years too. I'm not trying to say the NL Central is the AL East, but it has plenty of band boxes and good offensive teams. 

[Enjoy Terror]

34 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

What draws your comparison to those two pitchers in particular?

All three have the same arsenal of pitches and throw each pitch with similar frequency and have similar K rates. All three are GB pitchers and all three pitch to extreme contact. Both Nola and Gonzalez have been more effective with their breaking pitches; e.g Nola has a fantastic curve and Gio has a great change. Cobb lacks an effective out pitch.

[Number5]

5 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

...which kinda offset by the fact that the Cubs and Astros have had stacked lineups for the last few years. Ranked 1 and 4 respectively in runs scored last season. Cincy has been middle of the road the past few years too. I'm not trying to say the NL Central is the AL East, but it has plenty of band boxes and good offensive teams. 

Houston is in the American League.

[Yardball85]

55 minutes ago, maybenxtyr said:

I believe Lynn will sign in Baltimore by this Friday. 3 years at about 15 million per.

Hope you're right.  Hed' be a solid addition.

[wildbillhiccup]

16 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Houston is in the American League.

...I'm showing my age

[jamalshw]

3 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

...I'm showing my age

Considering they were an NL team as recently as 2012, all you're showing is that you became a baseball fan more than six years ago...hardly a clear sign of your age

Now...if you start calling the Brewers an AL team or referencing the Washington Senators, then we may be on to something.

[weams]

7 minutes ago, jamalshw said:

Considering they were an NL team as recently as 2012, all you're showing is that you became a baseball fan more than six years ago...hardly a clear sign of your age

Now...if you start calling the Brewers an AL team or referencing the Washington Senators, then we may be on to something.

I never understood why the Nationals could not get that name back. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

I never understood why the Nationals could not get that name back. 

Not as if it was associated with success.

[Going Underground]

7 minutes ago, weams said:

I never understood why the Nationals could not get that name back. 

Phil Wood, MASN’s “Nats Talk Live” host and the font of all D.C. baseball knowledge, said there was a team in Washington in the 19th century called the Nationals. When the American League was started in 1901, the city’s new franchise was called the Washington Senators.

“But because of the old name, people still called the team the Nationals,” Phil said. “Eventually more people were calling them the Nationals than the Senators. If you look at old stationery up to 1956, it says ‘Nationals.’ ”

Pre-1957, the names were often used interchangeably. The Post could refer to the Nationals in the body of a story while mentioning the Senators in the photo caption.

“If you go back and look at old baseball cards from the ’30s and ’40s, half would say ‘Senators,’ and half would say ‘Nationals,’ ” Phil said.

“Even in the 1950s. Look at the 1955 Topps card for Roy Sievers. It says ‘Washington Nationals.’ ”

 

Then something happened. That something was Charlie Brotman, now a famed local PR guy, but in 1956 he was the newly hired stadium announcer for Washington’s major league ballclub.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/senators-nationals-nats-whats-in-a-name/2012/10/05/75e95352-0ef9-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html?utm_term=.8df5b04ae141

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/senators-nationals-nats-whats-in-a-name/2012/10/05/75e95352-0ef9-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html?utm_term=.8df5b04ae141

[O's are Legends]

5 minutes ago, weams said:

I never understood why the Nationals could not get that name back. 

Never understood their admiration for the Walgreens logo either.

Prefer Cobb due to pitching well in the AL East. I'll be fine with either. 

[weams]

The Senators were a time tested revered nominclature. 

[Going Underground]

1 minute ago, weams said:

The Senators were a time tested revered nominclature. 

But the National name in DC goes back before the Senators.

[El Gordo]

21 minutes ago, weams said:

I never understood why the Nationals could not get that name back. 

As popular as Congress is they probably didn't want it. Plus when you think of the old Senators you think of a perrenial loser.