Something has to be done with Mark Trumbo

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I'm not so sure. I feel like someone must have presented the strategy of signing Trumbo as a contingency plan to him in case they were unable to resign Davis. Was is Duquette? Or Anderson? Who knows. Part of me hopes it was Duquette because at least he'll be gone after the season. If it was Anderson then it doesn't bode well for the future.

The Davis deal was signed the off-season before the Trumbo deal.

[wildbillhiccup]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The Davis deal was signed the off-season before the Trumbo deal.

You're absolutely right. I'm mixing up my years. So the initial "trade" for Mark Trumbo was the apparent contingency plan for Davis. I stand corrected and take back my harsh judgement. That was a savvy move. They didn't dig their own grave until they signed him to three more years...

[interloper]

10 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

You're absolutely right. I'm mixing up my years. So the initial "trade" for Mark Trumbo was the apparent contingency plan for Davis. I stand corrected and take back my harsh judgement. That was a savvy move. They didn't dig their own grave until they signed him to three more years...

A great trade! Especially since it got them out of Gallardo. Then they turned Trumbo into Gallardo. Dumbies, man.

[OFFNY]

1 hour ago, interloper said:

 

A great trade! Especially since it got them out of Gallardo. Then they turned Trumbo into Gallardo. Dumbies, man.

 

o

 

Dummies.

 

o

[clapdiddy]

4 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Dummies.

 

 

 

o

I find it appropriate that Joe Morgan is on the cover.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

58 minutes ago, interloper said:

A great trade! Especially since it got them out of Gallardo. Then they turned Trumbo into Gallardo. Dumbies, man.

Trumbo was traded for Steve Clevenger, which looked like a steal until the Orioles resigned Trumbo to a $37M contract.  Gallardo was traded a year later for Seth Smith.  

[interloper]

41 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Trumbo was traded for Steve Clevenger, which looked like a steal until the Orioles resigned Trumbo to a $37M contract.  Gallardo was traded a year later for Seth Smith.  

Woops, my mistake. Thanks for catching that!

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, interloper said:

A great trade! Especially since it got them out of Gallardo. Then they turned Trumbo into Gallardo. Dumbies, man.

Haha, this is so on point!

[sportsfan8703]

2 hours ago, interloper said:

A great trade! Especially since it got them out of Gallardo. Then they turned Trumbo into Gallardo. Dumbies, man.

Well DD did the great trades. Brady negotiated the extension. LOL. That might be true. 

[gmelson26]

20 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

With the invention of specialized relievers and starters that barely go through an order three times, I doubt we'll ever see anything come close to batting .400 again. It's just too hard having to face all these guys throwing in the upper 90s for an inning at the tail end of games. Ted Williams and Ty Cobb got to face those starters late in games for the 4th or 5th time and that certainly helped them achieve those numbers.

Read a great article on this a while back.  Decent numbers breakdown on why it will not happen again.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22356050/why-hit-400-ever-again

[DrungoHazewood]

20 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

With the invention of specialized relievers and starters that barely go through an order three times, I doubt we'll ever see anything come close to batting .400 again. It's just too hard having to face all these guys throwing in the upper 90s for an inning at the tail end of games. Ted Williams and Ty Cobb got to face those starters late in games for the 4th or 5th time and that certainly helped them achieve those numbers.

Yes, absolutely that's going to make it harder.

But it could be done if it was a goal.  But baseball, for better or worse, doesn't make big changes.  The game evolves within the context of rules that were mostly set in stone 120 years ago.  You could do things to make it less of a strikeout game with multiple relievers, and that would probably lead to higher averages.  They could limit the number of pitchers on the roster, they could set minimum diameters and weights for bats, they could move the mound back three feet while deadening the ball.  Or you could just expand to 40 or 50 teams and in the short term the dilution of talent would mean stars would stand out more, and most numbers would see wider variation on both the high and low end.

But baseball's powers that be seem perfectly fine with a game where there are historic numbers of homers, strikeouts and pitching changes.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Yes, absolutely that's going to make it harder.

But it could be done if it was a goal.  But baseball, for better or worse, doesn't make big changes.  The game evolves within the context of rules that were mostly set in stone 120 years ago.  You could do things to make it less of a strikeout game with multiple relievers, and that would probably lead to higher averages.  They could limit the number of pitchers on the roster, they could set minimum diameters and weights for bats, they could move the mound back three feet while deadening the ball.  Or you could just expand to 40 or 50 teams and in the short term the dilution of talent would mean stars would stand out more, and most numbers would see wider variation on both the high and low end.

But baseball's powers that be seem perfectly fine with a game where there are historic numbers of homers, strikeouts and pitching changes.

You left out profits.

[wildbillhiccup]

15 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Well DD did the great trades. Brady negotiated the extension. LOL. That might be true. 

Careful...you're talking about our future GM

[Ohfan67]

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Yes, absolutely that's going to make it harder.

But it could be done if it was a goal.  But baseball, for better or worse, doesn't make big changes.  The game evolves within the context of rules that were mostly set in stone 120 years ago.  You could do things to make it less of a strikeout game with multiple relievers, and that would probably lead to higher averages.  They could limit the number of pitchers on the roster, they could set minimum diameters and weights for bats, they could move the mound back three feet while deadening the ball.  Or you could just expand to 40 or 50 teams and in the short term the dilution of talent would mean stars would stand out more, and most numbers would see wider variation on both the high and low end.

But baseball's powers that be seem perfectly fine with a game where there are historic numbers of homers, strikeouts and pitching changes.

Yet the number of runs scored per game is still pretty much the same as it has been. Unless the number of runs scored per game really changes, then it just seems that players and teams are finding new ways to skin the cat. I wouldn't say that owners are totally fine with all the pitching changes...MLB is focusing on pace of play, length of game issues. Fewer pitching changes would help a ton.

 

If you wanted to really cut down on middle relievers, then limiting rosters to 23 or 24 players would have a huge impact. But of course that is never going to happen (the players union would never agree). Or maybe teams still have a roster of 25, but say only 17 are available in a regular 9 inning game. That would be wild and would probably limit the number of middle relievers available. 

[Aglets]

12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Yes, absolutely that's going to make it harder.

But it could be done if it was a goal.  But baseball, for better or worse, doesn't make big changes.  The game evolves within the context of rules that were mostly set in stone 120 years ago.  You could do things to make it less of a strikeout game with multiple relievers, and that would probably lead to higher averages.  They could limit the number of pitchers on the roster, they could set minimum diameters and weights for bats, they could move the mound back three feet while deadening the ball.  Or you could just expand to 40 or 50 teams and in the short term the dilution of talent would mean stars would stand out more, and most numbers would see wider variation on both the high and low end.

But baseball's powers that be seem perfectly fine with a game where there are historic numbers of homers, strikeouts and pitching changes.

I think this is pretty melodramatic.  Baseball def can be slow to implement big change.........but they've been tweaking things a lot in the past decade.  Even messing with the baseballs themselves.   I don't think they are 'perfectly fine' with the current product.

There was just a proposal floated a few weeks ago about an idea for letting managers bat whoever they wanted (regardless of batting order) in the 9th inning to make things more exciting.  That would turn the game completely on its head in a lot of ways (for the record I don't think it will happen).   Also........yea what Corn said.  Record profits and all.