ashbury

I have no problem with this take. I just thought at first I was reading a news scoop.

I've been assuming he is waiting for a team to commit to a sixth year, and that's what's holding up his decision. This is just your supposition, right? I have seen no news announcements saying this.

Does anyone here know how cash figures into luxury tax computations? Reportedly, this trade was intended to help the Dodgers get under the luxury tax threshold. If they had not traded Adrian Gonzalez, and merely released him, I think his large salary would count toward next year's payroll. When they send cash along with him to the Braves, who have plenty of "cap" space toward the tax, does that cash not count in any payroll totals? In principle could the amount of cash be equal to his salary, and then they exploit a loophole?

Moderator's note: Independent of any discussion with TD ownership, the moderators had been discussing the "crushing it" meme. It was fine to debate the term in the comments for the article that introduced it, indeed that is what occurred. However, throwing it around left and right, in thread after thread, starts to look more like trolling than good-natured banter. Regardless of the intentions behind it, I'd like to ask that posters refrain from this particular attempt at humor, going forward.

I can think of one.

On our hands time is, a lot of it to have, we seem.

Randy Rosario and Nik Turley are the players lost via waivers after the World Series, AFAIK. A guy or two was simply cut from the 40-man, also - Mike Tonkin.

That's what they told me about cocaine and porn beer and Skittles.

That's what they told me about moderatin' this site.

I didn't see any further discussion of these picks. Probably not worth starting a whole new thread for them. Baez is at least worth my time to keep tabs on, just as a novelty. I wouldn't call him a "gamble", more just a $12,000 "flyer" (quibble quibble), and the Twins will likely need to put him on an accelerated development pace going into his age-21 season, given that he's eligible to be drafted away from us the same way next year. An infielder who couldn't hit, he's giving it a try on the mound. He struck out few, and the only scouting report I found with a few moments of searching indicates an 87-MPH heater when he was first signed as a 17-year old. As I understand it, the AAA phase of the draft doesn't put any requirement on where the draftee actually plays, which is good since he's surely not prepared to face AAA batters yet. I would try him at Cedar Rapids and then bump him up to Ft Myers mid-season if he shows any promise. Lugo would seem to throw smoke if his K/9 numbers are to be believed, but the scouting report I found on him shows only a 91-94 fastball and he probably gets his Ks via the curveball. Until 2017 he had mediocre-to-decent control, but this year he fell - both "apart" in the control department, and apparently "out of Cincinnati's plans" at least as far a protecting him from the draft goes. He's already 23 and didn't succeed at high-A, meaning he's close to knocking around the independent leagues for a few years IMO if he can't harness his stuff real soon, but apparently the Twins see something they think they can work with. Maybe I'll take these as Adopt-A-Prospect guys next year, if no one else does. I've already done half the work I do for those, anyway.

Unless Darling has independent sources of his own, this probably merely reflects groupthink, and is not any confirmation of what's happening.

I prefer playing as GM than as manager, which is what it sounds like you're playing as. I don't have many tips, except to start fresh, over and over under various scenarios and various strategies, and enjoy seeing how the game responds. Accept that it's a time consuming game. Try a complete gut and rebuild, for instance; that almost always fails for me, but maybe you'll have better success. The game seems realistic in most ways but you'll probably find loopholes you can exploit. One feature I consider a bug and which I nevertheless exploit: when negotiating with a free agent, an offer of a team option year seems to be viewed as of value to the player, rather than as a detriment. Oh, here's a tip I believe in: on your first day as GM, hire the best scouting director available, and don't worry about the cost of firing the incumbent. Don't make any player moves until he's on board. OK, and one last: the day after the World Series, do a full roster evaluation, do a search of players outside your system, and formulate a comprehensive plan for your off-season. Don't just make piecemeal trades and signings. Apologies to milldaddy35 for this tangent to his thread.

I get addicted enough to this game playing just on my computer. I have no idea what would happen if I had external stimulus to keep checking my inbox frequently. Hard pass.

I guess the present formulation is newer than I thought. I thought it was an old Bill James idea, but turns out, after a little googling, I was thinking of Pete Palmer, and he called it Pitching Runs and Batting Runs (and Fielding Runs), not "Something Above Average", basing it on his Linear Weights. That goes way, way back, probably to the 60s and 70s, Old win(e) in new bottles, if you ask me - WAR was a reaction to Total Baseball setting 0 at league average, WAA looks like a counter-reaction to that. Anyway, we really need to get this out of the Pineda discussion thread. Start a new thread if you feel like pursuing this further.

I think it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, of one generation in their 20s and 30s raising kids, and another generation in their 60s and 70s contemplating what one contemplates in retirement. Getting kids off their lawns, mostly.

WAA has been around a long time. It's fine. Using 0.0 to determine bad players isn't.

Oy, even when I label it as satire... OK, so let me back up. The un-satire version is, calling a player a negative because his WAA is below zero is just as arbitrary as the cutoff point for WAR, because analytics are not especially developed for the purpose of constructing .500 (average) teams. And since this digression already has gone on long enough, that's all I plan to say about it here. Next on my to-do list: a nice collection of stew, roast, baking, boiling, fricassee, and ragout recipes for Irish children... oh wait, I got scooped already.

Mod note: This seems about to turn the corner to saying who may and may not post, which leads to bickering, and without assessing blame I ask that it stop.

Those teams that are adept at teasing out the signal from the noise in the forecasting realm will run circles around those teams that believe there is certainty to be had in any of the numbers. We fans at home are certainly entitled to play along with the celebrity panel.

Nope. I want a new stat, Wins Above Mediocrity. WAM of 0 should be around 4 WAR, not 2. If your nine starting hitters (counting DH) plus at least four rotation starters and your closer aren't contributing at least 0 WAM, the laggards sporting a negative WAM should be jettisoned, or you likely don't have a 100-win caliber team, especially since the rest of your roster can't be contributing many WAM almost by definition. And since I was attempting a little bit of satire with that thought, I'm going to leave it at that. The idea of labeling a major league player as a negative is more than a bit arbitrary.

The goal of any team is to win the World Series, not simply play .500. An everyday player who is not at least 2 WAA is a negative.

Please continue the discussion here.

Try a bite of raw onion after minty Crest. It's... different.

Are the Marlins agreeing to chip in the tip to the waitstaff, or must the Cards pay that too?