TheLeviathan

Great opposite field power....bad base running.

Absolutely none. Don't cut him but Paddock, Ryan, Winder, Ober, and Gray are our best arms. Anyone else takes a seat.

Putting them on a "prove it" year was totally fine. They had earned some skepticism. But I think people ignored the signs that the pool was growing in the minors because of the pandemic. I was optimistic about the team's position last year on pitching relative to most but even I am surprised it's hit this quickly. However, I'm not surprised that a flurry of moves meant to improve the defense, turn over leadership to Buxton, and give opportunities to young players has worked out well.

Start 2 and Winder looked filthy again. This is why all of that "fire the FO" talk was so misguided. It's like people totally forgot how much the pandemic altered timetables and threw things for a loop. There was panic about losing Berrios and Rogers and others but look where we are: Ryan looks like an absolute stud. Winder is filthy. Ober is solid. Woods-Richardson is sawing through AA. Ditto Canterino. Guys we are converting to bullpen arms like Jax and Duran are looking great. This FO is building something really good here.

I hope it's a great solution....Until you realize piracy is free and way more ethical than giving Sinclair money!

A hardcore baseball site and the majority of the people posting are rejecting this on the basis of A) way too expensive as a streaming option B ) Sinclair is an awful company with no trust and good will C) Pirating is free. I'll say it here like I'm saying in the other thread: this will appeal to a very small subset of fans. It is yet another needlessly complicated way to access the game. The only thing MLB is good at is turning "How do I watch my favorite team: into this:

Do you ever post anything that is accurate? Could you at least try not to post something that is laughably false or stupid?

Ha! Far enough for my liking, but far enough to move the electorate into a frenzy? I'm not sure we're there yet unfortunately.

Your personal viewing habits and considerations are not relevant to a broader conversation about price point. Congrats, you find it worthwhile. I'm sure some people really, really loved CNN Plus at it's price point too. Didn't save that doomed-from-the-start platform either. The overall viability of the offering or the price point is not subject to your personal whims. Injecting it into the conversation is irrelevant at best. By becoming a streaming app it by definition becomes a competitor for dollars with other streaming apps. Consumers will make judgment calls about price based on comparisons with other offerings, so the comparison is absolutely relevant. Consumers make decisions based on value and it's hard to look at $20 bucks for basically one game a night, if that, as being good value relative to other options. (Like, for example, $0 if you pirate. Or $90 and everything is included. Or just catching the box score) You're going to price out large portions of your base and that is relevant to analysis about the price and viability. The chief problem with this entire issue is the unnecessary complexity to view games. One more non-viable platform doomed to fail in no way helps consumers in the long term. It just invites more wild swings at exploiting demand without any care for the game itself and pushes people further and further from consuming the product at all.

No one is arguing that "no humans ever" will want this. Of course this will have some appeal. Good if it does. But so does youtube's awful package. And DirectTV. I'm sure there are folks out there still rueing the failure of CNN Plus....doesn't change the facts. The issue is longterm viability. If there is none then this is but the newest broadcasting misstep.

Well good thing you alone, on a hardcore baseball site, and your viewing preferences, are the guide for how to view this move. Meanwhile, the rest of us will try to look at it more broadly and the point is relatively simple: 1) People who are looking for bang for their buck and quality depth of content are not going to find this price point, for this content, attractive. Netflix, at the same price point, is finding people leave because it's too expensive. They offer more for the same price. That's relevant. So what does that do? Basically leave you with a subset of diehards. 2) Another service....which, by the way, also has sports....is MUCH cheaper and offers the culture's biggest attractions. At, again, a MUCH cheaper price point. Paramount and Peacock? Ditto. Just less cultural significance. HBO? Less content and no sports, but....again....cheaper. So who does this appeal to? Well, casual people with any kind of budget are going to balk at that price. Even here, a devoted group of baseball diehards, you've got about half the people saying "Screw that". Is it going to appeal to your 60+ folks? Um, likely not. They're what keeps the lights on for Direct TV because then they don't have to navigate streaming and wi-fi. So what's left? This will appeal to a subset of a subset of a subset. None of the examples above have that problem. Why? Because they bundle the subsets together and anything you don't want is just a bonus you get. And...I'll say it again....for a CHEAPER price. This will fail no matter how much you try to will it not to with specious reasoning.

I feel sorry for people back in Minnesota for having to navigate all the nonsense. I genuinely hope it's successful for you for however long it lasts. Or maybe it shines a light on the stupid web of BS that fans have to wade through to see the sport and inspires the league to change it. Sports should be about getting eyeballs on the game. Making that complicated or prohibitive is the height of stupidity.

For $20 Netflix offers me a boatload of content. And, I'll point out, they may have priced themselves out of the market at that price point despite having about eleventy billion more things to watch than Bally. Hulu and Disney and ESPN is actually cheaper than this. Cheaper!!!! And they offer the most desired content available. HBO Max is the prestige channel with the least in quantity but most in quality to offer and it's STILL CHEAPER This is Sinclair hoping desperate diehards help them save their bad business model. It won't. The market for this is so, so minimal. It'll be an abject failure in less than five years. Book it.

Wow....that Regan guy is a ghoul. Jesus.

Seems like having Miranda/Urshela/Arraez cover 1B and 3B is working quite splendidly. I like Sano, but this situation is peachy.

I don't think it will move the needle right now. Personally, I see it as a 2024 campaign issue. They'll try this year and it may move a few races, but ultimately I'm not sure it has an impact until the GOP takes it too far.

You were right Mike. But one can be correct in their assessment and still present that correct assessment in a bonkers way. I'm not sure what to make of what was leaked. I think it's only the beginning of a very conflicted issue that won't be settled for quite some time.

I like Bynum, but he's small. Thing about Cine is that he helps with the run defense as well, much moreso than Bynum. It's also possible Bynum works out of the slot or inside coverage positions out of 6 DB formations. Even better....the Vikings could conceivable go 4-1-6 or 4-0-7 with the group they have right now.

Exactly. Some of the nonsense we've grown accustomed to has been creeping worse and worse as the two elements (pitcher and hitter) indulge each other in time wasting.

Winder's stuff looked really good. That kid has a chance to be something special.

One of the biggest mistakes we all make with baseball is thinking last year is a blueprint for this year. For many, many players/teams it's really hard to predict and year to year fluctuations are drastic in nature. And that's without a pandemic involved in mucking up the analysis.

Helluva start by Winder.

I feel weird about that conclusion too but I can't shake it. Hopefully those 4 are studs.

So we walked away with a new starter at S, CB, RG, and WLB.....all before pick 70. Had you told me that predraft I'd have been excited. But it's hard to shake the feeling we get 75 cents on the dollar for all our trades. Just as a small example...had we not had to deal 46 or 77 that scenario above is much better. No 46 trade? We get Booth for far less. No 77 trade? We walk away with Raimann, Leal, Dean, Travis or Marcus Jones. Woof.

I really like the two 5th round picks. Chandler is a really underrated back.