Hey Dodgers Fans

514,577 Views | 4372 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by GMP
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you want to argue mlb is unfair on small market teams, that's fine. That's a reasonable argument. But not the argument I was having an issue with.

You somehow imply that dodgers or giants fans should somehow be embarrassed or ashamed for being fans of big market teams. Why?

I should be ashamed cause my team is willing to spend money? I should be ashamed cause I live in the Bay Area and not Kansas City? I should be ashamed if the warriors decide to go over the luxury tax to keep the core four?

Like I said before, I think an argument can be made that Oregon fans should be a little embarrassed that they spend that much money trying to make their football team good while at the same time neglecting their academics.

But pro sports is completely different. a professional team's main goal should be to win and to entertain their fan base. Some teams believe the best way to do that is to spend money. Are you saying the giants and dodgers should spend less just to make you happier? I still just don't get your argument.

Be pissed at the rules if you want. But why blame the dodgers or giants for playing within the rules?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

2 wins...ah the eternal optimism of Spring. Sure the Giantes have improved...but they LOST 98 games last year. They got the better bats but one guy goes out...that's it.

So, 160 games to go. How many do the Gaints win


On pace for 162-0. That's just statistical analysis.
Ever read the infamous..."How to Lie with Statistics"?


Well, today's result ruins my statistical model.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chapman_is_Gone said:

GMP said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

The Giants have the second highest payroll in baseball at $208M.

The Dodgers have the third highest payroll in baseball at $186M.

Given the fact that either the Giants or the Dodgers has, on average, spent 2x more on its players than has its opponent on any given day and 3x-4x more in the case of the smallest market teams, surely any win by your teams must feel very hollow in your heart.

You all are the USC of baseball, and it's nothing to be proud of.
70 years ago, Cal was the USC of football - and it's something we'd all like to return to.

More to the point - a team like the early to mid '00s Yankees might feel hollow. When all you do is go out and buy the best players that other teams drafted and developed, there's a mercenary aspect that probably does feel a little hollow. But for the most part the Giants and Dodgers recent successes have been on the backs of players that each team drafted and developed. Those players came up with the team, and as fans we'd read snippets of, "Boy, that Posey sure is good," or "Just wait till Seager is ready." Then the players arrive, and they're good, and you win. And if later your team pays them to keep them, as with guys like Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, Posey, Belt, Crawford and many other homegrown guys that came up with the Giants and your payroll goes up, that's just the cost of doing business. Yes, signing free agents is part of the game, but it's not sustainable - you're usually paying for past performance and overpaying for future performance. The Giants core has gotten older, and thus worse and expensive, but no - the wins don't feel hollow.
I agree that success in baseball requires a certain percentage of excellent home-grown players. But that story alone is far too simplistic.

A team has to be rich to hold onto those players. You imply that any team could have held onto the Giants' core and ridden it to above $200M--that is blatantly untrue--and also added the free agents the Giants added. I'm sure the Padres would have LOVED to have kept Adrian Gonzalez in 2010, but they couldn't afford to spend on just one roster spot what the market offered for Gonzalez, so Gonzalez played out the past 7 years for the Red Sox and Dodgers -- the two richest teams. I could give you 100 of these examples. Kansas City. Tampa Bay. Milwaukee.

And it sure is easier to have quality "home-grown" players when a rich team can throw around millions of dollars in the international free agent market to 16 and 17-year olds.

On top of that, having quality "home-grown" players usually isn't enough. Not only can the richest teams throw money at the best proven free agents, they can afford to make mistakes on those decisions and have that money sit on the bench if necessary. The small market teams do not have that luxury--they have to eat their mistakes out on the field.

Finally, just like we see with Cal not being able to afford the best coaching salaries (down to the level of the assistants), the exact same thing plays out in baseball. The rich teams are able to pay far more for the best front offices, the best minor league staffs and facilities, and the best scouts.

If what I'm saying weren't true, then small market teams wouldn't currently be subscribing to the Houston Astros' "firesale" approach where the roster is completely burned down in order to target a narrow "window of opportunity" to win as the only way to possibly win a title. That's not a healthy environment when teams are choosing to go that route.

Bottom line, each team starts each year with a dramatically different chance to succeed. The game as it is currently played is not at all fair. But I know human nature far too well to expect anyone to feel hollow about wins.


I'm not really saying that. The Giants core is mostly homegrown, and some of it is still cheap. But if they couldn't afford to keep guys like Posey and Bumgarner, they'd trade them away for cheaper talent. I take it you're a Padres fan? Let's explore your example: Adrian Gonzalez. Gonzalez was a very good player in San Diego, and they traded him after his age 28 season - the historical age when players begin to decline. Sure enough, in his age 27-29 seasons (the first two in SD, the final one being in Boston) he averaged 6 WAR. At age 30, he dropped to an average WAR of 4 for the next four seasons. In that age 30 season, his salary also jumped considerably - from $6M to $21M, and would be around there for the next six seasons.

So the Padres saved having to pay him a boatload for six pretty good and one great season, and got something in return: Anthony Rizzo, the Red Sox top prospect at the time. In the years since, after a couple slow partial seasons (ages 21-23), Rizzo averaged about 5.5 WAR per year for four years (ages 24-27). His salary those four years? About $4.5/year. In other words, the Padres did a good job avoiding paying a player for past performance and traded him for a great player who they could have paid a lot less. In this example, for some unknown to me reason, the Padres elected to turn around and deal Rizzo for Andrew Cashman after just one year. That's just bad scouting/management. If they hadn't done that, the Gonzalez deal is a phenomenal trade for San Diego.

My point is - they may be a small market team, but they can be good if they're smart. A's fans bemoan the fact that Beane trades away their best players, but if you check out who he has traded, he has done a pretty good job of dealing the guys (1) when they have a replacement in the wings, and (2) when the player is at or close to the starting his career decline.

Re your point about international players: that was once true. But, if you'e not aware, every team now has an annual international signing bonus pool hard cap. You can read more here, but this is a tool strictly imposed to help small market teams. As is the qualifying offer/compensatory pick system, which helps small market teams by compensating them when they lose their free agents

I agree with you that not every team starts a season with the same chance of winning. That's true in all sports. And yes, in a vacuum, having a higher payroll is better. The average World Series winner since 1992 has averaged about the 7th highest payroll (last year's Astros were 18th, as they were largely homegrown). But if you're going to bemoan the fact spending more money is better than not, and the reality is some teams spend more than others, then what is the point of following the sport? I can't control the Giants' payroll. You can't control the Padres' payroll.

When the Dodgers payroll was close to $300M because they were taking on other team's bad contracts in order to also get their good, young talent (e.g., Alex Wood), I couldn't control that either. It doesn't make me throw up my hands and declare the Dodgers cheating, or accuse their fans of some weakness of character for enjoying "hollow victories". What kind of crap is that, honestly? The Padres suck right now because they do dumb things like trade Rizzo for Cashner, or trade Trea Turner and Joe Ross for Wil Myers, or sign an expensive free agent (Hosmer) to a team that has no chance of contending. They don't seem to scout well, which, contrary to your point, is relatively cheap. Scouts are not paid a lot, and so you can get good value by finding and paying good scouts to find good players.

Finally, the Padres payroll right now is $70M. Last year it was $29M. Twenty nine! That is not due to an inability to pay. Hell, their annual local tv deal alone pays them about $30M per year. That's just being cheap.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More stats: Giants' McCutchen, Longoria, Jackson go 2-for-43 through 1st series

For those keeping score at home, that's .047.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#freepanda
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

#freepanda


#losebobbyevans
bonsallbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4 games into the season. Dodgers might have won all 4 if Justin Turner in the lineup. Giant fans thank their lucky stars that Panic had two good swings.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

GMP said:

Chapman_is_Gone said:

The Giants have the second highest payroll in baseball at $208M.

The Dodgers have the third highest payroll in baseball at $186M.

Given the fact that either the Giants or the Dodgers has, on average, spent 2x more on its players than has its opponent on any given day and 3x-4x more in the case of the smallest market teams, surely any win by your teams must feel very hollow in your heart.

You all are the USC of baseball, and it's nothing to be proud of.
70 years ago, Cal was the USC of football - and it's something we'd all like to return to.

More to the point - a team like the early to mid '00s Yankees might feel hollow. When all you do is go out and buy the best players that other teams drafted and developed, there's a mercenary aspect that probably does feel a little hollow. But for the most part the Giants and Dodgers recent successes have been on the backs of players that each team drafted and developed. Those players came up with the team, and as fans we'd read snippets of, "Boy, that Posey sure is good," or "Just wait till Seager is ready." Then the players arrive, and they're good, and you win. And if later your team pays them to keep them, as with guys like Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, Posey, Belt, Crawford and many other homegrown guys that came up with the Giants and your payroll goes up, that's just the cost of doing business. Yes, signing free agents is part of the game, but it's not sustainable - you're usually paying for past performance and overpaying for future performance. The Giants core has gotten older, and thus worse and expensive, but no - the wins don't feel hollow.
I agree that success in baseball requires a certain percentage of excellent home-grown players. But that story alone is far too simplistic.

A team has to be rich to hold onto those players. You imply that any team could have held onto the Giants' core and ridden it to above $200M--that is blatantly untrue--and also added the free agents the Giants added. I'm sure the Padres would have LOVED to have kept Adrian Gonzalez in 2010, but they couldn't afford to spend on just one roster spot what the market offered for Gonzalez, so Gonzalez played out the past 7 years for the Red Sox and Dodgers -- the two richest teams. I could give you 100 of these examples. Kansas City. Tampa Bay. Milwaukee.

And it sure is easier to have quality "home-grown" players when a rich team can throw around millions of dollars in the international free agent market to 16 and 17-year olds.

On top of that, having quality "home-grown" players usually isn't enough. Not only can the richest teams throw money at the best proven free agents, they can afford to make mistakes on those decisions and have that money sit on the bench if necessary. The small market teams do not have that luxury--they have to eat their mistakes out on the field.

Finally, just like we see with Cal not being able to afford the best coaching salaries (down to the level of the assistants), the exact same thing plays out in baseball. The rich teams are able to pay far more for the best front offices, the best minor league staffs and facilities, and the best scouts.

If what I'm saying weren't true, then small market teams wouldn't currently be subscribing to the Houston Astros' "firesale" approach where the roster is completely burned down in order to target a narrow "window of opportunity" to win as the only way to possibly win a title. That's not a healthy environment when teams are choosing to go that route.

Bottom line, each team starts each year with a dramatically different chance to succeed. The game as it is currently played is not at all fair. But I know human nature far too well to expect anyone to feel hollow about wins.


I'm not really saying that. The Giants core is mostly homegrown, and some of it is still cheap. But if they couldn't afford to keep guys like Posey and Bumgarner, they'd trade them away for cheaper talent. I take it you're a Padres fan? Let's explore your example: Adrian Gonzalez. Gonzalez was a very good player in San Diego, and they traded him after his age 28 season - the historical age when players begin to decline. Sure enough, in his age 27-29 seasons (the first two in SD, the final one being in Boston) he averaged 6 WAR. At age 30, he dropped to an average WAR of 4 for the next four seasons. In that age 30 season, his salary also jumped considerably - from $6M to $21M, and would be around there for the next six seasons.

So the Padres saved having to pay him a boatload for six pretty good and one great season, and got something in return: Anthony Rizzo, the Red Sox top prospect at the time. In the years since, after a couple slow partial seasons (ages 21-23), Rizzo averaged about 5.5 WAR per year for four years (ages 24-27). His salary those four years? About $4.5/year. In other words, the Padres did a good job avoiding paying a player for past performance and traded him for a great player who they could have paid a lot less. In this example, for some unknown to me reason, the Padres elected to turn around and deal Rizzo for Andrew Cashman after just one year. That's just bad scouting/management. If they hadn't done that, the Gonzalez deal is a phenomenal trade for San Diego.

My point is - they may be a small market team, but they can be good if they're smart. A's fans bemoan the fact that Beane trades away their best players, but if you check out who he has traded, he has done a pretty good job of dealing the guys (1) when they have a replacement in the wings, and (2) when the player is at or close to the starting his career decline.

Re your point about international players: that was once true. But, if you'e not aware, every team now has an annual international signing bonus pool hard cap. You can read more here, but this is a tool strictly imposed to help small market teams. As is the qualifying offer/compensatory pick system, which helps small market teams by compensating them when they lose their free agents

I agree with you that not every team starts a season with the same chance of winning. That's true in all sports. And yes, in a vacuum, having a higher payroll is better. The average World Series winner since 1992 has averaged about the 7th highest payroll (last year's Astros were 18th, as they were largely homegrown). But if you're going to bemoan the fact spending more money is better than not, and the reality is some teams spend more than others, then what is the point of following the sport? I can't control the Giants' payroll. You can't control the Padres' payroll.

When the Dodgers payroll was close to $300M because they were taking on other team's bad contracts in order to also get their good, young talent (e.g., Alex Wood), I couldn't control that either. It doesn't make me throw up my hands and declare the Dodgers cheating, or accuse their fans of some weakness of character for enjoying "hollow victories". What kind of crap is that, honestly? The Padres suck right now because they do dumb things like trade Rizzo for Cashner, or trade Trea Turner and Joe Ross for Wil Myers, or sign an expensive free agent (Hosmer) to a team that has no chance of contending. They don't seem to scout well, which, contrary to your point, is relatively cheap. Scouts are not paid a lot, and so you can get good value by finding and paying good scouts to find good players.

Finally, the Padres payroll right now is $70M. Last year it was $29M. Twenty nine! That is not due to an inability to pay. Hell, their annual local tv deal alone pays them about $30M per year. That's just being cheap.


http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/san-diego-padres/payroll/2017/

I was amazed by that low padres number, so I had to do some research. According to spotrac, the padres paid $56 million out in retained salaries in 2017. That was for players they traded or waived in the process of rebuilding, but were still receiving compesation from the Padres. So they weren't being super cheap, but absolutely were putting a crap product on the field, that's for sure.

Their cap number only went from 90 million to 95 million between 17 and 18.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you have T-mobile, they're offering a free 1-yr subscription to MLB.com. I just signed up, so I'll be able to watch Dodger games in the Bay Area, no black out...unless they're playing the Giantes. The offer ends tonight at 12.

Free T-Mobile MLB offer

Look for the T-Mobile Tuesday app. There's sign up/redemption there.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

If you have T-mobile, they're offering a free 1-yr subscription to MLB.com. I just signed up, so I'll be able to watch Dodger games in the Bay Area, no black out...unless they're playing the Giantes. The offer ends tonight at 12.

Free T-Mobile MLB offer

Look for the T-Mobile Tuesday app. There's sign up/redemption there.

Are you sure that's how it works? Could blackout road games of your regional team as well. The blackout rules suck!!!
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think you're right, KAB. Pretty sure the blackout rules apply for both home and road games.

I'm an MLB.tv subscriber since I live out east. It's strange to me that they can't fill the time between innings with ads. Instead, they play highlights of big plays over the years. That's all well and good but they seem to replay the same ones over and over and over again. Unfortunately, they're quite keen to play World Series highlights of big Astros hits (like the Springer homer in game 2 off McCarthy and the extra inning walk off hit by some other a-hole in game 6). Painful. Damn you MLB.tv. Just give me some damn ads.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheSouseFamily said:

I think you're right, KAB. Pretty sure the blackout rules apply for both home and road games.

I'm an MLB.tv subscriber since I live out east. It's strange to me that they can't fill the time between innings with ads. Instead, they play highlights of big plays over the years. That's all well and good but they seem to replay the same ones over and over and over again. Unfortunately, they're quite keen to play World Series highlights of big Astros hits (like the Springer homer in game 2 off McCarthy and the extra inning walk off hit by some other a-hole in game 6). Painful. Damn you MLB.tv. Just give me some damn ads.
Strangely, I agree on regarding the ads. They don't play highlights for me (Apple TV or Amazon Fire TV). They play silent nothingness. it's actually annoying due to the sudden silence.

I also wish they would play pregame/postgame shows. I mean why not?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

Another Bear said:

If you have T-mobile, they're offering a free 1-yr subscription to MLB.com. I just signed up, so I'll be able to watch Dodger games in the Bay Area, no black out...unless they're playing the Giantes. The offer ends tonight at 12.

Free T-Mobile MLB offer

Look for the T-Mobile Tuesday app. There's sign up/redemption there.

Are you sure that's how it works? Could blackout road games of your regional team as well. The blackout rules suck!!!
Yes, couldn't see the Giantes play the Dodgers in LA while in the Bay Area. But pretty sure I'll be able to see the Dodgers play Colo or AZ.

Interesting side note: T-Mobile made you authenticate while on cellular service, so they know where you are.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As you may know, I live in Hawaii and while I have MLB.tv through T-Mobile, the Dodgers at Arizona game is currently blacked out. Luckily I have Spectrum but it's still nonsensical. I would not choose Spectrum if not for the Dodgers coverage. So I guess that's the point for them. But for the MLB to blackout west coast games for Hawaii viewers is just inexplicable.

Right now:
I am blacked out of Rangers @ A's.
Rockies @ Pads.
Indians @ Angels.

If the Mariner's were playing it would be the same. Thank you MLB.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll guess I'll find out soon enough about all about the MLB fun and games with blackouts. Luckily I didn't pay for it. If it works reasonably well I'll subscribe next season.

GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

I'll guess I'll find out soon enough about all about the MLB fun and games with blackouts. Luckily I didn't pay for it. If it works reasonably well I'll subscribe next season.




Yeah, unfortunately it won't work. You'd need to get a VPN. Here's the MLB.tv Blackout Policy:

https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/subscribe#blackout

Quote:

Home television territory blackout restrictions apply regardless of whether a Club is home or away and regardless of whether or not a game is televised in a Club's home television territory.

TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great news, Dodgers AND Giants fans!

Looks like a rainout coming on Friday. I think we can all agree that this is probably for the best.

Edit: maybe spoke too soon. But certainly for Doyer fans, we're good with a rainout.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

Another Bear said:

I'll guess I'll find out soon enough about all about the MLB fun and games with blackouts. Luckily I didn't pay for it. If it works reasonably well I'll subscribe next season.




Yeah, unfortunately it won't work. You'd need to get a VPN. Here's the MLB.tv Blackout Policy:

https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/subscribe#blackout

Quote:

Home television territory blackout restrictions apply regardless of whether a Club is home or away and regardless of whether or not a game is televised in a Club's home television territory.




The blackout policy makes sense for the continental US, but sounds like it's kinda wack for Hawaii. (Unless they get all west coast teams via local cable).
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

GMP said:

Another Bear said:

I'll guess I'll find out soon enough about all about the MLB fun and games with blackouts. Luckily I didn't pay for it. If it works reasonably well I'll subscribe next season.




Yeah, unfortunately it won't work. You'd need to get a VPN. Here's the MLB.tv Blackout Policy:

https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/subscribe#blackout

Quote:

Home television territory blackout restrictions apply regardless of whether a Club is home or away and regardless of whether or not a game is televised in a Club's home television territory.




The blackout policy makes sense for the continental US, but sounds like it's kinda wack for Hawaii. (Unless they get all west coast teams via local cable).
It doesn't even make sense for the continental US. See southern Nevada, which also gets blacked out of like six different teams. The issue is that many MLB clubs claim massive "media territories" that can overlap, and they can claim a territory even if they don't actually have a local affiliate in those markets.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

GMP said:

Another Bear said:

I'll guess I'll find out soon enough about all about the MLB fun and games with blackouts. Luckily I didn't pay for it. If it works reasonably well I'll subscribe next season.




Yeah, unfortunately it won't work. You'd need to get a VPN. Here's the MLB.tv Blackout Policy:

https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/subscribe#blackout

Quote:

Home television territory blackout restrictions apply regardless of whether a Club is home or away and regardless of whether or not a game is televised in a Club's home television territory.




The blackout policy makes sense for the continental US, but sounds like it's kinda wack for Hawaii. (Unless they get all west coast teams via local cable).
I feel bad for M's, A's, Pads (not sure if there are any) and Giants (well not so much) fans here. Dodgers and Angels are broadcast here via Spectrum and FSW respectively. Giants fans get KNBR's radio feed. Dodgers fans get both Spectrum and the LA radio feed. Yankees radio is also available on a radio sports channel.
Only options for the 4 teams listed first above are doing VPN and mlb.tv, just settling for Fox Saturday and ESPN Sunday games, watching when the Dodgers or Angels play your team, or flying to the games.
rathokan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
for those who don't want to deal w/ VPN and all that BS just go to mlbstreams on reddit
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Andrew McCutchLADodgerKiller
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
McClutchen
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dodgers back on track. But the big news is Ohtani...leads the Angels in most offensive categories, hit three dingers in three games...and 12 KOs the last game, almost perfect. Sure the AL will catch up and figure him out...but they'll have to do it on two fronts: pitching and hitting,
rathokan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nothing like a series with the Padres to help get things back on track.

bonsallbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ex Friars Grandal and Kemp killing it. Need to get Turner back in the lineup
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yup, Turner is the glue guy and he can hit.
bonsallbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AAARRRRRGHH!!!!! Roberts. Put a red ribbon around Baez and give him to the Giants. Please!!!!
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bonsallbear said:

AAARRRRRGHH!!!!! Roberts. Put a red ribbon around Baez and give him to the Giants. Please!!!!
Nah. But thanks for Tony Watson.
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

bonsallbear said:

AAARRRRRGHH!!!!! Roberts. Put a red ribbon around Baez and give him to the Giants. Please!!!!
Nah. But thanks for Tony Watson.


Congrats on Tony Watson!!!!! I'll remember his 20 IP with the Dodgers with incredible fondness. What a game-changer! Still, he's no Pablo Sandoval.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheSouseFamily said:

GMP said:

bonsallbear said:

AAARRRRRGHH!!!!! Roberts. Put a red ribbon around Baez and give him to the Giants. Please!!!!
Nah. But thanks for Tony Watson.


Congrats on Tony Watson!!!!! I'll remember his 20 IP with the Dodgers with incredible fondness. What a game-changer! Still, he's no Pablo Sandoval.


I agree, Dodgers beat writer Andy McCullough.

ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheSouseFamily said:

GMP said:

bonsallbear said:

AAARRRRRGHH!!!!! Roberts. Put a red ribbon around Baez and give him to the Giants. Please!!!!
Nah. But thanks for Tony Watson.


Congrats on Tony Watson!!!!! I'll remember his 20 IP with the Dodgers with incredible fondness. What a game-changer! Still, he's no Pablo Sandoval.


Yeah cause a left handed specialist has never helped the giants win a World Series....or three
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

TheSouseFamily said:

GMP said:

bonsallbear said:

AAARRRRRGHH!!!!! Roberts. Put a red ribbon around Baez and give him to the Giants. Please!!!!
Nah. But thanks for Tony Watson.


Congrats on Tony Watson!!!!! I'll remember his 20 IP with the Dodgers with incredible fondness. What a game-changer! Still, he's no Pablo Sandoval.


I agree, Dodgers beat writer Andy McCullough.


Well, they have young guys with a sense of entitlement. Funny how baseball has a way of teaching kids like that a lesson....

As for Watson, LA made a huge mistake not retaining him. First, he isn't pitching for them and, perhaps more importantly, he has been highly effective pitching for LA's arch-rival. Quality lefty relievers are an extremely valued commodity (see Jeffrey Affeldt). What was LA thinking?
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

TheSouseFamily said:

GMP said:

bonsallbear said:

AAARRRRRGHH!!!!! Roberts. Put a red ribbon around Baez and give him to the Giants. Please!!!!
Nah. But thanks for Tony Watson.


Congrats on Tony Watson!!!!! I'll remember his 20 IP with the Dodgers with incredible fondness. What a game-changer! Still, he's no Pablo Sandoval.


Yeah cause a left handed specialist has never helped the giants win a World Series....or three
He was great for the Dodgers in last year's NLCS and WS, too. Suggests to me our Dodger friend here doesn't actually pay much attention. Which is fine. But his response was odd.
TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cute - but my comment had nothing to do with the value of left handed relievers. It had to do with the notion that the Dodgers "gave" the Giants Tony Watson and this somehow bothered Dodgers fans (especially with a guy who threw 20 career innings as a partial-season rental for the Dodgers). He was a free agent and the Dodgers generally don't give multi-year deals to players in their mid 30s like the Giants do, especially to relievers. Plus since hitting 30, Watson has had three consecutive years of YOY decline in his WHIP, ERA+, etc. Maybe that trend will magically reverse itself in SF as he gets even older. Plus, Cingrani had nearly identical stats as Watson in 2017 and is several years younger.

Guess we'll see what roster-building philosophy is the more effective but in the meantime, feel free to revel in the small sample sizes of the YTD numbers.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.