1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2019 MLB Thread

Discussion in 'Other Sports Forum' started by Unlucky 13, Nov 2, 2018.

  1. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,937
    4,057
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    Schilling is because of his post-career decisions, otherwise he'd be in. He will likely get in over the next few years.

    Vizquel to me is in the Hall of Really Good but he's not a HoF guy.

    I'm also going to say that it's ludicrous that Bonds and Clemens aren't in.
     
  2. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    72,371
    32,562
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    What post career decisions from Schilling? It’s also ludicrous to me that someone would ever put a cheater in the HOF. That’s every bit as stupid as letting the Astros keep their WS rings after cheating. I’ll never support it.
     
  3. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Shilling is actually interesting, because he's kind of like the baseball equivilant of Eli Manning. He played for a really long time (20 seasons). He was generally healthy and made a ton of starts (436). And he did have some really good years mixed in, but some fairly lousy ones as well.

    I am always opposed to taking into account championships, so people who focus on that look at it differently than me. I see him as borderline based on his performance on the field. I think that had he retired and just gone away and shut up, he'd be in the HOF by now probably. However, he's been an intentionally confrontational troll over and over since his retirement, including as a broadcaster. He also treated people really poorly in the business world to boot.

    So when you're borderline, and you do a lot of things to make people not like you as a human being, it doesn't exactly help your cause.
     
    texanphinatic likes this.
  4. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,937
    4,057
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    He got major super political. IMO if I said any more Galant would come and delete it all.

    I do get the backlash, but imo enough people were involved in the steroid era and it was tacitly supported by MLB too that I frankly don't really care. If both the pitchers and hitters were juicing while MLB looked the other way, I am not going to freak out.

    As for the Astros, I would have been fine with player punishments, but taking away rings/championships is a hollow gesture imo that opens up more of a can of worms than it closes. You will immediately hear about needing Boston to vacate the 2018 series. You will hear about the other teams the Astros investigation reportedly might have uncovered. You could even go back and demand anyone with a steroid user be stripped of their flags. Meh.
     
    Stitches likes this.
  5. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Wipe em' all off the map! I would give up the Cubs 2016 if I felt that it was dirty.
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  6. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    72,371
    32,562
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    Being super political doesn’t get you knocked out of the HOF. Sorry. Whether one agrees or disagrees it has zero impact on the game. Should Steve Largent be kicked out of the NFL HOF because he was a republican congressman post NFL career? I mean, after all he was political. Ty Cobb was as racist as racist gets and he’s still in the HOF. Schilling didn’t approach anything of the sort. Having an opinion is a right.

    As for the juice heads and cheaters, I’ll agree with Lucky. Keep em out and vacate everything. Grow a set of balls Manfred and make it so it doesn’t happen again. If he wanted to make a statement he’d ban the players involved also and void their contracts. Guaranteed that will squash any of this BS from happening again.
     
  7. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,937
    4,057
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    Apparently it does. He does have the right to his opinions, but does not have the right to be free of any blowback from them. And there is a difference between being an actual politician versus being an active member and participant of fringe conspiratorial stuff on either side. He's also delved into a fair bit of controversial stuff like racism and homophobia - even getting fired from ESPN for that kind of stuff. Also doesn't help that he goes in hard against media and whatnot, considering it's the media voting for the Hall.

    That said, I don't agree with keeping him out based on post-career antics. Then again, I also don't agree with the Bonds/Clemens exclusions either.

    I also do not think that vacating the titles will solve anything - the NCAA punishes teams by vacating titles but they still all cheat. It's a hollow gesture and it just feels stupid. Taking away a players ability to play and earn and manager/GM jobs might have an effect.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2020
  8. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    72,371
    32,562
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    Actually he does have the right to be free of blowback regarding his comments with regards to how it relates to HOF voting. You can take issue with the comments all you want but HOF is based on what happens on the field and how you compete. He did it fair and square.

    Your analogy to the NCAA is wrong. NCAA teams always cheat because they don’t get paid. If players and teams see titles and contracts will be ripped up they will solve the issue. Just like the NCAA is solving the issue by allowing players to be paid.
     
  9. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/...-and-completely-alters-major-league-baseball/

    Lots of increased talk lately that MLB will undergo some huge changes in the coming years. First the switch to the universal DH. Then the reduction of the regular season to 154 games. Then the end of the AL and NL. Then an agreement to expand by two teams. Then a solution to the situations with the Athletics and Rays. And then finally, total geographic realignment.

    The article that I linked is one writer laying it out pretty well, but he's not the only one saying it. The thought is that by the 2028 season, all of that could go down and we'll be in a totally new era.
     
    texanphinatic likes this.
  10. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    So, the Kris Bryant situation is finally resolved, with the outcome that Bryant is under team control for two more seasons. This was 99% likely the whole time, so the fact that it took this long to conclude is bonkers.

    That then means that the Cubs can move on to trying to trade Bryant if they so choose to. And immediately, there are reports that a deal between Chicago and Colorado involving Nolan Arenado are plausible. Apparently Arendado really, really wants out of Colorado, and that he would really like to play for the Cubs. On a basic level as a Cubs fan, I say pull the trigger. Bryant might very well go on to hit 60 homers a year playing at Coors Field, but Arenado is steadier and both are really good, but most importantly Arenado is locked up for seven more years.

    But the problem comes with the Cubs getting and staying under the Luxury Tax, and even if the Rockies were willing to eat about 8m a year on the deal, which has been rumored, then the Cubs would still be over. So they need to move other contracts too, either to the Rockies in a salary dump while throwing in prospects, or move someone else too. It'll be interesting.
     
  11. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,577
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I'll probably be unpopular for saying this, but I hate the DH. If anything I wish the AL would get rid of it, which would never happen.
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  12. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Oh I hate the DH too. I always have. It leads to a more boring style of play, often with the same nine guys just doing their own thing and not playing team baseball while at bat. The manager can take a nap. But sadly, with the spread of sabermetrics and the like, that type of play has seeped into the NL regardless. Walks, strikeouts and homers. Over and over. Again, I hate it. But its what MLB is right now, like it or not.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  13. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,937
    4,057
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    I like the DH. Pitchers just largely suck. It's fun every couple dozen games when someone like MadBum gets a homer, but otherwise it's largely a black hole of run-killing non-production. Game is just too specialized for it, doesn't make sense in an era when pitchers just flat out don't hit. I don't see a problem with opening the NL up to guys like Nelson Cruz, JD Martinez or Big Papi.

    As for the Bryant/Arenado rumors ... they just don't make any sense whatsoever. Just keep your own guy or pay him. If you really want to trade Bryant, you would probably need some pitching in return. Dodgers make a fair bit of sense, though earlier reports of the Cubs wanting Victor Robles from the Nats made a lot of sense as well. The whole thing is stupid though, billionaire owners crying poor.
     
  14. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    72,371
    32,562
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    Hate hate hate the DH. And that’s even with the Mets having a guy who could probably be a DH well in to his 40’s in Cano ready to slide neatly in to that role when the time comes. Mets Gm Brodie Van Wagenen even cited the DH in the NL when dealing for Cano.

    Pitching in particular still hasn’t caught up from the last expansion and the amount of kids you have playing baseball is at an all time low. As much as the league wants to monetize the opportunity, this isn’t the time imo to do it as your player pool is shrinking, particularly in US born players. Maybe it’ll be different by the time the the article proposes....

    EDIT: RE Expansion...

    Not for nothing, I fully understand the revenue aspect of the game but until teams are ready to invest in a real hard cap floor of say 125M and a hard cap of say 225M, the league needs to contract, not expand. You have the bottom 1/5th of the league in any given year as a complete and utter joke payroll wise. There has to be a willingness to compete. While baseball is different from other leagues with their player development and player development time frames, and rookie contracts, arbitration etc there has to be a willingness from small markets to use their revenue sharing teams as a way to reinvest. It’s pretty ridiculous when some teams are dealing players when they get to arbitration just to avoid paying them. The job that TB and Oakland do is outstanding but it shouldn’t be so uneven when sports is about competing on a level playing field
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2020
    muscle979 and Unlucky 13 like this.
  15. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    72,371
    32,562
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    Also Pittsburgh has some balls on them. They asked the Mets for 2 of their top 5 prospects (Ronny Maurício, Andres Gimenez, Brett Baty, Francisco Alvarez, Matthew Allen) for Marte, 3 of whom (Maurício, Baty and Alvarez) are top 100 prospects in all of MLB and the other two either were there last year (Gimenez) or will be soon (Allen). Then they accepted 2 guys who are projects and a ways away from such status in Arizona. Obviously prospects are more about projecting long term but Pittsburgh clearly thought they could take advantage of BVW. I’m glad Brodie killed it.
     
  16. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    As far as the Rockies go, the story is that there is suddenly some really bad blood between the team and Arenado (I dont know why), and they're eager to separate from him and get out from under the 250m commitment. Its speculated that Bryant would only be a rental for them, and they might try to flip him again in a year.

    The as far as Bryant and the Cubs, Scott Boras is doing his thing, and the team has a legit fear that he'll walk in two years without signing an extension, and they're left with nothing.
     
    texanphinatic likes this.
  17. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,937
    4,057
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    The bad blood seems to stem from them inking him to a big contract last season with promises to compete and spend money, but then this offseason they start crying poor (seems to be a theme) and making noise about cutting salary and listening to offers on Nolan, Story, John Gray and other big names instead of trying to compete. I can see why he would be pissed and wants to go to a contender. The problem is that a Bryant for Arenado deal just doesn't really make sense. This was a good encapsulation on some of the financials I think: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/01/nolan-arenado-trade-rumors-rockies-cubs-kris-bryant.html. In addition, it just doesn't seem to make sense that the Cubs would want to give up a good amount of prospect talent to land an all-star 3b when they ... have an all-star 3b.

    FYI, Arendao has an opt out after the 2022 season I think, so it's not much more guaranteed time than Bryant.

    The Cubs ownership seems happy with their championship and are now concentrating on monetizing and profiting more than competing.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex and Unlucky 13 like this.
  18. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Several Cubs blogs that I read yesterday suggested that if the Cubs were to pursue a deal, that getting Arenado to push back those out years would be a part of the process. I don't know if that's realistic, but it could happen.

    As far as the Ricketts, I think that you're partially right. I won't go too far down that hole because it'll turn PoFo, but the family has some issues. However, a big chunk of it is also the team's total opposition to pay the consequences of the luxury tax. They essentially have a max payroll, and need to offload some really bad contracts before they can fix it. Most of the moves that they've made the last three years have come up poorly, and now they're paying the price. They could have honestly done jack squat since winning the series as far as veteran players and be better off than where they are today.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  19. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,937
    4,057
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    Yeah the luxury tax (at least the first level) is nearly meaningless and shouldn't really be a deterrent except for maybe some of the smallest market teams. But teams like the Yanks, Red Sox, Dodgers and Cubs shouldn't have any fear. It's just penny pinching. You are right that they were hamstrung by underperformance on some contracts. Heyward was ... not a good pickup. But at least Darvish showed some stuff last year, and hopefully Kimbrel can regain his form after that weird year. The other issue is just Lester aging on the back end of his deal, he needs to be better if they want to compete - at least a solid mid rotation guy behind Darvish and Hendricks.
     
  20. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    From what I understand, when you excede the tax three years in a row, the punishments get a lot bigger. The Cubs did last year, and the thought is that they would like to be able to spend bigger in the future, so they're eager to get under in 2020.
     
  21. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    So, the Phillies are apparently retiring the number 34 in honor of Roy Halladay, who played there a whole four seasons after he had spent his first twelve years in Toronto. Yes, he was excellent in his first two seasons there, but these kinds of things always leave a really sour taste in my mouth. Four years is just far too short for that kind of permanent honor, especially for someone who had a much longer career somewhere else.

    I mean, John Lester has had a longer and arguably better career as a Cub than Hallady had as a Philly, but Chicago is never going to retire his number. Its just silly.
     
  22. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,937
    4,057
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    Not to be crass but it's probably because he died unexpectedly. I don't really care either way, he meant a lot to several title teams for them so if they want to retire his number to remember him so be it. I wouldn't be mad if they Cubs did that for Lester either considering what he meant to the team. Teams do it to drum up interest and establish sentiments that keep fans rooted in the game and team.

    Anyway, Dodgers going all-in with a trade for Mookie. Anything short of a Yankees/Dodgers series will be an upset at this point (barring injury). Should be an interesting season. Dodgers probably didn't HAVE to make that move on paper, but they needed a spark after that disheartening loss last year, so I like the move. Plus, Betts is a fun player, good for their fans.

    As for Boston, seems they are good with letting this season go to reset the cap and give Bloom a year to assess things. They still need a manager too, but less pressure on that front what with them apparently ceding a serious contention this year.

    The biggest remaining offseason moves are likely down to the possible trades of Arenado and Bryant, though not sure either is particularly likely at this juncture. We may be all wrapped up until mid-season trade period.
     
  23. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I totally agree regarding Hallady's death. It almost certainly factored into Philly's choice, and that is something that should never, ever happen, IMO. Things like this are why they have the waiting period for the HOF. A number retirement should be reserved for the very best, most important players who ever wore that team's uniform, period. Sentimentality should be kept at arm's length.

    As far as Betts, I'm honestly shocked that Boston basically got jack squat as a return for one of the best players in baseball. Its the baseball equivilant of an NFL team just cutting a guy with a small cap hit and him signing with another team. Just clearing money off the books.

    And so yeah, the Dodgers are now a super team that's likely to just cruise to the NL's best record by a wide margin.
     
  24. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    72,371
    32,562
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    I wouldn’t call Verdugo jack squat. Verdugo has all star caliber talent. For 1 year of Betts how much could you expect to get especially when you’re asking the other team to take 3 years and 96M of old man Prices deal?
     
  25. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    You're right, I didn't take into account the Price salary dump when I posted that. It obviously effects the return. Still, I guess I'm just still wired to see guys of Betts calibre traded for elite prospects or a big package of guys as a return.
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  26. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    72,371
    32,562
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    Remember LA also got Brusdar Graterol from Minnesota for Maeda who was a top 100 guy (33rd on baseball prospectus) and sent to Boston. So in essence Boston got back 1 former top 100 prospect in Verdugo who was a top 20-30 prospect anywhere you looked and Graterol from Minnesota who is a top 100 prospect for 1 year of Betts and a salary dump who is an expensive diminishing asset for Verdugo who is arbitration eligible in 2022/FA in 2025 and Graterol whose sinker tops out at 101.

    And Betts is intent on testing FA so he’s going to cost AT LEAST what Harper got because he’s A) much better B) lower maintenance and less of an ******* and C) not a primadonna.

    I’d say Boston did fine once you get past the fact that the whole purpose for the deal was to lower payroll.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  27. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Well, the Cubs are now officially planning on batting Kris Bryant leadoff full time this year. Yay. I looked it up, and apparently the record for fewest RBI when hitting 30 homers is 59, set recently by a few different players. I say he has a solid shot at breaking that one. More interesting is that the fewest RBI with 40 homers is 90, set by Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. If Bryant gets hot, he could "beat" that one by dozens this year.

    Jason Heyward gets on base at a good clip (.343), has inconsistent power, and stinks at hitting with men on, so he seems like the clear and obvious choice to lead off instead. But they're apparently going to have him hit 7th or 8th.
     
    Boik14 and texanphinatic like this.
  28. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,937
    4,057
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    Heyward's issue seems consistency more than anything - he will get hot for a month then do jack for the next.

    The new leadoff theory many teams are taking is simply using your best hitters as early as possible. The traditional smaller/faster guy isn't as important as a person who just hits the ball and extends at bats. I'd be worried about Bryant's SO numbers more than anything.

    I think the most interesting thing is that for yet another offseason big changes were pretty clearly hinted at with nothing of consequence happening. I guess they either are just THAT confident Ross will provide the team with positive regression or they are just being that cheap.

    Whatever, I am ready for the season! :up:
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  29. muscle979

    muscle979 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    15,863
    6,275
    113
    Dec 12, 2007
    Evans, GA
    Heyward's not the answer at leadoff IMO. They tried it in Atlanta. Seven or eight is where you want him in the order. He's just too inconsistent a hitter to be in a key spot. And for a leadoff guy that's not the greatest OBP. For comparison, last year, Acuna Jr. had an OBP of .365 (and he's an aggressive hitter in the lead off spot), and Jeff McNeil, a more traditional leadoff type, got on at a rate of .384.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  30. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Oh I don't disagree big picture. The Cubs plain don't have a leadoff guy at the moment. I just think that they're going to completely waste Bryant by putting him in that spot.
     
    muscle979 likes this.
  31. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    While I'm still a proponent of NL style baseball, with the fast guy getting on base, stealing bases and using the hit and run, I accept that MLB teams aren't any longer. But I would at least rather have a guy with good OB skills but low power to put there instead of our All Star with 40 homer power.
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  32. muscle979

    muscle979 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    15,863
    6,275
    113
    Dec 12, 2007
    Evans, GA
    Agreed. This reminds me of last season when the Phillies got desperate and tried Bryce Harper there.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  33. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    72,371
    32,562
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    McNeil can hit anywhere in the order and get on at a high obp clip. They hit him lead off some last year cause Rosario was still too inconsistent for the role tho he came in late for the second straight year. Ideally tho, I’d have McNeil batting 2nd.
     
  34. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    72,371
    32,562
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    But analytics! :001_rolleyes:
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  35. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    LOL. I'm all for using the sabermetrics as a tool, along with everything else. But you can't just use it as a guidebook that's never wrong like these guys are doing. They're robots, bound to what the numbers tell them. And its boring as Hell, and frankly wrong a lot. An experienced human being can just know when something needs to be done differently. More art than science.
     
    Boik14 likes this.
  36. Boik14

    Boik14 Admin Club Member Retired Administrator

    72,371
    32,562
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    My thoughts exactly. I’m not anti analytics but some stuff just makes no sense. I understand wanting to get your best hitters more ABs but that works only if your lineup is deep enough to sustain it. It works if your 7-8-9 hitters get on base.
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  37. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,937
    4,057
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    That's more along the lines of the old "setting the table" approach thought, fast guys who get on base and then driven home by RBI/HR guys. However, that just doesn't actually work out as often as we think it does - so in lieu of that, you want your best guys hitting early and often. It gives, for instance, Bryant a much better shot at coming up in the 9th during a crucial at-bat than if he was a traditional 3-4 spot hitter. Ideally you may want Bryant and Rizzo in the 2-3 spots with a very good OBS guy in front, but as noted, the Cubs simply lack that. Maybe Hoerner can make an impact later in the season, but just sticking a guy like Almora in the leadoff spot because of a singular trait like speed would be a huge error. After the first inning, you aren't really as concerned about Byrant leading off with bases empty, and even then, if the "worst case" is a 1-0 lead, so be it.
     
  38. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    Yeah, but with Almora/Souza batting 8th, and the pitcher 9th, I really doubt that Bryant is going to be coming up to bat with men on a whole lot. That's why I think that a guy like Heyward, who's inconsistent and generally non-clutch, is the better call to leadoff, given the lack of other choices. He gets on base with singles and walks a hell of a lot better than Almora does. So at this point, who cares if he's not going to drive in runs himself. If he gets on base one out of three times ahead of Bryant and Rizzo, then that gives those two a chance to produce a RBI. I'd rather have Heyward in that role than trying to knock in the guys hitting 6th and 7th in front of him and bouncing into a lot of double plays like he often does.
     
  39. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    10,937
    4,057
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    IMO that's a good reason to do Bryant 1st and Heyward 8th - Bote also makes a lot of sense in the bottom third. Again if you are worried about Heyward and double plays, then him batting leadoff only applies once, and he also is likely to be hitting more often with the pitcher on which increases the DP chance yet again. I wouldn't be worried about Bryant hitting homers either - the Cubs have enough homers between him, Rizzo, Schwarber, Contreras and Baez for it to not really matter that Bryant is in the leadoff spot. Baez would - based on physical attributes - be the guy who best profiles, but he's just too aggressive and strikeout prone. Bryant and Rizzo offer the Cubs by far the best ability to work pitchers and counts and make something positive happen.

    And I know you will hate, but the NL needs to ditch pitchers at the plate. This would be the perfect time! :couch::up::up:
     
  40. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Club Member

    35,766
    37,197
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    It does really seem like we're on borrowed time without the DH in the NL. Ironically for me, the Cubs would have likely benefited greatly from it in years past when they were loaded with talent and couldn't start everyone at the same time. Now by the time it gets here, most of those guys will be gone.
     
    texanphinatic likes this.

Share This Page