Jump to content

2019 MLB Discussion


rico

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, IUFLA said:

Right now according to CBS Sports, they have Mills penciled in...I'm hoping for another move though...

Was Miley the Reds big move? He was good for the Astros, bit petered out toward the end. Left off the post season roster...but you can't ignore 14-6 3.98...

So far their big move was signing Mike Moustakas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Seeking6 said:

I'm mostly in this camp as well. Match ups and strategy have always been part of baseball. Sure I'd love to have games be shortened but not at the expense of strategy.

I can think of a lot of other ways to shorten the game. Don't let the batters have 30 seconds between pitches to adjust everything from their helmet to their cup. Make the 20 second pitch rule permanent. Those don't affect the strategy of the game.

And to be honest, whether I'm at the game in person or watching it on TV, I've never worried about the length of the game. I enjoy baseball and the fact there is no set time

 Got to get 27 outs...

I took an elderly spinster aunt to her first MLB game, an18 inning affair between the Pirates and Cards at old Busch Stadium in the early 80s and she loved every second of it. Went to a late dinner and ran into the Cards pitching coach, Hub Kittle, and had about an hour conversation with him. She told me later it was one of her best days ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't recall the last time I thought this, and I feel like I should either take a shower or seek therapy after thinking this, but......I agree with the ESPN guy on this one.  I like the impact it'll have on the strategy of the game.  It's not the mechanistic "IF the batter is RH, get a LH reliever in" or vice versa.  Managers are going to have to think 2 or 3 batters ahead and weigh the pros and cons of making the change, vs just making every favorable matchup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2019 at 10:46 AM, Zlinedavid said:

I can't recall the last time I thought this, and I feel like I should either take a shower or seek therapy after thinking this, but......I agree with the ESPN guy on this one.  I like the impact it'll have on the strategy of the game.  It's not the mechanistic "IF the batter is RH, get a LH reliever in" or vice versa.  Managers are going to have to think 2 or 3 batters ahead and weigh the pros and cons of making the change, vs just making every favorable matchup. 

Agreed.  I love what the 3 batter rule delivers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Can you believe there are people on the Reds message boards who think that is way to much to give up for Lindor.  I guess they see that he will be a free agent in two years and don't want to give up 3 guys who have 6 years of service

The pitching staff is set up to win now.  The offense is not.  Getting Lindor aligns the planets.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, IU Scott said:

Can you believe there are people on the Reds message boards who think that is way to much to give up for Lindor.  I guess they see that he will be a free agent in two years and don't want to give up 3 guys who have 6 years of service

Oh, I can believe it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

A lot on their complain about the Reds not doing anything and then they go out and try to do anything they complain.

Never understood that. The Reds have been staring up at the division for years....specifically Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers,etc...and now Reds front office is getting aggressive to make some moves. If I was a Reds I'd say Amen. This whole build for the future thing is the same crap the front office has been trying to sell for years. If you can get a guy like Lindor you go do it.

 

Edit-Should have added. I still think you go get Lindor but if unloading the farm system I'd prefer more than 2 years of service for the player coming. I still think you make deals to win now for this team. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Never understood that. The Reds have been staring up at the division for years....specifically Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers,etc...and now Reds front office is getting aggressive to make some moves. If I was a Reds I'd say Amen. This whole build for the future thing is the same crap the front office has been trying to sell for years. If you can get a guy like Lindor you go do it.

 

Edit-Should have added. I still think you go get Lindor but if unloading the farm system I'd prefer more than 2 years of service for the player coming. I still think you make deals to win now for this team. 

 

I go after proven MLB players over prospects who may or may not work out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Seeking6 said:

All day long and not think twice about it. 

That's just it for Reds fans...we still remember that "stellar" trade for Latos.  That "brilliant" trade that sent Gregorious away.  And how about Josh Hamilton for Edinson Volquez?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rico said:

That's just it for Reds fans...we still remember that "stellar" trade for Latos.  That "brilliant" trade that sent Gregorious away.  And how about Josh Hamilton for Edinson Volquez?

Understand. I really do but if you have a chance for Lindor I think you make the move. Reds showed last year they are inching closer. With Cubs potentially trading key pieces and doing a partial rebuild....division could be even closer this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Seeking6 said:

Understand. I really do but if you have a chance for Lindor I think you make the move. Reds showed last year they are inching closer. With Cubs potentially trading key pieces and doing a partial rebuild....division could be even closer this year. 

I understand that as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...