CubinNY

I kind of think that idea is too smart by half, as they say. There are a lot more 20-26 types than there are 1-5 types. If you make a mistake with a 20-26 type, the penalty is not as large as a 1-5 type (See, Jason Heyward). If you hit on all or even some, the reward is not as great. But there is a theory in sport about building a team. It's called weak link/strong link theory. In sports like soccer and hockey, a team with a few stars and a bunch of weak players will lose more often to a team with no stars, but few weak players. In basketball, it's just the opposite. So team-building is much different in those sports. I think baseball is much different. With a pitching staff, you may want to go soccer mentality. With position players, you may want to go basketball.

Molina, Wainwright, Pujols 2022 Cards revival tour.

Whoever this guy is pitching for the Cubs is dishing up center cuts to the Reds. Reds lead 2-0.

It means a lot of fringy types are out of baseball by 28. It also means that FA expenditures are substantially reduced in years if not AAV dollars. Overall, it means less money for the players, even lesser for the really good players. The current system is already punishing mediocre mid-career guys, This simply accelerates it. I don't not like the idea, though. Except I think it should be tied to the median number of years of a MLB career. According to the Google machine the median career length is 2.7 years. Make free agency 5 years from the year that person was on a 26 man roster (for even 1 day) and have the roster pool stuff included from the original idea. So the clock would start even on September call ups., Edit and probably not coincidentally, the average retirement age for a player right now is currently 29.5. That means no free agency for the average player.

Frank will definitely be on the rebuilding Cubs roster next year. Any production they get out of him should be seen as a bonus. He's not a player on a team that intended to contend for a World Series (don't give that Jim Hendry "compete within the division" [expletive], but he's not on that team either).

LOL, Pirates

I haven’t been paying attention very much, but it really amazes me that there are any teams worse than this Cubs team.

Tinfoil hat on > They do not value the announcers/don't want to pay big fees so they are doing this sort of thing and paying per diem to all these 3rd and 4th rate ex Cubs. Len knew this through negotiations with the Cubs/Marquee people and pulled the ripcord. The Ricketts turn everything to horsefeathers. Tinfoil hat off<

I knew I shouldn’t have turned on this game.

Did he have some nagging injuries at the start of the season? Maybe he's healthy.

I don't really understand how all of this works, but is this a reason why depth in a system is less important than star power?

This, I understand Sosa is a polarizing figure, but if there's a Cubs HoF, he is a no-brainer. Seriously, the Rickets are such douchebags. A lot of the backlash against Sammy is from the same cast of characters known to be racists. Sammy was a prima donna, so was Joe DiMaggio, Wade Boggs, Ted Williams, and a bunch of other superstar baseball players over the decades. Sammy did steroids, so did everyone else at the time, hate the game, not the player. Sammy doesn't deserve a plaque, he deserves a statue.

In a ten game series the Orioles would win six or seven.

Cubs are moribund.

1-0 KC after two unforced errors. None out runners on 2nd and 3rd.

Booting the ball in the infield and not covering 1st base is the new market inefficiency for tanking teams.

My goodness I can’t stand him. 0-0 top of 2.

Why?

One hit wonders

My alerts tell me Wisdom went deep

It's like Naked Gun

Why would teams who always have to be at the minimum overpay for bad players on short deals over and over instead of just spending the same amount to get better players or extend their current good/popular players? Not sure I understand that complaint. As an ownership proposal that's a first salvo in negotiations I am sure it's very bad when you add up what the net spending would be, but I am curious about what would happen to parity and team building with a minimum salary and/or a smaller deviation in team payrolls. It's possible something very bad for players in that sense could be very good for the competitive environment and therefore the health of the game, which might make for some trickiness in negotiating. To be clear, the health of the game and good outcomes for players are not mutually exclusive ideas by any stretch, but given the structural disadvantages it may end up with that being the way the choice is framed without a lengthy work stoppage. I'm not so sure I understand how artificially suppressing wages is good for baseball. What it means is shorter contracts for less money for good/great players and still underpaying good/great players under team control. Cost certainty for the owners is bad for baseball. I suppose if there is some form of profit-sharing that gets divided evenly by the MLBPA and owners and is distributed to the players that might make the proposal more palatable to players.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/08/18/mlb-proposes-salary-floor-lower-luxury-tax-mlbpa This is only a proposal, and it almost certainly won't make it through as initially described, but anything along these lines seems really bad for the Cubs. It would give the Ricketts' another excuse not to go over $180 million. Lower the LT to $180M? I know it’s the first round of negotiations but horsefeathers that. That’s laughable You can bet the Ricketts's hands were all over that. The floor is about 4 million per player.

Adbert needs to develop a pitch to induce lefties into soft contact or he's a middle reliever/swingman vs. a righthand dominant team.

I like the thought of that tweet, but that was a meatball, middle-middle.