CubColtPacer

I didn’t watch but why not go for the FG anyway at the end? At least then worst case scenario is you go to OT if Seattle gets a TD and the 2 point. That’s not to say they shouldn’t have gone for 2 earlier though. I get you want to kill the game if you have the chance but the ability to not just lose in regulation seems valuable. It is valuable, but so is 1) the chance to end the game right there, which is a pretty good one and 2) the field position difference witch is especially significant with that amount of time left. It's a wash math wise, it's pretty much personal preference.

3 batter minimum is great. It brings some interesting strategy. I would much rather have a situation where the wrong pitcher is in to face a key batter than the other way around. And that's even before you get into the pacing of the game help that it can bring. I like more spots on the roster. More options during the game increases potential strategy options. I like long extra inning games as long as they don't destroy a team, which an expanded roster should help. I understand 7 inning doubleheaders for this year, don't like them normally. I would rather have no DH than DH, DH tied to starting pitcher is better than either extreme. And absolutely not to expanded playoffs.

The sad part is that the Hulu Live interface just changed early this week and it is so, so much better than the old one. I'm not saying the new one is good, but it's a sight for sore eyes after struggling through the old one for so long.

They'd be getting a 50/50 split of the fake numbers the owners crap out to make it look like they somehow lose money every single year while their franchise values double every decade or less. That's a good point, although the current revenue split that is estimated are based off those same numbers. I think in this case the owners beat them to the punch on messaging though. If there is no season the players are likely getting the most blame, and that has less to do with the facts and more to do with how simple the owners pitch sounds.

Did the players miss an opportunity here? Haven't they only been getting around 40% of the revenue the last few years? What if they had turned around and said, ok we will do a 50/50 split, but we want to lock that in for 10 years. I understand their reluctance for a salary cap, but more money seems good however they accomplish it, and a short-term hit for a year or two is made up by huge gains after that.

It's not about the owners revenue sharing with each other. It's about the owners revenue sharing with players that they oppose. The owners want to potentially reduce contracts because less revenues are coming in than was expected when they signed the deal, and the players want no part of that.

as a kid, that was the only of the 6 title seasons where i actually remember thinking they were going to lose I honestly can't remember as a Pacers fan if we felt we were going to win. It was the 3rd time we had lost in game 7 of the ECF in 5 years, twice where we had shots to win in the final minutes. That Bulls game was so dispiriting too. The Pacers kept getting stops, but simply couldn't get the rebound.

This makes complete sense for baseball as a business. It desperately needs more news cycles. Having both more teams involved late into the season and also generating discussions through September about which team should this team pick and so on is very helpful for the brand. As far as the actual quality of the product? It probably is a downgrade as far as trying to balance excitement with rewarding winning, although not a major one.

No other restrictions? If so, I'd probably take the plunge on Goedert for Philly, especially if Ertz is looking out closer to gametime. On first glance, this is the most talented team you could assemble: QB: Jackson/Wilson RB: Jones, Henry, White WR: Thomas, Hopkins, Hill TE: Kittle, Goedert K: Dan Bailey Def: Bills I think Jackson/Kittle are the easiest locks on the board. The obvious picks for their teams on two teams likely to go a long way. Unless you decide Dalvin Cook is just too talented to pass on especially with runningbacks being very barren, his recent injury combined with the Vikings being decently big underdogs puts Bailey as a safe pick for me. Thomas is an obvious pick. QB2 is the hardest position to pick, Wilson is the pick partially because there is absolutely nobody else to pick on Seattle. I could pick Hill or Kelce from KC, went with Hill because of wanting to get Goedert in for Philly. Henry is in despite being possibly 1 and done because of the barrenness at RB. Hopkins is the easy pick left for Houston. Bills defense and White were my last two picks, those two and Henry were really dependent on who you think is going to win this weekend. If you really believe KC is going to make the SB, then Mahomes becomes the pick at QB. You probably grab the Seattle defense in a situation like that because matchups with the Eagles and then maybe the 49ers don't scare you that much, Singletary for the Bills, and Edelman for the Patriots.

I think the one big thing you are missing is that the injury was supposed to be minor. Luck gets hurt. He thinks it's going to get better in a couple weeks, and the doctors back that up. It just needs some rest. There's no reason to think about retirement at that point. Now fast forward four months. It still hasn't healed. 3 different MRI's have been taken, and nobody seems to quite know what's wrong. So now it's turned into a long period of exploration/rehab/playing through pain. It's probably been very frustrating for him, and that's why suddenly the retirement thing started looking better and better. The Colts are likely in the same place if he had retired in June as now. Obviously if he had retired before the draft that isn't the case, but that's right around when he got hurt.

Why wouldn't they be happy about getting a bunch of picks? A bunch of picks including their All-pro guard as a rookie and their starting right tackle. Even knowing this news, I'm not sure I would undo that trade. If the line wasn't fixed the same thing would happen to the next guy. The Colts have been pushing Brissett as good over and over again for the last year+. It's time to see if he's actually better than he was two years ago now that he has an offensive line and a good coach, which he didn't have either one last time he played.

Agreed the last two years have not been his greatest, but that isnt a sample size large enough for me to start saying they arent an elite FO or that they should be replaced. And again we are right in the thick or the playoff race. The stated goal or this FO office has always been continued success where we are always in the playoff picture. Statistics have always shown baseball playoffs as a crapshoot, the key is getting in as much as possible. Some years you will curbstomp teams with 100+ wins, some years you might sneak in with 88 wins (hopefully this year). Some years you might miss altogether (Red Sox this year, maybe Cubs). But be in and around the dance as much as possible and you are setting yourself up for success. I'm fine with being the second best team in the NL, and taking our shot against the Dodgers every year. Hell, I'm not even going to stress about the Braves. But we should not be struggling against the Brewers and the Cardinals to avoid the wild card game, for two years in a row now. I get that the wildcard game is the postseason, technically. To me, we missed the playoffs last year, so the whole 'getting in as much as possible' thing didn't work there. Maybe that's not fair, but whatever. To be fair, last year they finished with the 2nd best record in the National League, so they hit your goal. It just happened that the best team record wise was in their division. This year of course is completely different.

Definitely, I wasn't meaning that. I meant as ballparks naturally get built that it would factor into the process. That is obviously a very long-term solution, but within the next 30 years probably 15-20 ballparks will get replaced (that would actually be fewer than the last 30 years, which I would expect the rate of new ballparks to slow down). If even half the ballparks are huge that will fundamentally change the league, roster decisions, even players and how they try to optimize launch angle. So essentially take the Coors field approach everywhere Exactly. I don't necessarily want to increase scoring to the level at Coors Field (I don't hate that idea, but it's not a necessary component) but greatly increasing the number of hits and baserunners would be my goal.

A situation where municipalities are pressured into subsidizing another round of brand new buildings is not a solution to anything. The Cubs just spent money to make Wrigley viable, there is no space to go bigger. They aren't getting another Yankee Stadium or Fenway or Citi or PNC, etc. Definitely, I wasn't meaning that. I meant as ballparks naturally get built that it would factor into the process. That is obviously a very long-term solution, but within the next 30 years probably 15-20 ballparks will get replaced (that would actually be fewer than the last 30 years, which I would expect the rate of new ballparks to slow down). If even half the ballparks are huge that will fundamentally change the league, roster decisions, even players and how they try to optimize launch angle.

Is the potential solution to the strikeouts/walks/home runs era to keep this juiced ball and then slowly build gigantic ballparks? I am open to that being a terrible idea for some reason I'm not thinking of, but my perception is that would create a lot more action both in the field and on the bases (by on the bases, I don't mean old timey stealing/hit and run, but just having more situations where there are runners on base or plays at bases).

I never played again after one game lasting several years...a game that I pretty sure CCP was involved in. I'm guessing it was a progressive bonus game? Those are the worst. Nope, flat rate cards. 3 of us got big enough and had similar enough armies that if we went after somebody the 3rd person would win, so it was a stalemate. After a few weeks, basically nothing happened for the next 5 years until I got so busy that I forgot to log in for 3 days and got kicked out. Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I'll be the contrarian and say that I really like all these changes. I like the most important innings in the game to have a flow to them and not have 3 minute breaks multiple times during the inning. Limiting pitching changes and mound visits really helps with that. Baseball has already talked about trying to change the disabled list to prevent manipulation, I doubt they will implement something like this without some way to slow down the fake injuries. The extra roster spot and the cap of pitchers on the roster is also good IMO. Those extra bench spots for things like a pinch-running specialist bring something different to the game. The September restrictions are kind of meh for me, I don't really care either way.

Sure, but that's not what that quote is saying. It's saying it's bad for the team to not have an opt out, that they should want an opt out. right, and that is a different thing from "this is good for the team because he is definitely going to opt out." Sure, but the sentiment is that it is good for the team because the player will hopefully opt out. The distinction doesn't change the overall point, that many times when opt outs are discussed people think they are good for the club even if it doesn't change the money in the contract, but only because they don't want to pay the second half of the contract.

That's not true, this was literally posted yesterday after the Harper news came out: That's far from the first time where an opt out by itself has been considered a good thing from the team's side. saying "hey an opt out might work out for the team" is not the same as "this is good for the team because he is definitely going to opt out." Sure, but that's not what that quote is saying. It's saying it's bad for the team to not have an opt out, that they should want an opt out.

Nah, I get that part. That’s still not how most people describe them. They don’t say “it sucks to give an opt-out but it saves us $60m in guaranteed money.” They say “this is actually good for us because we don’t want his decline years and he is definitely going to opt out.” no one describes them either of those two ways That's not true, this was literally posted yesterday after the Harper news came out: That's far from the first time where an opt out by itself has been considered a good thing from the team's side.

I've seen this comparison a lot, and feel the need to point out that Harper is 6 years younger than Pujols was at the time of their contracts. That's not the comparison I was using. I used Pujols's numbers from age 26 to last year his age 38 season, essentially the 13 years that Bryce just signed for. So the last 6 years with the Cardinals (mostly amazing) and the 7 years with the Angels (mostly disappointing).

Me too, especially as that will be post-strike and with a new CBA. But it's undeniably a gamble - both on his own performance in the interim and the players' resolve holding. Harper would have been a FA at 30 - seems very probable to me he'd be able to get at least a $150 million deal then, and for less than 9 years too. I'm sure he hated this whole disgusting free agency process, with the sham the owners have turned it into, and you can't knock a guy for taking 330 million dollars. But this ended up being a very team-friendly deal. This is the thing that people who are bitching about this deal don’t seem to understand. The total dollars is a big number no doubt, but the guy literally has to average 3.2 WAR over the life of the deal to make it worth it. I’m baffled by fans freaking out over it. I wouldn't be upset by the deal, but anytime you stretch out a deal that long even hitting that low WAR number is a risk. Pujols for example over his last 13 years has averaged 3.88 WAR per year. And those 13 years include 2 MVP years out of him, 2 2nd place finishes, and 2 other top 10 MVP years. Bryce isn't guaranteed to fall off like Pujols did, but he hasn't shown himself to be anywhere close to the player Pujols was either. There are certainly a decent range of outcomes where we look in 13 years and find out he didn't reach that number. And there are scenarios where he doesn't come particularly close. It's still a pretty solid deal, but it isn't a slam dunk or an amazing one.

Thanks! I don't get to follow the team as closely as I used to. I still am around a decent amount, but don't feel like my opinions are informed enough at this point to be of any value. That's the hard thing about baseball, it's hard to have a middle ground between casual fan overreacting to the last thing they saw and super informed fan who can critique each decision because they know all the variables that go behind it.

Speaking of random memories, I'm looking for a video of a play that probably happened around 1990. I believe Dawson (but maybe somebody else) was attempting to throw a runner out at home. The catcher blocked the plate, and when he tagged the runner he dropped the ball. The runner never touched home plate, and I believe the runner started arguing with the umpire because he wouldn't call him safe. I think someone on the Cubs figured it out eventually, got the ball and tagged him out eventually. It was one of my favorite plays as a little kid because of how long it took and how absurd it was, but all the details are really fuzzy now. Does anybody remember this play? I don't have enough details in my brain to search for it now, and that's even if the video is up anywhere.

I absolutely can compare those calls. You’re comparing a missed strike two in an AB where a dude grounded out and a missed play at the plate in the bottom of the 9th. The missed facemask call on Goff probably cost the Rams from scoring a TD and taking the lead with 5 minutes left. That's a pretty massive play. But yes, I would agree it both wasn't as valuable and as egregious as the missed call at the end.