Would be good for a Hockey Line. Not sure how it works for baseball. If only they had those posters from the 1980s and 1990s. Man, I miss those. Had a sweet Robin Ventura "Hot Corner" poster in my dorm room at Mizzou. Third base was on fire. It was the height of 1990s chic.
Sorry. Slipped into the Costacos Worm Hole.
Matt Carpenter. Go for a third baseman. Because when you start looking around at RF, you end up with a Calhoun and not much else as far as pending free agents. Heyward has that opt-out. Eaton has an option, if Washington is looking to move him. Maybe there's something to the Dodgers wanting to move on from Bellinger, and that's the timing to make that move.
It's a good question because it does capture the bet the Cardinals are making and the sliding scale that exists with aggregate production -- that is the production the Cardinals get from a group. If they need X production from the outfield and get that number from two positions then carrying a glove in center works better. If they don't get that production from two outfielders, then production from the third has to fill in what's missing. And so on. Teams think this way in team-building. Sure, 1B is a power position, but if that power is coming from 2B or from SS then teams can make a different decision with 1B. And so on. Given their age and health and trend, the good bet is that Ozuna will get closer to his career norm and Fowler will see more power. I'm talking my way through this and it seems like the odds are in favor of Fowler getting closer to 2017 because Ozuna's 2017 remains the outlier of his career at this point. Age is on Ozuna's side. Walk-year for Ozuna. Figure he'll be stronger, more comfortable, and on and on. Alright, let's go this: Ozuna will get closer to 2017 in total. That's still heady stuff.
It seems like every winter we're doing articles like that in real-time.
Alright. I just think a team should get its best hitter up as much as possible during a season.
I was rather proud of that one. Niche answer, really.
Maybe. They say they're aware of the fans. I'm sure they get emails. Mozeliak has maintained at least two Twitter addresses to read Twitter, while not engaging in Twitter. They are aware of what reporters and pundits say on the radio, so I imagine word gets back to them about the fans as well -- or pundits that capture the zeitgeist of the fans. I don't think they're silo'd off from the fans. That is way different than making moves at the whim of the loudest fans.
Why not indeed? I don't believe anybody said they shouldn't.
It is the case with the Phillies. The owner is doing that because the owner wants to do that. I haven't seen any evidence or coverage or comments that suggest he put it up to a vote from the fans or that he suggested he would take advice from Twitter about the moves his team should make. He paid a lot of money to have a front office make those decisions, and he has prompted them to spend a handsome amount -- even "crazy" amount -- because that's what he wants for his baseball team to contend and for his baseball team to bring in fans. (Anybody notice the empty seats in Philly? Like I said. Send a message.)
But you can't. Makes no sense for Colorado or the Cardinals. Both teams get less than what they want.
I wrestle with this. The chat gets good engagement with readers, and your portrayal of the chat and its traffic is incorrect. One of the best traffic-generators as far as chats go happened on Christmas Eve. So, yeah, "four hours on a Monday" does draw in readers and does draw in conversation and does do the job of engagement with readers in a format that they clearly value and enjoy. That's what matters. That's the content that we're trying to provide -- in addition to the articles, the blogs, the podcasts, the enterprise work, the features, the breaking news. All of it. That's what we do here.
That is not my dream job, no. They have an excellent baseball writer. And in Colorado, the Broncos are the Cardinals. I don't take for granted the job I have, where baseball matters so much, or the fact that it allows my wife to live where she would prefer. Those two things -- not in that order -- are important to me.
Welcome to my corner of the Internet. We have coffee.
I tend to agree with your premise, especially after years of talking to relievers. I am willing to allow for the fact that conversations this year could prep pitchers for a different approach, and having a presence like Andrew Miller set that tone will be invaluable, to borrow your word. I think he could set a tone, set an example, and then if success follows -- well, I'm intrigued by the approach the Cardinals are advertising.
Still has the vibe of Machado to Philly, Harper to Washington, and White Sox frozen out. Harper to Philly is a wrinkle that would put Machado in Chicago with the Sox, it seems. Ken Rosenthal had an interesting story about the Yankees and how they shouldn't be counted out until Machado is fastening the buttons on another jersey. Makes sense. There's a team like that with Harper, too. The Dodgers.
I'm not sure Darvish is a certainty. Hamels is the swingman for the Cubs, to me. He could be excellent and then the Cubs are excellent. If he's OK, then Darvish or Hendricks have to be excellent or that rotation will come undone. Cardinals are precarious when it comes to innings and pitching. They are throwing quantity at the challenge, and that works OK. Certainty would work better.
Again, I asked what would you expect him to say? He's backing his players. There isn't a pitch to throw today. He can speak in optimistic terms, now more than really any other point in the year. He's not the only manager to say this about his team. He's not the first. He won't be the last. This is what managers are supposed to say publicly.
They don't. I think we are all astute enough readers to know that.