smg58

Is Whizzo Butter one of us? If there are any objections to 9:30 on Wednesday, please let me know by 10 am tomorrow morning.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: The Twins couldn't have afforded Correa without the MFYs taking Donaldson off their hands. Now that trade makes a lot more sense from the Twins' perspective. My comments about Voit and dealing a guy following an injury-plagued season apply here too. The 2019/2020 Urshela is at least as good as Donaldson, and whatever risk comes with Urshela is more than negated by fitting Correa in their budget.

I'm much more concerned about the pen. And the rotation too; I want to believe that Peterson or Megil could step right in an be more than just replacement level, but I'm not sure. Our offense has 11 guys capable of producing an OPS above .800. That doesn't mean they all will of course, but I think we're well covered.

Edgy MD wrote: The Yankees moving a big leaguer for minor league talent on the eve of the season probably isn't unprecedented, but it feels unprecedented. A minor leaguer with a 6.95 ERA in rookie ball. This is why you don't deal guys who played hurt the previous year. If I were the Yankees, I'd have at least seen if Voit could still catch some (he was a catcher in the Cardinals' system). As it is they're one injury away from wishing they had him back.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Mets reportedly close to reaching a deal to bring back old friend Chasen Shreve. Who let the Wilpons sneak in? we only discuss big fish here now! The Mets have been low-budget on relievers this offseason. That might be a by-product of some significant overreaches for relievers in the recent past, but I wouldn't consider the two-year deals that McHugh and Tepera got to be excessive. (I also think there is plenty of room for improvement in our pen.) As for Shreve on a minor-league deal, you can do worse. The big remaining lefty names (Andrew Miller is one of them) are past their prime, and Loup was gone before we had a GM in place.

=smg58 post_id=81529 time=1637513669 user_id=62]I'd open at 4 and 60 and see if that starts the conversation.

The Braves also inked Collin McHugh for two years. I was hoping the Mets went after him. But it's fine if we still get Ryan Tepera.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Reds cough up Winkler and Suarez to Mariners. Getting back Justin Dunn, along with Brandon Williamson and Jake Fraley whoever tf they are Justin Dunn, for what it's worth, led all players involved in the Diaz deal in WAR last year. Winkler is a great add for the Mariners though, even if Suarez is a salary dump. I am friends with a Reds fan who is very unhappy right now, and I can't blame him.

Frayed Knot wrote: A Boy Named Seo wrote: Matt Olsen to the... Braves? Freddie Freeman gone?? WTF is happening https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/03/athletics-trade-matt-olson-braves.htmlhttps://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/03/athletics-trade-matt-olson-braves.html Think the Braves might be moving on from Freddie F.? Yesterday (or was it Sunday?) they trade for Matt Olson ... and today they inked him To an Eight-Year Deal!! They paid a pretty steep price to have somebody not named Freddie Freeman be their first baseman.

Edgy MD wrote: I don't want to make a thing of it because I'm glad he's OK too, but OK is a real relative term after a wreck like that. I was thinking the same thing. You don't really know how he's doing psychologically.

Maybe somebody could make a large donation to put the Ukrainian flag on the unis?

The Twins get out from some money, but I don't see how this helps them. I do see how this helps the Yankees though.

There wasn't much memorable about his second tenure. For 3 years and $30M, we had the right to hope for him being better than OK. But at least he was OK, most of the time. He also seemed like a likeable guy.

A decent pick up. Still hoping for McHugh plus a lefty.

Ginn is a fair price for one year of a pitcher who has excellent peripherals but rarely goes 6. Now if you have a rotation full of injury risks and guys who won't give you innings, the pen had better be STOCKED. Happily there are guys still available in that regard. I'd love to see a reunion with Collin McHugh.

OK, so I'm aiming for a draft on or around Wednesday the 23rd. If you have a day/time preference, please let me know. Otherwise, I will give the CPF until next Saturday the 19th to claim the two open spots before I make them public.

Perhaps overly sentimental towards the original, but there was quite a bit to like about it.

We are already likely to have extra pieces on offense even with the DH, so the top priority should still be another SP. That being said, if his market value is lower than I think or if Cohen's wallet is bottomless, then sure I'm interested.

Metsmarathon, your check is in the mail.

We have two open spots, if anybody wishes to jump in.

Baseball is run by people who hate baseball.

Shit. He was a likeable and funny guy, and maybe not a great reliever but a solid and steady one for most of his time in Flushing. This stinks.

He can give you 150 IP tops at this point. I don't think I'd go above $10M for that.

There is at least one available team as of now. Any takers in the forum?

Edgy MD wrote: The most memorable scene in the Let It Be movie for me was when Paul took John aside (I'm going to guess a day or two farther than I've gotten so far in Get Back) to discuss George, suggesting that they needed to push him like they did at Hamburg (apparently Paul saw some equivalence between the Beatles' situations in Hamburg and in early 1969). Wait until you get to the secretly audiotaped conversation they have about him. The argument between George and John which preceded George's walkout wasn't recorded (I'm assuming we'd have heard it if it was), which leads me to think that Lindsay-Hogg realized he missed something important. From what is known about that argument, George pulled John aside because he felt John wasn't standing up for him. So we have the irony of George becoming increasingly resentful of the kid brother treatment he's getting from Paul, yet still expecting John to fight his battles for him. (A recorded conversation between John, Paul, and George in September 1969 was recently uncovered. John, who had also successfully lobbied for "Something" to be an A-side, suggests that the three of them should each get four songs on the next album, and Paul vetoes the suggestion rather curtly.) As for John, he was very seriously depressed and, for lack of a more polite way of putting it, appeared to be taking the wrong medication for it. The depression got noticeably worse when George left, but he was a different person when they resumed at Apple. He wasn't the last person to arrive either of the first two days at Apple, after always being the last one there at Twickenham. Peter Jackson should have acknowledged that the argument happened at the point in the film when it happened, because the incident dominated the conversation on the first day of filming back at Apple after it was blown out of proportion in a newspaper article. This leads to two questions: 1. Who was the douchebag in the room who fed half-truths to the tabloid press? 2. How much of the established narrative of what went on that month (and the breakup in general, along with who caused it) came from the tabloid press? I've come to the conclusion that Michael Lindsay-Hogg represents everybody who has ever felt that they were entitled to more from the Beatles than they got. I've also concluded that the Beatles broke up because they were four fallible human beings living in a world where they were expected to be more than that.