Red Sox (Houck) vs Tigers (Jobe): 5/12/25, 6:40pm

[moonslav59]

38 minutes ago, notin said:

I’m not a fan of this guy but I’ve mentioned him multiple times - Andrew Vaughn.

Hes managed to play 1b all through college, the minors and MLB despite being 5’3”.  His StatCast page is actually decent.  His defense is lackluster but at least experienced.  And Chicago is clearly going nowhere and already called up their AAA masher 1b in Tim Elko.  They’d deal Vaughn today because the market in July will be dead for him.

BTV gives him a surplus value of -$4.7mill.  He’s no Freddie Freeman, but at least he’s no Abraham Toro.  And the cost won’t be Anthony or Mayer…

I'm just thinking about how we've been banging our heads trying to work out a way for Anthony and/or mayer to get a FT position on the ML team without benching a good (Rafaela/Refsnyder) or high-priced player (Story.) The Casas injury opened up a window for one.

Anthony could play DH, if Devers played 1B.

Mayer could play SS, if Story moved to 2B and Campbell to 1B, of he could just play 2B as Campbell plays 1B.

Both ideas cost us nothing- not even a DFA, as we just add Casas to the 60 day IL.

Their bats are likely better than Vaughn or Mountcastle, or whatever else might be out there in mid May.

[notin]

18 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm just thinking about how we've been banging our heads trying to work out a way for Anthony and/or mayer to get a FT position on the ML team without benching a good (Rafaela/Refsnyder) or high-priced player (Story.) The Casas injury opened up a window for one.

Anthony could play DH, if Devers played 1B.

Mayer could play SS, if Story moved to 2B and Campbell to 1B, of he could just play 2B as Campbell plays 1B.

Both ideas cost us nothing- not even a DFA, as we just add Casas to the 60 day IL.

Their bats are likely better than Vaughn or Mountcastle, or whatever else might be out there in mid May.

I don’t think counting on 3 rookies to all live up to the hype simultaneously is a good plan.

Anthony can step in and replace Rafaela, who, according to a few articles on MSN, is a source of frustration with Cora due to his lack of plate discipline.  I think these articles do intentionally overstate the level of frustration.  Either way, it’s not a bad move.

Mayer can and should wait for Story’s inevitable injury.

Outting Campbell at first over the inexperienced Toro strikes me as re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  In this case, Campbell might be better but also brings even less experience to the situation.  Let him play second, and get comfortable there…

[moonslav59]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

I don’t think counting on 3 rookies to all live up to the hype simultaneously is a good plan.

Anthony can step in and replace Rafaela, who, according to a few articles on MSN, is a source of frustration with Cora due to his lack of plate discipline.  I think these articles do intentionally overstate the level of frustration.  Either way, it’s not a bad move.

Mayer can and should wait for Story’s inevitable injury.

Outting Campbell at first over the inexperienced Toro strikes me as re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  In this case, Campbell might be better but also brings even less experience to the situation.  Let him play second, and get comfortable there…

I'm not saying these options are sure fire winners, but I do think Anthony or Mayer are better choices than Toro-Romy-Ref-Wong-Grandal at 1B options.

Anthony and Mayer are both ML ready. If Story was hurt, today, mayer would be playing tomorrow. Anthony could/should be playing in ML, already.

The only issue is the complexities involved with moving players around or playing people at positions where they have little or no experience. I'm not for throwing Campbell at 1B with no practice or prep, but he's already been a player with no one position, anyway, and as much as we dislike that idea, it doesn't mean he's not the best option we have. Even if he struggles with defense at 1B, maybe Mayer's superior middle IF defense over Campbell's makes up for it, or most of it.

Anthony as anear FT DH is not ideal for his progress either, but he could play the OF some, and his bat is likely going to be way better than Toro & Co.

Yes, the Devers to 1B and Yoshida at DH has merit, too, but I'd rather give a kid a shot over Yoshi.

Just my opinion.

[Tedballgame]

5 hours ago, Jasonbay44 said:

Because he’s from Ohio and he would draw ratings no matter where he went and it helped give them a story?

this is the 2nd time in recent history a team has traded a superstar to Lakers and “won” the draft lottery the same year. Pelicans got Zion and now Mavs get Flagg? It all seems fishy to me

The Mavs had a 1.8% chance of getting the #1 pick. Their CEO was in charge of the draft 40 years ago when the Knicks magically got the #1 pick which was Patrick Ewing. Hmmmmmm.

[notin]

3 minutes ago, Tedballgame said:

The Mavs had a 1.8% chance of getting the #1 pick. Their CEO was in charge of the draft 40 years ago when the Knicks magically got the #1 pick which was Patrick Ewing. Hmmmmmm.

There you have it.  Ironclad innuendo.

And why was the Knicks lottery win - again third worst team, third best odds - suddenly magical? They had a good chance at winning.  Unlike your arguments ;)

[jad]

5 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

Everything about the NBA is completely fixed. The refereeing is fixed. The draft is fixed. The teams are fixed. Basketball was my number 2 sport at one point, but I don't really watch anymore even though the C's are really good. 

Yeah, that part about a team with a 13% chance of winning the lottery actually winning the lottery once every 8 years is pretty much proof of all you say.

[mvp 78]

11 minutes ago, notin said:

There you have it.  Ironclad innuendo.

And why was the Knicks lottery win - again third worst team, third best odds - suddenly magical? They had a good chance at winning.  Unlike your arguments ;)

The Knicks lottery? They didn't have the third best odds that year. Each lottery team had the same odds. There were only 7 comically large envelopes, one for each team. 14% chance for each lottery team to win. That's how stupidly it was run until 1990.

Easier to rig that way too. 

[Tedballgame]

5 hours ago, notin said:

There you have it.  Ironclad innuendo.

And why was the Knicks lottery win - again third worst team, third best odds - suddenly magical? They had a good chance at winning.  Unlike your arguments ;)

Your argument is a lie. The Knicks may have had the third worst record (not sure about that) but they only had a 14% chance of getting the first pick. Lo and behold, they got it, rescuing the franchise from a terrible one to a great one, just like the league needed and wanted.

[notin]

34 minutes ago, Tedballgame said:

Your argument is a lie. The Knicks may have had the third worst record (not sure about that) but they only had a 14% chance of getting the first pick. Lo and behold, they got it, rescuing the franchise from a terrible one to a great one, just like the league needed and wanted.

Huh?

In 1985, the lottery wasn’t weighted (which I just learned).  That means ALL SEVEN TEAMS IN IT HAD A 14.29% CHANCE.  

Yet somehow you’re now trying to argue that the Knicks 14% chance was worse than that of Seattle or Golden State or the other four teams.  This is not beating the odds; this is fourth grade math.

This draft was the first lottery and therefore has its share of conspiracy theories.  But they all just ignore that the Knicks chance was as good as anyone else’s. Also with four future Hall of Famers in the first round, the Knicks (and other teams, notably Utah) had a good chance and revitalizing their franchises…