moonslav59

Cashman needs to go. Period. (Boone goes by definition.)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I do not keep track of Yankee moves enough to remember getting rid of Estrada. Picking up and having to play Bruce & Odor so much exposes something awful. You know more than I do about the root causes of it, but yes- "Bizarre."

I hate 15 inning games. Period. The 7 inning doubleheader seems to cheapen history, but hey, 18 innings in one day is just too much.

Yes, the pitching depth was more heralded, and multiple injuries has been one reason they signed Bruce & Odor, but the fact that one or both are playing everyday, exposes one of two things (or both): 1) They are extremely injury prone (and have been for years). 2) They do not have the depth they bragged about. OF: Judge, Stanton, Hicks (looks solid) Frazier, Tauchman, Gardner Bruce & Florial IF: Andujar (IL), Urshela, Voit (IL) LeMahieu, Torres, Wade, Ford Odor & Peraza C: Sanchez & Higashioka

I've yet to hear a credible response to the point about the Yankees having such incredible depth, especially on the younger side. Why did they need to add Bruce & Odor?

Just have a pitch clock that is enforced. Make teams have a RP'er ready to come in and put a clock on that, too. Just those two things would make a huge difference. I'm okay with keeping the min batter rule or maybe limiting the amount of pitchers a team can have on the ML roster, but I don't want extreme measures taken that radically change the game, except for the universal DH which was a major change. The man of second rule is growing on me, and maybe some of these other suggested changes would, too, but let's try simple changes, first.

They had the shift before, so it really hasn't changed the game, in that way. What has changed is that they do it much more often and to a greater extreme. Players used to be lauded for knowing better where to position themselves. Now, they are told where to stand- almost to the inch.

I really like the Cardinals logo and uniforms. That's about it.

Much of that "play" was based on playing on astroturf. Yuck!

He can, but it's more effective to test it against live hitting, although the alt site is not "live."

I'm curious why so many people hate interleague games. I love them, and if you are a Sox fan living in an NL city, like I am in Houston, it was great being able to see my team live, every so often.

They have played better over the first 11-12 games, but I would not call them "better."

Many of those ideas are great ones!

I try not to get all wrapped up in a single manager decision or even a few clumps of questionable choices. I'm a huge Cora fan, as most people know. While I do scratch my head a few times, I know he's the right guy for this team, and he knows what he is doing. I will add one thing. My guess is, that if you asked JD if he wished he'd gotten a chance to PH in yesterday's game, we all know what he would have replied.

I'm not ranking the Yanks 3rd to 5th because they are great or have no question marks. I'm ranking them there, because I looked at the other teams and they suck or have even more questions than the Yanks.

It's like the pre-season NCAA Football polls that carry strength way into the season- sometimes to the very end. Yes, if a team stumbles or outplays its early ranking - more than once- then they move teams up and down, but rarely does a team move one way or another in a significant way over a short sample size.

This, from the guy that just recently started noticing Verdugo is pretty good. (Even B-R couldn't convince him: .827 OPS in his age 23-24 seasons combined.)

I'm not a Yankee fan, but I think ranking them 3rd to 5th sounds about right. These rankings are not "standings" or even based on what a team has done, so far. They rank how good teams are, on paper, and the factor in injuries and projected "returns to norms" that may or may not turn out to be accurate. Let me ask you this, would you bet me $1,000- even odds- the Sox finish ahead of the Yanks, this season?

Sometimes, it's nice to just let it all out. Ponder this, while it sucked losing Betts, nobody else we lost since 2018 is anyone worth crying home about. Some us fans were around a team that lost Fisk, Lynn, Burleson, Lee and others in a very short time. It took a long time to get over that period.

1) It's one lottery ticket from the Mets not two, and two from KC for 3 total. 2) Why couldn't KC give Lee to the Sox? (BTW, KC thought enough of him to protect him from rule 5 and add him to their 40.) 3) He's only 22, and his first season in the minors was 49 games. 4) He's got a little power (128 XBHs in less than 1500 career PAs, and he has a nice OBP (.366), so he's not just about a "little speed" and SBs. 5) He's a plus-plus defender. 6) He's ranked the 7th best Mets prospect by Pipeline. (He was ranked 8th in KC's system.) 7) BTV gives him a trade value of 9.3- about what Jimenez 10.8, Mata 9.9 or DHern 8.9 are worth. 8) He was still ranked rather high in KC's system and fangraphs, but clearly you know more about him than anyone.

I don't disagree, and I get the argument about being inconsistent, but at various times in our cycle or building ring teams every 3-5 years, we've needed GMs with different expertise. I wouldn't want DD on a team with the 29th best farm and limited budget space, just as maybe Ben & Bloom aren't the best GMs for a team needing precision big spending to get us over the top. It seemed like Theo was the best at giving us the best of both worlds, but even he admitted, he strayed too far fro the balanced approach. I'm not sure how good we'd have been had we kept the same GM for 15-20 year. Only Theo seems like one I'd think would be pretty sure of bringing us more rings had he not left. I felt Ben was on the way towards building that "balanced team, but the Castillo-Pablo-HRam signings hurt a lot, and the 3 last place finishes were just too much to bear.

In theory, the one guy from the Mets should be better than the 2 we get from KC, combined.

We've spent big many, many years. It only seems like a splurge, when the splurge does not turn out well- Crawford, Pablo/HRam, Eovaldi/Sale. Even when we reset, we stay near the tax line. We've been a consistent top 5 spending team almost, if not every, year since the early 2000's. The big problems usually arise more from trading away prospects than splurging and re-setting. To me, it makes sense to wait to spend really big, when we feel like we are 1-2 players away from serious ring contention. It's hard not to think we could have extended the window beyond 2018, but it fizzled. Had we signed Scherzer instead of Pablo/HRam, Ben would have stuck around longer- in all liklihood. When the farm is low, and the budget seems full of declining or non productive players, it's time to re-set, regroup, and build back up again. I'm not sure why so many fans get so upset about this. Look, I bget why people think, if we are still a top 3 spending team, why are we one of the top 10 contenders? Well, we over extended ourselves the last cycle, and until we flush out the deadwood salaries and build the farm back up, we have to check our high expectations at the door.

Ottavino, the defense and the offense all let us down a bit, today, but they fought back to tie it, late, so I don't think this loss will bring the team down in any meaningful way.

Richards looked very scary out of the gate, but he ended up with no ERs. Let's hope this is a sign of good things to come.