I think that you and I are saying essentially the same thing with different words.
Some of us have enjoyed the off-seasons as much as the regular seasons. You and I are among them.
I sense a certain ambivalence (not boredom.)
I sense that there's been a change, largely because it's like watching other people do things.
Some folks will watch the playoffs until their favorite team drops out. Some will only watch them if their team is in it.
If there are only two people interested enough to rate the moves, it's hard to expect many others to care enough to comment on them. Nobody cares.
Off Season Thread
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
WildwoodDave2
Off Season Thread
695C4B4B40794B4B40474B2E0 wrote: I think that you and I are saying essentially the same thing with different words.
Some of us have enjoyed the off-seasons as much as the regular seasons. You and I are among them.
I sense a certain ambivalence (not boredom.)
I sense that there's been a change, largely because it's like watching other people do things.
Some folks will watch the playoffs until their favorite team drops out. Some will only watch them if their team is in it.
If there are only two people interested enough to rate the moves, it's hard to expect many others to care enough to comment on them. Nobody cares.
Who cares!
;D ;D
Some of us have enjoyed the off-seasons as much as the regular seasons. You and I are among them.
I sense a certain ambivalence (not boredom.)
I sense that there's been a change, largely because it's like watching other people do things.
Some folks will watch the playoffs until their favorite team drops out. Some will only watch them if their team is in it.
If there are only two people interested enough to rate the moves, it's hard to expect many others to care enough to comment on them. Nobody cares.
Who cares!
;D ;D-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Off Season Thread
I'll tell you who cares. The Detroit Tigers care. They just landed Javy Baez for 6/140.
Off Season Thread
7F4A5D5D566F5D5D56515D380 wrote: I'll tell you who cares. The Detroit Tigers care. They just landed Javy Baez for 6/140.
Guess the asking price for Correa was too much for them. Many thought there was a good shot he'd go there because of Hinch being the manager.
And so much for keeping Baez in New York to keep the bromance with Lindor going.
Where have the Yankees and Dodgers been in all of this?
Guess the asking price for Correa was too much for them. Many thought there was a good shot he'd go there because of Hinch being the manager.
And so much for keeping Baez in New York to keep the bromance with Lindor going.
Where have the Yankees and Dodgers been in all of this?
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Off Season Thread
65434451585443555D360 wrote: Corey Seager 10/325 to the Rangers
I've been wrestling with this news for the past day, trying to understand Seager's motivation. I fully understand why anyone would accept $325 million. But what keeps rattling around in my brain is how he's giving up playing with one of baseball's premier and storied franchises, one who's intention has been to reach the postseason every year since the 1940s, to join an organization that presently is one of the game's worst and which has rarely been competitive, by comparison, since moving to Dallas some 50 years ago.
Seager will not live long enough to spend all of that money and, while it's commendable that he's seeing to his family's care for as long as they live, too, wouldn't he have been able to do that by accepting, say, $250 million from the Dodgers, assuming they'd offer that much, which would certainly be possible? At $250 million, he'd have $5 million at his disposal each and every year for the next 50 years. Think of that: a new $5 million every year!
So the question is, is the extra $75 million he's getting from the Rangers enough to offset playing for an organization where the losing has been greater than the winning; where a title has never been won; where the team has reached the postseason only eight times since moving from Washington? Baseball's supposed to be fun. Would giving up $75 million be worth having fun (mostly due to the winning) over the remainder of his career, knowing he'd have more money than he'll ever be able to spend anyway?
I've been wrestling with this news for the past day, trying to understand Seager's motivation. I fully understand why anyone would accept $325 million. But what keeps rattling around in my brain is how he's giving up playing with one of baseball's premier and storied franchises, one who's intention has been to reach the postseason every year since the 1940s, to join an organization that presently is one of the game's worst and which has rarely been competitive, by comparison, since moving to Dallas some 50 years ago.
Seager will not live long enough to spend all of that money and, while it's commendable that he's seeing to his family's care for as long as they live, too, wouldn't he have been able to do that by accepting, say, $250 million from the Dodgers, assuming they'd offer that much, which would certainly be possible? At $250 million, he'd have $5 million at his disposal each and every year for the next 50 years. Think of that: a new $5 million every year!
So the question is, is the extra $75 million he's getting from the Rangers enough to offset playing for an organization where the losing has been greater than the winning; where a title has never been won; where the team has reached the postseason only eight times since moving from Washington? Baseball's supposed to be fun. Would giving up $75 million be worth having fun (mostly due to the winning) over the remainder of his career, knowing he'd have more money than he'll ever be able to spend anyway?
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Off Season Thread
It's not just "playing" that matters to some people. Some guys want to be part of a community. I don't know Dallas, and I certainly don't like Seager. But, there are guys who would rather be that bigger fish in a smaller pond that Dallas is in relation to Los Angeles, where there's some star on every street corner.
As for the Rangers, maybe they put a sales job on him as being a cornerstone on what they're trying to build. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't.
We've heard it in The Burgh. I'd belileve the Rangers more.
As for the Rangers, maybe they put a sales job on him as being a cornerstone on what they're trying to build. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't.
We've heard it in The Burgh. I'd belileve the Rangers more.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Off Season Thread
321413060F0314020A610 wrote: I'll tell you who cares. The Detroit Tigers care. They just landed Javy Baez for 6/140.
Guess the asking price for Correa was too much for them. Many thought there was a good shot he'd go there because of Hinch being the manager.
And so much for keeping Baez in New York to keep the bromance with Lindor going.
Where have the Yankees and Dodgers been in all of this?
Don't poke bears. Rumor has it that the Dodgers are so broken-hearted over losing Corey Seager that they're eyeballing Fred Freeman.
Stand back, and watch the bid cards go up until somebody goes home with the painting.
Guess the asking price for Correa was too much for them. Many thought there was a good shot he'd go there because of Hinch being the manager.
And so much for keeping Baez in New York to keep the bromance with Lindor going.
Where have the Yankees and Dodgers been in all of this?
Don't poke bears. Rumor has it that the Dodgers are so broken-hearted over losing Corey Seager that they're eyeballing Fred Freeman.
Stand back, and watch the bid cards go up until somebody goes home with the painting.
-
Bobster21
Off Season Thread
194F594D425848434E596B4C464A424705482B0 wrote: Corey Seager 10/325 to the Rangers
I've been wrestling with this news for the past day, trying to understand Seager's motivation. I fully understand why anyone would accept $325 million. But what keeps rattling around in my brain is how he's giving up playing with one of baseball's premier and storied franchises, one who's intention has been to reach the postseason every year since the 1940s, to join an organization that presently is one of the game's worst and which has rarely been competitive, by comparison, since moving to Dallas some 50 years ago.
Seager will not live long enough to spend all of that money and, while it's commendable that he's seeing to his family's care for as long as they live, too, wouldn't he have been able to do that by accepting, say, $250 million from the Dodgers, assuming they'd offer that much, which would certainly be possible? At $250 million, he'd have $5 million at his disposal each and every year for the next 50 years. Think of that: a new $5 million every year!
So the question is, is the extra $75 million he's getting from the Rangers enough to offset playing for an organization where the losing has been greater than the winning; where a title has never been won; where the team has reached the postseason only eight times since moving from Washington? Baseball's supposed to be fun. Would giving up $75 million be worth having fun (mostly due to the winning) over the remainder of his career, knowing he'd have more money than he'll ever be able to spend anyway?
I don't think the Rangers are as bad as all that. Between 2010 and 2016 they finished first 4 times and second twice. They have won 90+ games in 5 of the last 12 years and at least 87 games in 7 of those 12 years. Prior to signing Seager they signed Marcus Semien (45 HRs, 102 RBIs) and Jon Gray. The Rangers have a new stadium and lots of money to spend and I think they sold Seager on the idea that they are going to turn things around.
I've been wrestling with this news for the past day, trying to understand Seager's motivation. I fully understand why anyone would accept $325 million. But what keeps rattling around in my brain is how he's giving up playing with one of baseball's premier and storied franchises, one who's intention has been to reach the postseason every year since the 1940s, to join an organization that presently is one of the game's worst and which has rarely been competitive, by comparison, since moving to Dallas some 50 years ago.
Seager will not live long enough to spend all of that money and, while it's commendable that he's seeing to his family's care for as long as they live, too, wouldn't he have been able to do that by accepting, say, $250 million from the Dodgers, assuming they'd offer that much, which would certainly be possible? At $250 million, he'd have $5 million at his disposal each and every year for the next 50 years. Think of that: a new $5 million every year!
So the question is, is the extra $75 million he's getting from the Rangers enough to offset playing for an organization where the losing has been greater than the winning; where a title has never been won; where the team has reached the postseason only eight times since moving from Washington? Baseball's supposed to be fun. Would giving up $75 million be worth having fun (mostly due to the winning) over the remainder of his career, knowing he'd have more money than he'll ever be able to spend anyway?
I don't think the Rangers are as bad as all that. Between 2010 and 2016 they finished first 4 times and second twice. They have won 90+ games in 5 of the last 12 years and at least 87 games in 7 of those 12 years. Prior to signing Seager they signed Marcus Semien (45 HRs, 102 RBIs) and Jon Gray. The Rangers have a new stadium and lots of money to spend and I think they sold Seager on the idea that they are going to turn things around.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
Off Season Thread
634E43525544531310210 wrote: Corey Seager 10/325 to the Rangers
I've been wrestling with this news for the past day, trying to understand Seager's motivation. I fully understand why anyone would accept $325 million. But what keeps rattling around in my brain is how he's giving up playing with one of baseball's premier and storied franchises, one who's intention has been to reach the postseason every year since the 1940s, to join an organization that presently is one of the game's worst and which has rarely been competitive, by comparison, since moving to Dallas some 50 years ago.
Seager will not live long enough to spend all of that money and, while it's commendable that he's seeing to his family's care for as long as they live, too, wouldn't he have been able to do that by accepting, say, $250 million from the Dodgers, assuming they'd offer that much, which would certainly be possible? At $250 million, he'd have $5 million at his disposal each and every year for the next 50 years. Think of that: a new $5 million every year!
So the question is, is the extra $75 million he's getting from the Rangers enough to offset playing for an organization where the losing has been greater than the winning; where a title has never been won; where the team has reached the postseason only eight times since moving from Washington? Baseball's supposed to be fun. Would giving up $75 million be worth having fun (mostly due to the winning) over the remainder of his career, knowing he'd have more money than he'll ever be able to spend anyway?
I don't think the Rangers are as bad as all that. Between 2010 and 2016 they finished first 4 times and second twice. They have won 90+ games in 5 of the last 12 years and at least 87 games in 7 of those 12 years. Prior to signing Seager they signed Marcus Semien (45 HRs, 102 RBIs) and Jon Gray. The Rangers have a new stadium and lots of money to spend and I think they sold Seager on the idea that they are going to turn things around.
I'm not convinced. The Rangers organization can't compare to the Dodgers, new ballpark or not. And as we've seen over and over again, spending obscene amounts of money is no guarantee of success. As for Semien, he's 31 years old and soon headed to the downside of his career. I like Cory Seager and I think he's a heck of a player. Money doesn't buy happiness but I hope it comes close enough for him.
I've been wrestling with this news for the past day, trying to understand Seager's motivation. I fully understand why anyone would accept $325 million. But what keeps rattling around in my brain is how he's giving up playing with one of baseball's premier and storied franchises, one who's intention has been to reach the postseason every year since the 1940s, to join an organization that presently is one of the game's worst and which has rarely been competitive, by comparison, since moving to Dallas some 50 years ago.
Seager will not live long enough to spend all of that money and, while it's commendable that he's seeing to his family's care for as long as they live, too, wouldn't he have been able to do that by accepting, say, $250 million from the Dodgers, assuming they'd offer that much, which would certainly be possible? At $250 million, he'd have $5 million at his disposal each and every year for the next 50 years. Think of that: a new $5 million every year!
So the question is, is the extra $75 million he's getting from the Rangers enough to offset playing for an organization where the losing has been greater than the winning; where a title has never been won; where the team has reached the postseason only eight times since moving from Washington? Baseball's supposed to be fun. Would giving up $75 million be worth having fun (mostly due to the winning) over the remainder of his career, knowing he'd have more money than he'll ever be able to spend anyway?
I don't think the Rangers are as bad as all that. Between 2010 and 2016 they finished first 4 times and second twice. They have won 90+ games in 5 of the last 12 years and at least 87 games in 7 of those 12 years. Prior to signing Seager they signed Marcus Semien (45 HRs, 102 RBIs) and Jon Gray. The Rangers have a new stadium and lots of money to spend and I think they sold Seager on the idea that they are going to turn things around.
I'm not convinced. The Rangers organization can't compare to the Dodgers, new ballpark or not. And as we've seen over and over again, spending obscene amounts of money is no guarantee of success. As for Semien, he's 31 years old and soon headed to the downside of his career. I like Cory Seager and I think he's a heck of a player. Money doesn't buy happiness but I hope it comes close enough for him.
-
Bobster21
Off Season Thread
6335233738223239342311363C30383D7F32510 wrote: Corey Seager 10/325 to the Rangers
I've been wrestling with this news for the past day, trying to understand Seager's motivation. I fully understand why anyone would accept $325 million. But what keeps rattling around in my brain is how he's giving up playing with one of baseball's premier and storied franchises, one who's intention has been to reach the postseason every year since the 1940s, to join an organization that presently is one of the game's worst and which has rarely been competitive, by comparison, since moving to Dallas some 50 years ago.
Seager will not live long enough to spend all of that money and, while it's commendable that he's seeing to his family's care for as long as they live, too, wouldn't he have been able to do that by accepting, say, $250 million from the Dodgers, assuming they'd offer that much, which would certainly be possible? At $250 million, he'd have $5 million at his disposal each and every year for the next 50 years. Think of that: a new $5 million every year!
So the question is, is the extra $75 million he's getting from the Rangers enough to offset playing for an organization where the losing has been greater than the winning; where a title has never been won; where the team has reached the postseason only eight times since moving from Washington? Baseball's supposed to be fun. Would giving up $75 million be worth having fun (mostly due to the winning) over the remainder of his career, knowing he'd have more money than he'll ever be able to spend anyway?
I don't think the Rangers are as bad as all that. Between 2010 and 2016 they finished first 4 times and second twice. They have won 90+ games in 5 of the last 12 years and at least 87 games in 7 of those 12 years. Prior to signing Seager they signed Marcus Semien (45 HRs, 102 RBIs) and Jon Gray. The Rangers have a new stadium and lots of money to spend and I think they sold Seager on the idea that they are going to turn things around.
I'm not convinced. The Rangers organization can't compare to the Dodgers, new ballpark or not. And as we've seen over and over again, spending obscene amounts of money is no guarantee of success. As for Semien, he's 31 years old and soon headed to the downside of his career. I like Cory Seager and I think he's a heck of a player. Money doesn't buy happiness but I hope it comes close enough for him.
I guess Seager was convinced. The Rangers' problem has always been pitching. But they drafted Leiter and their new park has a retractable roof and is pitcher friendly. Their previous parks were hot and batter friendly. So now they are spending money and more attractive to FA pitchers. They must have made a pretty convincing case to Seager that they can compete. Either that or they made a pretty convincing case that he can spend the 325 million.
I've been wrestling with this news for the past day, trying to understand Seager's motivation. I fully understand why anyone would accept $325 million. But what keeps rattling around in my brain is how he's giving up playing with one of baseball's premier and storied franchises, one who's intention has been to reach the postseason every year since the 1940s, to join an organization that presently is one of the game's worst and which has rarely been competitive, by comparison, since moving to Dallas some 50 years ago.
Seager will not live long enough to spend all of that money and, while it's commendable that he's seeing to his family's care for as long as they live, too, wouldn't he have been able to do that by accepting, say, $250 million from the Dodgers, assuming they'd offer that much, which would certainly be possible? At $250 million, he'd have $5 million at his disposal each and every year for the next 50 years. Think of that: a new $5 million every year!
So the question is, is the extra $75 million he's getting from the Rangers enough to offset playing for an organization where the losing has been greater than the winning; where a title has never been won; where the team has reached the postseason only eight times since moving from Washington? Baseball's supposed to be fun. Would giving up $75 million be worth having fun (mostly due to the winning) over the remainder of his career, knowing he'd have more money than he'll ever be able to spend anyway?
I don't think the Rangers are as bad as all that. Between 2010 and 2016 they finished first 4 times and second twice. They have won 90+ games in 5 of the last 12 years and at least 87 games in 7 of those 12 years. Prior to signing Seager they signed Marcus Semien (45 HRs, 102 RBIs) and Jon Gray. The Rangers have a new stadium and lots of money to spend and I think they sold Seager on the idea that they are going to turn things around.
I'm not convinced. The Rangers organization can't compare to the Dodgers, new ballpark or not. And as we've seen over and over again, spending obscene amounts of money is no guarantee of success. As for Semien, he's 31 years old and soon headed to the downside of his career. I like Cory Seager and I think he's a heck of a player. Money doesn't buy happiness but I hope it comes close enough for him.
I guess Seager was convinced. The Rangers' problem has always been pitching. But they drafted Leiter and their new park has a retractable roof and is pitcher friendly. Their previous parks were hot and batter friendly. So now they are spending money and more attractive to FA pitchers. They must have made a pretty convincing case to Seager that they can compete. Either that or they made a pretty convincing case that he can spend the 325 million.