You are right. I made it very clear that I "made it up" though I don't think it's unrealistic. It was just an interesting exercise for me that I thought others may also enjoy reading.
@The Beard is correct. The next time you go to a game, look at what the IFs do before each pitch, versus what the outfielders do. Excluding 1st and 3rd charging on bunts, IFs get into their ready position, which is knees bent.
To be clear I don't think we sign him, but I don't think we make that kind of offer. I also think because Dana is so strong in his beliefs on extending guys he would fight against an offer like that. Of the 3 guys left we need to extend I see a 60% chance we extend Alex 50 % chance we extend Framber 1% chance we extend Tucker
I do like how emotional you are about the idea of signing an insurance bat. Anyway, it's clear this is going nowhere so let's just see how it plays out. Maybe things work out, maybe we later wish they'd have just written one more check. Time gets the final say.
As for the last part, I do think Cable becomes extinct. Yes people complain, and at the point we are at right now most streaming is too difficult for a lot of people (especially the elderly population) just from a standpoint of getting it turned on and then finding the shows you want to watch. Cable you grab the remote and hit power and it comes right on, with streaming its a series of events. And you cant just push in "13" if you want to go to ABC. For streaming to be universal across the population, that's gonna have to improve. But cable also costs a lot of money to produce and as more and more people move to streaming it's not going to be worth the cost of the infrastructure to keep cable going. On the baseball part, my thought is this. As more and more people move to streaming mlb is inevitably going to lose some viewers. Many of us watch mlb on a daily basis because that's what we want to watch. There are a lot of people though, who will turn it on if their other shows aren't on. They will watch it but it isn't a part of their daily routine. For those people, if the best deal they like for a streaming service doesn't include the local MLB station, most will go with that streaming service anyway. This is going to be the number one thing they are going to have to address in my mind. Take the Astros for example, right now they are available on Fubo and who else? They will have to strike deals with the other streaming services. As good and popular as we are right now there are a lot of people who will change streaming services so they can watch. But when you go through the lean years it will only be the true baseball fans that do that. For years MLB relied on cable companies who charged all of us for channels we had zero interest in ever watching, including many paying for the RSN that they never watched. It's gonna be very interesting to see how it plays out. I have no doubt the rangers would have Montgomery signed if not for their tv money taking a big hit, Mariners made cost cutting moves also because of it. You could very well be right and it sounds like you have done way more research into it than I have, but I do think it's the number 1 issue mlb has to figure out right now
Based on what we know today, we know the FO wants to sign Tucker. Nook and other media writers have talked about Houston approaching Tucker a while back with an offer similar to what they did with Bregman when he signed the $100mil at the time to buy out his arbitration years. Tucker is hellbent on being a FA, and it's his right to test the market. From my perspective, I do like Tucker a lot. I just don't see him being worth a $300mil player. I am sure Snake has numbers to back up why he might be a $300mil player. I listen to a lot of MLB radio, and their national media talks about how critical it would be for Houston to sign him. They think he gets lost a lot in the shuffle with players like Altuve, Yordan, Verlander, and Bregman. They believe if he was on another team, he would be talked about as a superstar in this league. Either way, I hope Tucker has an amazing season.
I am skeptical that Tucker will be worth $300M but he will get it. He’s a 4-6 win/yr player who will be 28 when he reaches free agency. He probably won’t start to decline until the 5th year of whatever contract he signs. So $200M for the first 4 seasons then $100M for the next 5-6 seasons sounds pretty reasonable in terms of value.
It is not unusual for markets to go though periods of unsustainable prices. This is what we're in now. You cannot pay 26 players $30M/yr. plus the rest of the organization if it's a business and not a hobby. Many on here just say pay them all because that is the market. It just won't work.
One name I haven’t heard mentioned at all this offseason is David Hensley. He was bigley hyped last season and ended up a disappointment. Can he regain his 2022 magic or is he finished ?
I still think we are a SP and one J.D. Martinez/Jorge Soler short of where I would like to be ideally. Maybe it's just luxury at this point but I want a plan in case Meyers sucks and need another OF that can also DH, and in case a starter goes down or struggles.
Tucker's been in a nice place here where he can hang in the shadows of other stars batting 5th and do his thing. He's been a worse postseason performer than Bagwell was (or similar at best) over a much larger sample and he never catches any heat for it. I'm not sure how well he would respond to the attention that would come with being front and center on a franchise.
Tucker and Bagwell in the postseason is not close if using season/park-adjusted stats. Bagwell had some good years, but just looking at unadjusted counting stats, Tucker had more homers, runs, RBIs, and stolen bases in the 2021 postseason than Bagwell did in his entire postseason career.
Tucker did have a lot better players around him to drive in and get driven in by..I will give him that. Even still his RBI and Runs per plate appearance aren't much different and his OPS is basically the same...and you never here about him being a complete nothing and generational choker like Bagwell gets labeled. Different expectations
Runs are 32% more and RBIs are 16% more on a per plate appearance basis for Tucker despite Tucker playing in a much less offensive era. On OPS, 0.704 versus 0.685 with OPS being down about 30 points between eras. That's basically 1 WAR difference over a season without accounting for Tucker playing a more difficult position. Bagwell did have some Astrodome years in the postseason which hurts him some. On the better players, I agree, but the Astros were scoring almost as much despite being in the Astrodome some years with Bagwell as with Tucker as it was easier to score back then. 2000 was still the best run scoring season for the Astros, but wasn't a postseason year.
Who cares? Bagwell's postseason failure is way overblown, and Tucker is being brought up because he did suck last postseason. Short of Yordan and Berkman, I'd be just as happy to have either of those 2 up to bat with the game on the line among all the players in team history.
he's getting old to continue with the limited success he has had. He'll be 28 with less than 140 PAs in the show.
Bagwell spent most of his career on teams that didn't make the playoffs. Most of his playoff ABs were in his final two seasons when he was greatly diminished due to age and injury. The reputation for choking comes from the short 97, 98, and 99 postseasons where he faced Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, and Kevin Brown, all twice. In 01 he finally had a good series against those guys. And Biggio was worse than Bags in the playoffs. Way easier to pitch around with nobody on base.
