Search results

I wondered why Apple or Amazon didn't scoop up the FSNs when Bally bought them. I guess given that Bally ended up in BKY it makes sense.

I think maybe they hoped someone might eat a million or two if it. Didn't spend much time worrying about it though, did they?

Would everyone feel better if the Braves had traded away prospects to get one of the mostly fisppointong pitchers who actually did move and then still lose because they didn't hit in the playoffs? Or do we just want to assume we traded for the only guy who actually made a positive playoff...

It's not that illogical unless you try and make it seem like the argument is being made by simpletons. The cost of acquiring a "third starter" in a bidding war or through trade may not be justified by a small increase of a single season's championship chance (at the expense of future...

Hard to follow.

The refusal to make a bad long term move coinciding with a disappointing outcome on other grounds isn't justification to make the bad long term move the next time. Makes deals when they make sense rather than for the fans.

They shouldn't.

Secured means there is a lien or other priority interest on specific property. A contract gives legal recourse to the parties, but if we are talking bankruptcy may not be much obstacle.

Montgomery checks a lot of Braves boxes, just a matter of whether some dumb team pays him for in line with just his heroics.

If those guys get hurt then Lugo or Cease isn't really going to fix it.

You aren't necessarily concerned with depth I do t think if you are concerned. Sounds more like you are concerned about strength at the 3/4.

Fairly low risk that the Dodgers have solvency issues to begin with.

Not sure you should trade anyone that might project to be a top three starter from the minors if you're the Braves.

Pacific League though ?

Heyward for one had a far below average wRC+ with platoon advantage 2/3 years which seems pretty unplayable to me. Rosario is a better bet to be average though possibly not healthy. Verdugo seems pretty different from other two but my recollection is there wasn't too much special about his...

I don't see how that's a particularly greater risk for Kelenic than Heyward or Rosario honestly. But any event, the upside is higher which probably makes it the better decision. If it doesn't work you pick something up at deadline like you might do anyway if you went with the other two.

Something like those guys but under control for a long time and still 2 years away from age 27 rather than declining.

But in the end, the team didn't hit.

It's very possible teams do not assign much value to Grissom. If that's the case why not use him as a utility man.

Yeah, I was wrong about that piece.