2022 MLB Thread formerly the 2021 thread..

[Samsara]

I think the Giants backing out is a blessing in disguise. Correa isn't a great look. He cheated, he's overpaid (by a lot) for his production, injured all the time, etc.

Sit on it, try again next winter. It'll be rough again this year, but having Correa is just throwing money at a name to say you did something. They were smart to pull back.

[orcus116]

He's actually been surprisingly durable the last three seasons but I get the hesitation. It's wierd to say but even as a Met fan if he doesn't work out oh well we have more options.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

Well that's a blow to the Giants. They will be competing for last place with the Rockies this year. In the long run it may be a dodged bullet....but at this point who knows. The Giants fans at large won't be happy though. I expect attendance to plummet even farther this year.

Won't say I'm dissapointed, but going 0/2 in signing big names isn't a good look for the upcoming season.

Indeed! I think the Giants should go after Conforto for a 2 year contract. He could be an inexpensive risk with a lot of upside.

And here's hoping Crawford can produce the way he did in '21, because his '21 was arguably better than any season Correa has had. And as good as Correa is at defense I still think Crawford is better, although he is getting older.
The Giants also need Bart to step up the way we've been hoping for since they signed him. His problem is he looked like a right handed Cody Bellinger last year.
We also need to dump LaStella, he is useless. DeSclafani has also been useless. Granted he was hurt, but I'm not banking on him having a turn-around season.

[T-ski]

Boy, how about that Brewers signing….

*insert cricket noises here*

[pg1067]

And here's hoping Crawford can produce the way he did in '21, because his '21 was arguably better than any season Correa has had. And as good as Correa is at defense I still think Crawford is better, although he is getting older.

Crawford's '21 slash line was about 20% better than Correa's career AVERAGE, and his power numbers were basically identical to Correa's career 162-game average numbers.*  And, if WAR means anything to you, Correa's career WAR over 8 seasons (39.5) is better than Crawford's career WAR over 50% more seasons (30.8).  I do agree that Crawford is the better defender at shortstop (time will tell whether Correa is any good at 3B), and Crawford is hated by Dodger fans.  If you're hated and somewhat feared by the fans of your team's primary rival, you're obviously doing something right!

* - Crawford played 138 games in '21, so I normalized his power numbers over 162 games.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

Well, I'm ok with the Giants signing Taylor Rogers and Michael Conforto. Especially since there is literally no one better on the free agent market right now. I still predict attendance will be at an all time low again this coming season.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

  Now the Mets have concerns over Correa's health.

[lonestar]

Now the Mets have concerns over Correa's health.

Just saw that...was talking with my dad, I guess the concerns aren't enough for short term contracts, but when it comes to dropping 300 million over ten plus years it's a whole different approach. Seems it's something that showed up in a x-ray from a minor league injury.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

This whole Carlos Correa thing is getting ridiculous. Now the Mets are rumored to be backing out of the deal....possibly. If that happens, I don't think anyone is going to touch him for more than a 2 or 3 year deal. The Giants should jump back on board at that point 

[lordxizor]

Looks like the Twins are getting Correa back on a 6 year deal now. What a bizarre situation. I'm really curious to hear what info comes out. Is the bone around the plate starting to degrade? What could they have seen to lead them to believe that a long term contract was a bad idea for a guy with an old surgery that hasn't caused him to miss a day since it happened?

[Glasser]

I heard the Mets new offer was 8 years 210 mil.

[lordxizor]

I heard the Mets new offer was 8 years 210 mil.

I'm seeing 6 years $157 million with the requirement to pass a physical every off-season to guarantee the next year.

[Glasser]

I heard the Mets new offer was 8 years 210 mil.

I'm seeing 6 years $157 million with the requirement to pass a physical every off-season to guarantee the next year.

Really? Ok, my source was a Mets fan. Thanks for the correct info.

[lordxizor]

I heard the Mets new offer was 8 years 210 mil.

I'm seeing 6 years $157 million with the requirement to pass a physical every off-season to guarantee the next year.

Really? Ok, my source was a Mets fan. Thanks for the correct info.

I can't guarantee it's accurate, but here's where I saw it.

https://elitesportsny.com/2023/01/10/mets-reported-revised-contract-offer-to-carlos-correa-sounds-ridiculous/

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

The whole thing is crazy stupid. The Giants brought up an issue with the physical and immediately Correa pivots to the Mets. They are given nearly 3 weeks after they bring up the same issue to work out a deal. Just kind of shows that Correa didn't really want to play for the Giants and was just looking for a big payday.

I hope he gets hurt in the first season of his new contract.....I kid. I don't want to see anyone get hurt, but the whole thing is dumb. 

[lordxizor]

The whole thing is crazy stupid. The Giants brought up an issue with the physical and immediately Correa pivots to the Mets. They are given nearly 3 weeks after they bring up the same issue to work out a deal. Just kind of shows that Correa didn't really want to play for the Giants and was just looking for a big payday.

I hope he gets hurt in the first season of his new contract.....I kid. I don't want to see anyone get hurt, but the whole thing is dumb. 

First of all, I never fault a player for taking the highest offer. If I was offered three jobs with identical duties, it's extremely likely I take the offer with the highest money. I'm guessing he moved on from the Giants because he hoped the Mets wouldn't have the same issue. When they did, reality set in that he probably wasn't getting a 10+ year deal anymore so it made sense to give the Mets some time to figure things out. When he still didn't like what he was getting from them (a terrible offer really if the link I posted above is accurate) he moved back to the Twins who he enjoyed playing for last season. I've to imagine his agent reached back to the Giants to see if there was interest in a new deal, but I thought I read the Giants were no longer interested.

I'm still very curious what the physical showed that scared them off. The old injury and surgery were not a surprise to these teams. He still has to pass a physical with the Twins as well, so the whole thing could completely fall apart again if something has changed greatly in the last year.

Very bizarre.

[pg1067]

Man...the Baseball HOF is becoming watered down and, at the same time, way too exclusive.

Scott Rolen gets in?  Who the heck ever truly feared Scott Rolen?  Can anyone think of a single memorable hit he got or play he made?

And he gets in with .281/.364/.460/.855, 316 HR and 1287 RBI, but Jeff Kent doesn't get in (and falls off the ballot) with .290/.356/.500/.855, 377 RBI and 1518 RBI (4 of those key numbers are better for Kent, and one is the same, but Kent gets 116 fewer votes???).

It's even more egregious with Todd Helton.  Every one of his slash line and power numbers was SIGNIFICANTLY better than Helton.  Yeah, yeah, he played his entire career at Coors Field, but guess what?  His PARK ADJUSTED OPS+ is 9% better than Rolen's.

Ridiculous.

[TAC]

Helton was a roid monger too, right?

[KevShmev]

pg0167, no offense, but that is a bad take. A very bad one.

There is more to baseball than offense. There is this thing called defense, and Rolen was an incredible third baseman (8 Gold Gloves, and even then it feels like it should have been more!).

As for his offense, I would say his HR in Game 7 of the 2004 NLCS off Clemens that gave the Cardinals the lead they never relinquished was pretty memorable.  I get that it didn't happen in Boston, NY or LA, so it doesn't get talked about or replayed 391 times a year, but it was a helluva moment. (note: this is not implying that this was his only memorable moment, merely pointing out the most obvious one)

[pg1067]

I agree about defense, but being a stellar defender, along with those numbers, doesn't make for an HOFer in my mind.  Also, given that Don Mattingly is on the outside looking in, it's somewhat clear that defense is not super important to HOF voters (unless you're Ozzie Smith).

[gmillerdrake]

Honestly until the all time Hits leader and all time home run leader are rightfully voted in....the Baseball HOF will continue to hold little credibility.

[pg1067]

Honestly until the all time Hits leader and all time home run leader are rightfully voted in....the Baseball HOF will continue to hold little credibility.

Agree.  I think I made a big stink about that last year when Bonds and Clemens dropped off the ballot.

On a somewhat amusing note, I saw a post on Facebook "reminding" the HOF that there's a 3B who, unlike Rolen, won 4 batting titles AND who 900 fewer times than Rolen:  Bill Madlock.  I about did a spit take before laughing heartily about that.  While I don't think Rolen is deserving, he's at least close, but Madlock (whom I quite liked growing up since the Pirates were my secondary team) isn't even close to Rolen (his BA and K numbers are the ONLY things he has on Rolen, and Madlock was a below average defender).

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

Honestly I don't think either Rolen or Kent deserve to be in the HoF. Helton probably should be. He is very close.

As for who definitely should be in? Bonds, Rose, and Clemons. I sort of get why Rose isn't in, seeing as he is a PR nightmare and an all around douche canoe (I met him once at a signing in a sports memorabilia store and he was just an absolute turd to everyone). At the same time, the HoF isn't about how nice of a person you were/are (I mean Ty Cobb is in, among other notoriously unlikable players), but it's about how good you were at playing the game of baseball, period.

[Cool Chris]

Debating who should be in the MLB HoF is one of the most fascinating and, at the same time, ridiculously stupid topics.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

Debating who should be in the MLB HoF is one of the most fascinating and, at the same time, ridiculously stupid topics.

[Cool Chris]

I wasn't trying to pick on anyone here with my comment. Even as a lapsed MLB fan, I still find the topic fascinating. But then I realize how deep in the weeds one can get with all the stats available to us, and then factoring in the mysteries of what goes on in all the voters' heads and how they evaluate potential inductees.

At the same time, the HoF isn't about how nice of a person you were/are...

Not specifically, but:

BBWAA RULES FOR ELECTION
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

[pg1067]

By the way...

pg0167, no offense, but that is a bad take. A very bad one.

How exactly was my take a "very bad one"?  Was it incomplete because I didn't mention Rolen's defense?  Sure, but that doesn't change my ultimate conclusion.

Is it a "bad take" because I talked about Scott Rolen never being a particularly feared opponent who has few memorable hits/plays?  I don't see how those things aren't relevant.  A HOFer is someone is (or should be) someone that opponents have to plan for.  He should be the sort of guy who seemingly always came through in the clutch and who had memorable moments.  Maybe you disagree, but that doesn't make my take a bad one.

As for my comparisons of Rolen to Helton and Kent, I absolutely and unquestionably accurately summarized the relevant numbers.  Are there other numbers that expand the story?  Maybe.  I don't know, but if so, then what are those numbers?

Keep in mind that we're talking about a guy who, in his first year of eligibility, only 10% of voters thought was HOF worthy.  Now, only five years later, 250 guys who previously didn't think he was worthy suddenly think he is?  I heard more than one baseball "expert" making some of the same points, so....

Debating who should be in the MLB HoF is one of the most fascinating and, at the same time, ridiculously stupid topics.

If you think that (and I don't disagree at all), I encourage you to check out the discussion over the past several days in the NFL thread.   

[KevShmev]

Kent never even won a single Gold Glove, and Helton won three, so both have a massive deficit to Rolen when it comes to defense.  I guarantee teams game planned for Rolen's defense since he gobbled up everything hit his way.  Plus, in the case of Helton, his numbers were inflated a bit by playing in Colorado.  How many All-Star games you make can always be a little dicey, but Rolen made 7 to 5 for both Kent and Helton.

As for voters, MLB HoF voters are historically the biggest nimrods in the sports media.  Not even factoring their arrogance when it comes to selective morality and outrage ("Hey, we will put in this guy who probably did steroids, but leave out these other three."), the idea that someone only gets 20% one year and then gets 75% years later makes zero sense, but they flaunt their power and love to make deserving players wait simply because they can.  The MLB Hof is a mockery already anyway.

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

Kent never even won a single Gold Glove, and Helton won three, so both have a massive deficit to Rolen when it comes to defense.  I guarantee teams game planned for Rolen's defense since he gobbled up everything hit his way.  Plus, in the case of Helton, his numbers were inflated a bit by playing in Colorado.  How many All-Star games you make can always be a little dicey, but Rolen made 7 to 5 for both Kent and Helton.

As for voters, MLB HoF voters are historically the biggest nimrods in the sports media.  Not even factoring their arrogance when it comes to selective morality and outrage ("Hey, we will put in this guy who probably did steroids, but leave out these other three."), the idea that someone only gets 20% one year and then gets 75% years later makes zero sense, but they flaunt their power and love to make deserving players wait simply because they can.  The MLB Hof is a mockery already anyway.

Kind of like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

[pg1067]

I'm not sure how you game plan for a strong defensive infielder.  Don't bunt down the 3B line?  OK, but no one's been bunting much since the turn of the century anyway.  No one flooded their lineup with lefthanded pull hitters to avoid Rolen.

Kent's defense was worse than Rolen's, but his offense was much better, and the dude even won an MVP (and finished in the top 10 in voting three other times, compared to once for Rolen).  Kent was also significantly better in the postseason (the 2006 WS being the notable exception).  Helton was also a better offensive player than Rolen, even when you adjust for the Coors Field factor.  Keep in mind that I'm not really convinced that ANY of these guys truly belongs in, but there's no principled explanation for putting Rolen in but excluding Helton and Kent.  Helton got 71% of the votes this year, so he'll make it within the next 2 years, but Kent's off the regular ballot now.  He'll get in the first time whatever committee considers him (unless his surliness gets held against him).

[Glasser]

Bottom line is the HOF is shot. Its an insult to the true greats. Think of a slam dunk HOF'er, lets say Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Nolan Ryan, Ken Griffey Jr. (And there plenty more). I would say it can't even be debated why they are there. If you need to debate this hard if a player should be there, they shouldn't be there. The HOF is now a watered down joke.

[lordxizor]

To me, if they're not a first ballot HOFer, they likely shouldn't be there. Certainly not people who took decades to make it.

[Glasser]

To me, if they're not a first ballot HOFer, they likely shouldn't be there. Certainly not people who took decades to make it.

Exactly. You said what I meant, straight to the point! 

[KevShmev]

The problem there is that voters are nimrods, so players who should have been 1st balloters were not.  Plus, the media holds a grudge.  I guarantee that Kent's surliness that pg1067 mentioned is held against him. Same for Barry Bonds, who was always an a-hole to the media.  Meanwhile, Ortiz, a freaking DH, gets in on the first ballot because the media loves "Big Papi" and his smile.  Albert Belle is another whose bad attitude worked against him.  For him to get so little support and then fall off the ballot after only two years of consideration was a joke, and it shows what morons the voters are.   

[Glasser]

The problem there is that voters are nimrods, so players who should have been 1st balloters were not.  Plus, the media holds a grudge.  I guarantee that Kent's surliness that pg1067 mentioned is held against him. Same for Barry Bonds, who was always an a-hole to the media.  Meanwhile, Ortiz, a freaking DH, gets in on the first ballot because the media loves "Big Papi" and his smile.  Albert Belle is another whose bad attitude worked against him.  For him to get so little support and then fall off the ballot after only two years of consideration was a joke, and it shows what morons the voters are.

You're exactly right! If a specific voter had a personal issue with a player it sways them. Curt Schilling is considered one of the biggest assholes but was one of the best pitchers in the game. And the all time hits leader Pete Rose should be there, STOP already. A lot if not most of the greats were far from angels. Between the lines should be all that matters, but that's only me.

*** As far as Ortiz, he just flat out raked. I'm a Yankee fan and he crushed us. The pitcher could throw over to first base and he would find a way to put it in play.