I get that, but that might actually have been market value for his production if they’d kept him, and they *could *have kept him longer. He could have been more fearsome at the plate, but he was far from useless, and could still play an adequate 1B. However, now Moreland will play more, and maybe slug about as well, and Swihart can now actually get an AB or two sometime and get his own bat going.
So, it looks like Dombrowski believes more in Swihart’s bat than Hanley’s, come October, and he has a record of being right. Now, about that bullpen depth, Dave, whaddaya got going? A deal to trade Hanley for some, maybe?
But if they trade him, they trade the contract, yes? So the option would still vest with the 497 PAs. Not an easy trade. On the other hand, I’m surprised they didn’t keep him longer.
I cannot imagine why anyone would want him. “Okay hitter for a right fielder but he can only play first, and he’s 34 and will cost you a lot of money this year” isn’t really something anyone needs.
Here’s an article offering some speculation. I’m dubious about all of them, but damn, I follow the Orioles and didn’t realize what a horrible season Chris Davis was having. Jesus.
Davis has always been streaky, and has always struck out a lot, but he’s been horrendous this year. Of course, so have pretty much all of the O’s except Machado.
Isn’t Paul Goldschmidt flirting with the Mendoza line? It makes Bryce Harper’s .230 seem not as bad. It does help that Harper is still hitting a lot of homers.
He’s apparently sitting on it at the moment. During the Dodgers/Rockies series, the announcers were commenting on the fact that the D-Backs’ slide seemed to be corresponding with Goldschmidt’s own slide. He’s got a career OPS of .919, but he’s currently at .695. Which is, astonishingly, still more than 200 points better than Chris Davis.
To be fair, Harper actually leads the NL in both homers and walks, so he’s in the top 10 in OPS in his league. Obviously you would like him to hit way above .230, but this is a misleading .230.
Gleyber Torres homers in fourth straight game. It’s not Memorial Day weekend, it’s Gleyber Day weekend. The AL East is a two-horse race, what a shame that the loser will have the second best record in MLB and be consigned to a Wild Card and have no home advantage in the post season no matter how inferior a team they wind up facing.
Yep, win the division. So the Yanks will feel compelled to trade for a starter at some point and the Red Sox will trade to fill their needs.
Also Houston will probably pick up their winning pace and it will be tough for both the Red Sox and Yanks to keep up their pace. I feel like the Yanks have a better chance at a great run though, the bullpen can actually improve just with the current players and most of our starters are easier to upgrade from with the right trade. The depth for the hitters is no bordering on ludicrous. Drury is stowed in AAA, Tyler Austin is waiting for the next Bird injury and will probably get many starts against lefties. If Gardy or Hicks falter, Clint Frazier is also aching to go stored at AAA. We might statistically have the single best utility man in Ronald Torreyes (currently). Though it is asking a lot for his current hot hand to stay hot. The team is trying to set the all time team Home Run record and with Gleybor joining the party, the odds look doable.
Regarding home field advantage: The LCS is the only round in which the WC winner could face a worse team (defined as one with a worse record in the regular season) without getting home advantage. And there’s a decent chance that if the wild card winner gets that far it will play a team with a better record anyway, even the way things are going this season.
The bigger issue, I’d think, is that (if the standings continue more or less as they are) there may be a significant “penalty” for having the best record in the league. Best record will play the wild card team, which could win 100+ games this season. Second-best record will play Cleveland, which is on pace to win, what, 80? Now, this might be a be-careful-what-you-wish-for kind of scenario–the Cardinals won the 2006 World Series after a regular season just over .500, after all–but it’s not great to have a scenario in which there may be an advantage to winning FEWER games than someone else.
Things like this have been happening for a long time. In 1973, for example, the Mets were 82-79 worse than 3 teams in the NL west and only a half game better than Houston. I recall pulling for a sub .500 winner of the NL East that year to see if they’d change things at all. The Mets, of course, beat the Reds and went to the WS.
It the division had been true east-west, Cincinnati (and Atlanta) would have been eastern teams.
Kind of a weird scheduling quirk for the Cubs. They have a very rare Saturday night game tonight for a Fox national broadcast followed by the Sunday night game for our ESPN masters.