The A's clear the hurdles to Vegas, MLB's owners don't want to try, there’s another sexual assault allegation against Trevor Bauer, and we talk about foreign substances, surgeries, and dem bones
Repeating my standing offer: in exchange for lodging, food/drink, and a small stipend, I will relocate to a western Hawaiian Island and edit the newspaper at the end of my night, five days a week. Does this beach have wifi?
Oh, I specifically meant one of the westernmost islands of the archipelago. Think Ni'ihau (if they let me on), or more likely Kaua'i, O'ahu (hey I like cities), or (my preference because I'm really a pretty good comp to Jesus Christ) Moloka'i. Big island's too big and Mau'i doesn't appeal, too touristy.
Who was a better cover band? Manfred Mann with their Springsteen covers (Blinded By The Light, For You, and Sprit in the Night) or Van Halen (You Really Got Me, Dancing in the Streets, Where Have All the Good Times Gone, You're No Good, Pretty Woman, et. al.)?
As for Van Halen, they did make those songs their own (for better or worse), but I'll always remember the Rolling Stone review of Diver Down, the last paragraph of which ended with words to the effect of:
"Van Halen says there's a little Van Halen in each of us, but unfortunately there's too little Van Halen in this album."
Now excuse me while I rack Mean Streets, which had *plenty* of Van Halen.
Diver Down, my least fav DLR-era VH album, was pulled together so quickly due to pressure on Eddie from outside that he didn't have time to write new material, hence all the covers. I've always though of Diver Down like it was an exhibition record--a spring training record.
You want a hot take from me, a huge Springsteen fan?
I don't know what his most underrated album is, but I'm pretty sure his most overrated album is Greetings From Asbury Park. I just don't really get down with session musicians backing Young Boss and his rhyming dictionary.
The Wild The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle is leagues better and Born To Run is leagues better than that, and it's not even in my top 3 albums by Springsteen!
If we're talking about Manfred Mann beyond their Springsteen covers? Tossup, especially if "The Mighty Quinn" counts as a cover (I'm never sure how to treat songs that Bob Dylan wrote but didn't actually release himself, not at the time at least). If we're strictly comparing Manfred Mann's Springsteen covers to anything Van Halen ever covered?
I don't think Expos history was totally left in Montreal. Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, and Tim Raines are all in the Ring of Honor at Nats Park and when franchise records for individual achievements are discussed, some of those include records set by Expos.
The NFL did keep all Browns franchise history in Cleveland and assigned it to the expansion Browns that started play after the originals moved to Baltimore (the town where all Browns franchises relocate to) but with Vegas due to be the fourth city that the A's call home, it's harder to make the case that records should be left behind in each city.
Don't get me wrong; it sucks for the fans when a team relocates, regardless of the sport.
I was SomeGuyInPA growing up, and was either not yet born or too young to appreciate the two relocations of the Senators from DC, or the mid-70s tease of the Padres almost moving to DC, but it's amazing to me just how relatively often relocation has happened in the four major professional leagues in the US:
I keep seeing articles insisting that ATL is going to work this time since all the teams in the South have fans, but that seems like abject nonsense.
As much as I would love to see a team back in Quebec City, the NHL is dead set against playing in what is perceived as a small market with a meager economy. And Hartford would need to get permission from the Rangers and the Bruins. (Same reason that Hamilton, ONT is out, just with the Maple Leafs.) The frontrunner is probably Houston.
A developer who is building a mixed use project in Alpharetta north of ATL proper has said he wants an NHL team as the anchor tenant. I highly, highly doubt it happens again but it is already having a very, very low level buzz.
The Governor of CT is pushing hard for Hartford, and claims there is a group ready to buy the 'Yotes, and, additionally, that the arena that couldn't be updated enough to keep the Whalers/Canes in the city back in the day can somehow be updated sufficiently for a 21st century franchise. And, also, the leg just passed a substantial income tax *decrease*, and roads are crumbling, so, how?
The Coyotes obviously need to move. But it feels like Bettman has put so much stock in making desert hockey a thing that he won't pull the plug. Even if a deal happens, Gary will be standing in front of the moving trucks like he's the Tiananmen Square Tank Man.
I missed the departure of the first Senators but I was 7 years old when the new team fled to Texas. I also collected the whole set of Washington NL Topps cards for 1974 when the Padres were supposedly coming.
Losing a team sucks - and all the people who make fun of us for worrying that prolonged poor performance will make the Nats leave don't understand how awful it is.
I remember Roger Crozier even suited up in goal a few games for the Caps before he became GM. At the time he was far better than any Caps netminder to date (with all due respect to Bernie Wolf). Crowd chants of "Go Cro Go!" Abe Pollin always seemed to favor the Bullets, all the way to the day he severed the Caps from his ownership group and sold them to Leonsis (until the 90s, the two franchises and arena, respectively, were owned by separate partnerships, each controlled by Abe). The fact is, as of the time of the "Save The Caps" campaign, Pollin was defending lawsuits brought by one or more partners in the arena partnership, alleging that Pollin was playing games with arena revenues to cover team losses.
I didn't pull the data down to torture it in python, but it seems that it's slowed down a bit. Maybe the population shifts in the US have slowed, maybe the financial barriers to movement have increased, maybe something else. The A's to Los Vegas still makes no sense to me; no local market, hotter than hell for an outdoor sport, who wants to fly to LV for a game the second time?
My guess on next relocs: Arizona NHL, Jacksonville NFL, New Orleans NFL; all for different reasons. The Coyotes end up in Canadia no matter how Bettman hates the Canadian dollar.
One should also consider the long(er)-term habitability of the region. Even if you have a domed stadium, who's going to want to leave home (or their hotel) when it's 120 degrees outside? And water is being strictly rationed?
Jacksonville will be interesting. They've easily got the best QB in the division right now, and so should be setup for regular contention for making the post-season. However, the AFC overall is brutal, so getting beyond the first weekend of the playoffs is always going to be a challenge, no matter how good Lawrence turns out to be.
Will a run of division championships along with first or second round exits be enough to keep fans engaged?
The NFL, I think, would be loathe to have a Florida team leave. It's convinced beyond reason that the state, being a college football hotbed, can support three teams, even if there is nothing in reality to suggest that Jacksonville is a good home for a team. But as long as Khan is willing to play along with the "games in London" thing, everyone will pretend it's fine.
I think part of it is as simple as, due to both expansion and previous relocations, leagues are running out of markets.
It's one thing when a team wants to go from being the second team in a large city to the only team in another large city. But now most of these are medium/small-market to medium-small market.
The main outlier in all this is the run on NHL teams in the 90s, but that was based in a conflict over the historical and cultural roots of the sport in Canada and the economic roots of the league in the US.
I am starting to wonder, though, if all the teams want out of Oakland because it's not white and rich enough. I haven't heard anyone say that, but I really do wonder.
Going back to the Charlie Finley era, Oakland has never drawn well. When they are winning (Bash Bros, Moneyball, etc) they are near leagues median rather than climbing as high as their peers. But when they aren’t winning, fans don’t show up. Yes, they are ugly bad now and made it obvious they were one foot out the door, but that is not the 50 year story.
Though was really stings, and really stinks, is the Warriors moving to a city with a tiny Black population. Yes, still in the area, but I always took that as a message that even if your players and your fans are Black people, you really just want money from rich white folks that can only be found in San Francisco. I am still surprised there wasn't more protest about that, or some move by Oaklanders to abandon the Dubs. (Being an incredibly good team with several players dedicated to social justice probably helped with keeping the fans, though.)
Counterpoint: When Vancouver had a basketball team, a friend said that the starting five are the only Black people who live in town. Vancouver drew poorly and disembarked for Memphis eventually.
Pretty depressing when it’s so common I didn’t even remember the examples from the last couple years.
As a resident of greater Cleveland, I grew up fairly near to the Richfield coliseum, a truly ridiculous stadium in the middle of a rural field so fans wouldn’t have to drive into the “scary big city”
When the Thunder left for Oklahoma City part of the deal was the history of the Sonics stayed in Seattle. But they were breaking a lease so the city had leverage. Of course it’s not clear where the A’s are playing the next few seasons until the ballpark is ready.
Vegas has a ballpark. Let 'em play there as the Aviators. The Aviators can come play in Oakland as the Athletics (Triple-A's?) and the MLB team can pay to tear down Mount Davis and bring the rest of the park up to code as the price to get out of town. I bet the Triple-A's will outdraw the MLB team even after the new stadium is built. And then when it's time for minor league affiliations to change the Triple-As can get a new club (SF makes sense) and the Aviators can have whatever city is left when the music stops (Sacramento?).
Brits won't spend the money on a decent stadium because they think it's a niche sport. Until they get a real European league, it won't happen. There are better baseball stadiums in Europe, but they don't have the seating to make it work.
A Mets win! A good start by Verlander! A split against the hated (by the fans, not by the players) Evil Empire! Life is good!
Drew Smith can appeal the suspension, of course, but as we recall from Mad Max's case, the appeal is heard from one of Manfred's lackeys. So I have to wonder why the union doesn't push back and demand a more objective appeal process. Surely union rep Max Scherzer has talked to Tony Clark abou this.
The situation with Vogelbach is weird, and I think we are just seeing a team that likes him too much as a person to make a good baseball decision. It's a shame that he can't be like one of those veteran NBA guys who is on the roster and never plays and serves as a mentor or buddy to younger guys. But baseball isn't like that. He should be DFA'ed. Though I sort of hope he gets to steal a base first.
Four cases against Bauer, and zero trials. I am not the sort who demands people go to prison for everything, but if there is a person who deserves to stop having freedom, it might be Bauer. (OK, it might also be Donald Trump, but even Trump has been indicted more times than Bauer.)
Don’t know about Vogelbach and speaking about this generally because it comes up once a week somewhere. (And daily when Heyward was with the Cubs.)
MLB clubs are not running charities. They don’t pay (or play) people because they’re nice guys. They’re trying to win. Though nice guys get a longer leash than homophobic bigots. You don’t trade for a guy and re-sign him unless you believe he can contribute. And a couple months usually doesn’t change that.
The last thing the Mets want is to release Vogelbach and watch him help the Phillies beat them out for the Wild Card. You want to be darn sure he’s done as a MLB player before you cut him.
If Smith's story of the league official telling him there was nothing on his hands is true, then why was he suspended? I know the suspension is "automatic" w/the ejection. But if an MLB person essentially cleared him, then it's odd that said person didn't say to the discipline people, "Hey, just let this one go."
Yeah, there's something hinky here, especially given that after the game it turned out that Robertson was checked before he came into the game (and, presumably, before he had taken his warm-up pitches on the mound, using the mound rosin bag, and before he had had a chance to work up a sweat), and been judged sticky, but nonetheless allowed to pitch. So what gives?
Wasn't German told to wash his hands and only ejected earlier this year when he was still sticky? Why shouldn't they give Smith (and every other pitcher) the same opportunity, especially if he's yet to throw a pitch?
Feels like they want to give Vogelbach a few days to clear his head, not that it’s a mental health issue (as Craig suggested) though perhaps a sports psychologist is in order.
Bauer is a great example of how hard it is to prove sexual assault or rape, and probably many times harder when the sex starts as consensual.
Let’s be honest; the Nats were going to find a way to lose that game eventually anyway, and were only fortunate to be tied in the 9th because the Astros threw the ball all over the field, and Dom Smith of all people decided to hit a triple. (Full disclosure: as Smith came to bat, I messaged a friend predicting he’d GIDP to end the game. He didn’t.) That said, they need to get a handle on the baseline rule; I think it’s really simple – if you run on the grass in fair territory while the ball is in play, you are out. Make it reviewable. It shouldn’t be this hard.
PS I am against the cost-cutting on tech and analytics for no other reason than I don’t want the Nats to be permitted to continue cheaping out on it the way they have.
PPS Darkly amusing thread on Twitter last night about the Athletics beginning their journey back east… One person suggested that after Vegas, they should have to play in Kansas City again (but in Kansas this time), and then I suggested Philadelphia, MS as their next stop. It felt cruel for the baseball gods to end their winning streak on the same night the Nevada legislature basically paved their way out of town.
See you in Minneapolis, friends! I will be the guy in the Nats cherry blossom cap.
I am glad Davey didn't blow a gasket at the end of the game. What is it about Houston and that play--the same thing happened to the Nats in the 2019 WS--Trea Turner was called out for being hit with a bad throw while running to first and Davey got ejected for arguing (and looked as if he was going to have a stroke, as well).
And yes, I was as surprised as anyone when Dom Smith hit the fourth triple of his seven-year career. Couldn't see that coming.
Personally, I believe admitting our mistakes is a point of integrity.
We have a glazier who is 53 years old and has been at it since he was 18. A tremendous amount of knowledge and the best service work glazier (think custom hardware) that you'll find. The dude regularly busts his ass to fault someone else for his slip ups. I routinely tell him he is the most confident, unconfident person I've ever met.
I regularly tell my kids if you aren't making mistakes you aren't trying. Hell, I just made a mistake on a project this morning. That's why I always have a line item for the OSF (Oh Shit Factor).
How about the league issue statements about every time a manager goes out and argues a dipshit ball/strike call from an oblique angle 70' from the plate. And then suspends them for three days. the league and the fans need to stop the insanity of abusing the umpires and just get back to the game.
Umpires are under attack right now. There are dozens of websites and news sites that post everyday about a supposed mistake or missed call, calling them stupid, ignorant, embarrassing and all kinds of other things. All by people who have never once umpired a game and wouldn't recognize a rule book if it was handed to them, and don't know the difference between obstruction and interference.
These are people who go to their job every day just to get booed and attacked by spectators and the media. What do you think would happen if one of them admitted to making a mistake? It's more than just getting their feelings hurt thing. Its a physical danger. Umpires are attacked all over the country and the world on a regular basis. Umpires can't admit to mistakes because the so-called fans of the game have turned every call into a life or death situation.
Also, the league knows when they make a mistake. All of this is evaluated and used to decide promotions, post-season, etc. And has been for a long time. How would you like your evaluation at work to be released to the public?
It's not about not admitting mistakes. It's about protecting themselves. From some of the very people on this site who go apeshit every day because an umpire made a call based on a rule the complaining person doesn't even know.
It's one of those things, like the old neighborhood play. Most manager rarely came out and argued about unless it was just so obvious they had to, or to put on a show. You know why?
They want the same call themselves. If they went and complained about a neighborhood call and got it overturned while their team was batting, they would never get it called for them again when on defense. The umpires called it because that's what the managers wanted.
Sabremetrics before anyone knew about. I'll give up some of my outs on offense to get outs on defense.
This is the same thing. Every team teaches their players to run inside the line. For the fact that it causes this kind of play, and then leave it to the umpire to take the heat. Managers would go argue about it to look good to the fans, and know it wouldn't be overturned. And not care, because they were going to get the same exact call. And the umpires do it because it's what the teams want.
Martinez screwed up. He argued about it and showed up the umps. If he had kept his mouth shut, he would have gotten the same call on offense. Its not going to happen know.
No, it's the fact that just basic technological advancements mean that more people can see the bad calls. And not just with Mythbusters-level instant replay, either.
Wait, I'm having trouble following this. Martinez screwed up because he argued a call on a play that cost his team the game? He "showed up" the umps by arguing, so he is not going to get the same call on offense? Leaving aside the fact that this same call went against him in the 2019 World Series, and another call of the same nature went against the Nats last year, the larger question should be why would umpires hold grudges against managers who "show them up" by arguing calls? That's an argument that validates the existence of #umpshow.
Not a huge leap, just a turn toward the bag. When the ball hit his helmet, the runner was directly over first. Ruiz hadn't even released the ball yet in the photo Davey was waving around.
"A runner's base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely."
The wording is important. The base path is established (created) "when the tag attempt occurs." in other words, until there is a tag attempt, there is no base path. And then this: The base runner is out if "running more than three feet away from the baseline to avoid being tagged." At the moment the base path is established (when the tag is attempted), the runner cannot veer more than three feet to the left or right of the base path for the purpose of avoiding a tag.
It's important that a base path only exists when a fielder is attempting to make a tag. At all other times there is no base path (no such thing) and in fact the runner is free (at his peril) to run pretty much anywhere he wishes. There are limits to this (see Rule 5.09(b)(10) regarding "making a travesty of the game"); however, the central point remains: the base runner creates his own base path.
Rule 5.09(a)(11) Comment: The lines marking the three-foot
lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to
have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking
the lane. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot
lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate
vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base
The rule I quoted. From the rulebook. I didn't post the rule, because I thought it might prompt you to go look it up. Which you didn't.
Please point out the words' designated hitters' in the rule I posted? This is the problem with you fanboys. Not only can you not read the rulebook, you can't even find the right rules when it's given to you.
My comment wasn't snippy. It was correct. But I'm starting to understand why you can't understand the difference.
Much as I appreciate your insight from an umpire’s perspective, that’s not the rule. The batter has to be in foul territory the second half of the way if a play is being made.
Yes, it is. You obviously didn't read the rule, or you would have seen that it's the rule that specifically addresses the running lane. Other lane rules are rules that don't cover this specific play.
It's about the running lane. Not the path between the bases.
Correct. Rule 5.09(c)(11) provides that the batter/runner is out for running inside the baseline if "while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs [inside the line] ... and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base ...." So the picture Martinez showed to the press isn't especially relevant, in that the batter/runner wasn't interfering with the play at the time of the picture. The question is where he was when he interfered with the play.
Based on the replays I've seen, it looks like the ball makes contact with the glove and/or helmet around the same time as when he's reaching the base. At that point, his right foot (about to strike the bag) is nearly touching the foul line.
What would really help in these situations is the proposed solution from softball -- use a double base where half extends into foul territory and require the batter to use the outer half.
As long as umpires aren’t going to call it, runners are going to run inside the line. It’s hard play to make when the runner is where he’s supposed to be. If he’s inside the line, it’s a needle to thread with the throw.
As long as umpires aren’t going to call it, runners are going to run inside the line. It’s hard play to make when the runner is where he’s supposed to be. If he’s inside the line, it’s a needle to thread with the throw.
Anyone notice that the Athletics have now won more games than the Royals. Who should have a cap on how much they can spend in the front office, because incompetence should come cheap.
Too bad for the O's Kyle Bradish last night, who turned in probably the best start of his career, going seven innings and giving up only a solo homer. But Jose Berrios was even better, so kudos to him.
And Nato, the internet says it didn't happen if there aren't photos. Have a great weekend.
This is me not saying "boy, I hope those game vs. Milwaukee spark the Twins!" Because I've said such things before and no spark ensued. So I'm not saying it now. Nope.
Spencer Strider is really going through some things right now. He only got the W yesterday because the Braves blew up for 5 runs in the 4th and managed to build a lead the bullpen couldn't blow, despite Raisel Iglesias's best efforts to do so.
On a positive note, good to see Michael Harris II snapping out of it, and Eddie Rosario contributing a bit.
Velocity is down a little and his location within the strike zone was down right bad. Pitchers are either injured or about to be. And he is someone who lives on the very edge.
That “cheap” long term contract he signed may, unfortunately, be a good gamble for him.
...
In game two Ronald Acuna Jr tagged and scored on a pop up to the second baseman. The fielder was backing up but wasn’t turned around away from the plate. And the throw was not even close. Wow!
A second good sign for his knee: leading off 1B there was a grounder behind him. The fielder stepped on the back, taking away the force, and then threw to SS. Eventually Acuna was tagged out but stayed in a rundown a long time going back and forth.
Now that the A's have cleared the last hurdle to move to Vegas, how long do you think it'll be until they change the logo from the italicized 'A' to an Ace of Spades?
Personally I think a Ace of Clubs, in green and the club illustration stylized as a clover, would be more on the nose, but the owners doing anything to call back to the current team and it's history is doubtful.
I don't know if they've cleared all the hurdles. I already saw rumblings last night about a possible petition for a ballot initiative. If they can get enough people to get this on a ballot, then even Vegas might take the odds off the board.
It definitely sucks for Oakland and I'm sad for the city, but I'm very interested to see how the team brands itself going forward. How far is too far to have a team more or less in the pocket of Sin City? Will their armband ads shill for a casino? (It's quite possible) Will they have slot machines in the concourse? (I'm going to say yes) I love your Ace of (something) logo idea.
Note that the Nats do have a great deal of history with that play. Around here it is referred to as The Trea Turner Play. Game 6 of the 2019 World Series - Trea was called out for interference for EXACTLY the same thing.
I feel for the A's fans. I've been to games at Oakland twice. The ballpark is objectively a dump, but they've always been fun. One time a group of A's fans started to trash talk my group of friends since we were mostly wearing Tigers hats. The A's were playing the Angels. Go figure. The second time was one of those famous foggy days in the Bay Area. Myself, my buddy who lived in SF, and Mrs. Cosmo drank Pacificos in the parking lot and then joined probably 8,000 other fans to watch the game. Don't remember who the A's were playing but we collectively decided Josh Outman was our new favorite player since A) what a perfect name for a pitcher, and B) he was wearing stirrups.
I was at 2-3 As games back in the 1980s. Don’t remember the stadium being a dump, but there’s a lot of stuff I did in 80s that I now only vaguely remember. But back to the ballpark— has it always been this bad, or was it continuous neglect that’s gotten it to this point?
"The Nevada state senate vote didn’t come until late in the day, but hours earlier it had become clear hours that something was in the works with the bill to build the Oakland A’s a stadium in Las Vegas. The day before, Gov. Joe Lombardo had signed several bills that he had previously opposed, including one requiring that health insurance cover gender-affirming care; then came word yesterday morning that the stadium bill was being amended to include two measures Lombardo had previously vetoed: a prevailing wage minimum for monorail projects and a 12-week family and medical leave law for projects getting tax abatements."
Now this does not mean that I will ever support public financing of private stadiums. But I can't say I am unhappy that the Dems leveraged some good things out of this morass.
Yeah Simon, I saw and read all that too. I wonder if it's a big-picture win for Nevada public policy, tempered by the fiscal mistake of funding a MLB ballpark? We'll see.
But I do know this: all of these concessions the Nevada state leg got from Lombardo could have been gotten for a ballpark for an expansion team instead.
Repeating my standing offer: in exchange for lodging, food/drink, and a small stipend, I will relocate to a western Hawaiian Island and edit the newspaper at the end of my night, five days a week. Does this beach have wifi?
Oh, I specifically meant one of the westernmost islands of the archipelago. Think Ni'ihau (if they let me on), or more likely Kaua'i, O'ahu (hey I like cities), or (my preference because I'm really a pretty good comp to Jesus Christ) Moloka'i. Big island's too big and Mau'i doesn't appeal, too touristy.
Boo this man!
Related...
Who was a better cover band? Manfred Mann with their Springsteen covers (Blinded By The Light, For You, and Sprit in the Night) or Van Halen (You Really Got Me, Dancing in the Streets, Where Have All the Good Times Gone, You're No Good, Pretty Woman, et. al.)?
I'm on your side on Blinded By The Light.
As for Van Halen, they did make those songs their own (for better or worse), but I'll always remember the Rolling Stone review of Diver Down, the last paragraph of which ended with words to the effect of:
"Van Halen says there's a little Van Halen in each of us, but unfortunately there's too little Van Halen in this album."
Now excuse me while I rack Mean Streets, which had *plenty* of Van Halen.
Fair Warning for the win.
Diver Down, my least fav DLR-era VH album, was pulled together so quickly due to pressure on Eddie from outside that he didn't have time to write new material, hence all the covers. I've always though of Diver Down like it was an exhibition record--a spring training record.
You want a hot take from me, a huge Springsteen fan?
I don't know what his most underrated album is, but I'm pretty sure his most overrated album is Greetings From Asbury Park. I just don't really get down with session musicians backing Young Boss and his rhyming dictionary.
The Wild The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle is leagues better and Born To Run is leagues better than that, and it's not even in my top 3 albums by Springsteen!
Should we attempt a ranking?
Steve Hyden did one of those recently and it was mostly correct but if there was ever a reason for a Cup of Coffee Commentariat assignment…
I just wish someone in the studio would have requested that the singer work on his pronunciation of "deuce".
If we're talking about Manfred Mann beyond their Springsteen covers? Tossup, especially if "The Mighty Quinn" counts as a cover (I'm never sure how to treat songs that Bob Dylan wrote but didn't actually release himself, not at the time at least). If we're strictly comparing Manfred Mann's Springsteen covers to anything Van Halen ever covered?
Van Halen in a walk.
You're in deep doo-doo-wah-diddy for that comment, bub.
I don't think Expos history was totally left in Montreal. Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, and Tim Raines are all in the Ring of Honor at Nats Park and when franchise records for individual achievements are discussed, some of those include records set by Expos.
The NFL did keep all Browns franchise history in Cleveland and assigned it to the expansion Browns that started play after the originals moved to Baltimore (the town where all Browns franchises relocate to) but with Vegas due to be the fourth city that the A's call home, it's harder to make the case that records should be left behind in each city.
Don't get me wrong; it sucks for the fans when a team relocates, regardless of the sport.
I was SomeGuyInPA growing up, and was either not yet born or too young to appreciate the two relocations of the Senators from DC, or the mid-70s tease of the Padres almost moving to DC, but it's amazing to me just how relatively often relocation has happened in the four major professional leagues in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_professional_sports_teams_in_the_United_States_and_Canada
And there is likely to be a relocation in hockey since no one in Arizona wants the Coyotes around.
Yup, just not sure where they'd go.
Quebec?
Bring back the Whale?
Atlanta, this time we'll support the team, we promise?
I keep seeing articles insisting that ATL is going to work this time since all the teams in the South have fans, but that seems like abject nonsense.
As much as I would love to see a team back in Quebec City, the NHL is dead set against playing in what is perceived as a small market with a meager economy. And Hartford would need to get permission from the Rangers and the Bruins. (Same reason that Hamilton, ONT is out, just with the Maple Leafs.) The frontrunner is probably Houston.
A developer who is building a mixed use project in Alpharetta north of ATL proper has said he wants an NHL team as the anchor tenant. I highly, highly doubt it happens again but it is already having a very, very low level buzz.
I think Houston is the popular answer.
The Governor of CT is pushing hard for Hartford, and claims there is a group ready to buy the 'Yotes, and, additionally, that the arena that couldn't be updated enough to keep the Whalers/Canes in the city back in the day can somehow be updated sufficiently for a 21st century franchise. And, also, the leg just passed a substantial income tax *decrease*, and roads are crumbling, so, how?
The Coyotes obviously need to move. But it feels like Bettman has put so much stock in making desert hockey a thing that he won't pull the plug. Even if a deal happens, Gary will be standing in front of the moving trucks like he's the Tiananmen Square Tank Man.
I will say this: Bettman works hard to maintain his title as worst commissioner (though the guy running the PGA is really making strides).
I missed the departure of the first Senators but I was 7 years old when the new team fled to Texas. I also collected the whole set of Washington NL Topps cards for 1974 when the Padres were supposedly coming.
Losing a team sucks - and all the people who make fun of us for worrying that prolonged poor performance will make the Nats leave don't understand how awful it is.
We almost lost the Caps, too - https://www.nhl.com/capitals/news/save-the-caps-was-caps-greatest-save/c-335370564
I was surprised I missed this but then I realized I was in college which meant the outside world didn't exist ;)
I remember Roger Crozier even suited up in goal a few games for the Caps before he became GM. At the time he was far better than any Caps netminder to date (with all due respect to Bernie Wolf). Crowd chants of "Go Cro Go!" Abe Pollin always seemed to favor the Bullets, all the way to the day he severed the Caps from his ownership group and sold them to Leonsis (until the 90s, the two franchises and arena, respectively, were owned by separate partnerships, each controlled by Abe). The fact is, as of the time of the "Save The Caps" campaign, Pollin was defending lawsuits brought by one or more partners in the arena partnership, alleging that Pollin was playing games with arena revenues to cover team losses.
I didn't pull the data down to torture it in python, but it seems that it's slowed down a bit. Maybe the population shifts in the US have slowed, maybe the financial barriers to movement have increased, maybe something else. The A's to Los Vegas still makes no sense to me; no local market, hotter than hell for an outdoor sport, who wants to fly to LV for a game the second time?
My guess on next relocs: Arizona NHL, Jacksonville NFL, New Orleans NFL; all for different reasons. The Coyotes end up in Canadia no matter how Bettman hates the Canadian dollar.
One should also consider the long(er)-term habitability of the region. Even if you have a domed stadium, who's going to want to leave home (or their hotel) when it's 120 degrees outside? And water is being strictly rationed?
Jacksonville will be interesting. They've easily got the best QB in the division right now, and so should be setup for regular contention for making the post-season. However, the AFC overall is brutal, so getting beyond the first weekend of the playoffs is always going to be a challenge, no matter how good Lawrence turns out to be.
Will a run of division championships along with first or second round exits be enough to keep fans engaged?
Jacksonville will be moving to London
The NFL, I think, would be loathe to have a Florida team leave. It's convinced beyond reason that the state, being a college football hotbed, can support three teams, even if there is nothing in reality to suggest that Jacksonville is a good home for a team. But as long as Khan is willing to play along with the "games in London" thing, everyone will pretend it's fine.
I'm not sure about NOLA. There are a lot of renovations going on at the Super Dome.
I think part of it is as simple as, due to both expansion and previous relocations, leagues are running out of markets.
It's one thing when a team wants to go from being the second team in a large city to the only team in another large city. But now most of these are medium/small-market to medium-small market.
The main outlier in all this is the run on NHL teams in the 90s, but that was based in a conflict over the historical and cultural roots of the sport in Canada and the economic roots of the league in the US.
I am starting to wonder, though, if all the teams want out of Oakland because it's not white and rich enough. I haven't heard anyone say that, but I really do wonder.
Going back to the Charlie Finley era, Oakland has never drawn well. When they are winning (Bash Bros, Moneyball, etc) they are near leagues median rather than climbing as high as their peers. But when they aren’t winning, fans don’t show up. Yes, they are ugly bad now and made it obvious they were one foot out the door, but that is not the 50 year story.
Baseball certainly has a history with this thinking; look no further than Calvin Griffith’s reasoning for moving the senators to Minnesota
And the Barves moving from ALT to the burbs.
Though was really stings, and really stinks, is the Warriors moving to a city with a tiny Black population. Yes, still in the area, but I always took that as a message that even if your players and your fans are Black people, you really just want money from rich white folks that can only be found in San Francisco. I am still surprised there wasn't more protest about that, or some move by Oaklanders to abandon the Dubs. (Being an incredibly good team with several players dedicated to social justice probably helped with keeping the fans, though.)
Counterpoint: When Vancouver had a basketball team, a friend said that the starting five are the only Black people who live in town. Vancouver drew poorly and disembarked for Memphis eventually.
Pretty depressing when it’s so common I didn’t even remember the examples from the last couple years.
As a resident of greater Cleveland, I grew up fairly near to the Richfield coliseum, a truly ridiculous stadium in the middle of a rural field so fans wouldn’t have to drive into the “scary big city”
Of all teams to make this argument, I’d think that the Philadelphia slash Kansas City slash Oakland As are near the bottom for whom it is justified.
When the Thunder left for Oklahoma City part of the deal was the history of the Sonics stayed in Seattle. But they were breaking a lease so the city had leverage. Of course it’s not clear where the A’s are playing the next few seasons until the ballpark is ready.
Vegas has a ballpark. Let 'em play there as the Aviators. The Aviators can come play in Oakland as the Athletics (Triple-A's?) and the MLB team can pay to tear down Mount Davis and bring the rest of the park up to code as the price to get out of town. I bet the Triple-A's will outdraw the MLB team even after the new stadium is built. And then when it's time for minor league affiliations to change the Triple-As can get a new club (SF makes sense) and the Aviators can have whatever city is left when the music stops (Sacramento?).
Anyone going to the games in London next weekend? We did a pre-game pub crawl through the bowels of London last time. Anyone interested?
Ignorant American question, but does London have a dedicated baseball stadium that MLB uses or do they just convert a footy pitch into a ballpark?
This year it’s in London Stadium, home of West Ham.
Same as last time.
It's the Olympic Stadium. Not a dedicated baseball park, but not terrible. A circular stadium.
Too much foul ground and a short center field, but the rest is all good. Field was in good condition.
Brits won't spend the money on a decent stadium because they think it's a niche sport. Until they get a real European league, it won't happen. There are better baseball stadiums in Europe, but they don't have the seating to make it work.
A Mets win! A good start by Verlander! A split against the hated (by the fans, not by the players) Evil Empire! Life is good!
Drew Smith can appeal the suspension, of course, but as we recall from Mad Max's case, the appeal is heard from one of Manfred's lackeys. So I have to wonder why the union doesn't push back and demand a more objective appeal process. Surely union rep Max Scherzer has talked to Tony Clark abou this.
The situation with Vogelbach is weird, and I think we are just seeing a team that likes him too much as a person to make a good baseball decision. It's a shame that he can't be like one of those veteran NBA guys who is on the roster and never plays and serves as a mentor or buddy to younger guys. But baseball isn't like that. He should be DFA'ed. Though I sort of hope he gets to steal a base first.
Four cases against Bauer, and zero trials. I am not the sort who demands people go to prison for everything, but if there is a person who deserves to stop having freedom, it might be Bauer. (OK, it might also be Donald Trump, but even Trump has been indicted more times than Bauer.)
Don’t know about Vogelbach and speaking about this generally because it comes up once a week somewhere. (And daily when Heyward was with the Cubs.)
MLB clubs are not running charities. They don’t pay (or play) people because they’re nice guys. They’re trying to win. Though nice guys get a longer leash than homophobic bigots. You don’t trade for a guy and re-sign him unless you believe he can contribute. And a couple months usually doesn’t change that.
The last thing the Mets want is to release Vogelbach and watch him help the Phillies beat them out for the Wild Card. You want to be darn sure he’s done as a MLB player before you cut him.
If Smith's story of the league official telling him there was nothing on his hands is true, then why was he suspended? I know the suspension is "automatic" w/the ejection. But if an MLB person essentially cleared him, then it's odd that said person didn't say to the discipline people, "Hey, just let this one go."
Yeah, there's something hinky here, especially given that after the game it turned out that Robertson was checked before he came into the game (and, presumably, before he had taken his warm-up pitches on the mound, using the mound rosin bag, and before he had had a chance to work up a sweat), and been judged sticky, but nonetheless allowed to pitch. So what gives?
Wasn't German told to wash his hands and only ejected earlier this year when he was still sticky? Why shouldn't they give Smith (and every other pitcher) the same opportunity, especially if he's yet to throw a pitch?
Feels like they want to give Vogelbach a few days to clear his head, not that it’s a mental health issue (as Craig suggested) though perhaps a sports psychologist is in order.
Bauer is a great example of how hard it is to prove sexual assault or rape, and probably many times harder when the sex starts as consensual.
Let’s be honest; the Nats were going to find a way to lose that game eventually anyway, and were only fortunate to be tied in the 9th because the Astros threw the ball all over the field, and Dom Smith of all people decided to hit a triple. (Full disclosure: as Smith came to bat, I messaged a friend predicting he’d GIDP to end the game. He didn’t.) That said, they need to get a handle on the baseline rule; I think it’s really simple – if you run on the grass in fair territory while the ball is in play, you are out. Make it reviewable. It shouldn’t be this hard.
PS I am against the cost-cutting on tech and analytics for no other reason than I don’t want the Nats to be permitted to continue cheaping out on it the way they have.
PPS Darkly amusing thread on Twitter last night about the Athletics beginning their journey back east… One person suggested that after Vegas, they should have to play in Kansas City again (but in Kansas this time), and then I suggested Philadelphia, MS as their next stop. It felt cruel for the baseball gods to end their winning streak on the same night the Nevada legislature basically paved their way out of town.
See you in Minneapolis, friends! I will be the guy in the Nats cherry blossom cap.
I am glad Davey didn't blow a gasket at the end of the game. What is it about Houston and that play--the same thing happened to the Nats in the 2019 WS--Trea Turner was called out for being hit with a bad throw while running to first and Davey got ejected for arguing (and looked as if he was going to have a stroke, as well).
And yes, I was as surprised as anyone when Dom Smith hit the fourth triple of his seven-year career. Couldn't see that coming.
The batter is pretty much allowed to run anywhere he wants to. It only matters at the exact moment the ball hits him where he is.
I can't tell, is that picture just showing the runner, or showing the ball hitting him? One is important, the other isn't.
Personally, I believe admitting our mistakes is a point of integrity.
We have a glazier who is 53 years old and has been at it since he was 18. A tremendous amount of knowledge and the best service work glazier (think custom hardware) that you'll find. The dude regularly busts his ass to fault someone else for his slip ups. I routinely tell him he is the most confident, unconfident person I've ever met.
I regularly tell my kids if you aren't making mistakes you aren't trying. Hell, I just made a mistake on a project this morning. That's why I always have a line item for the OSF (Oh Shit Factor).
Mistakes happen.
I think the NBA regularly issues statements admitting that certain calls were missed. MLB should do that, too. Would be credibility-adding.
"Schrodinger's runner." Ha!
How about the league issue statements about every time a manager goes out and argues a dipshit ball/strike call from an oblique angle 70' from the plate. And then suspends them for three days. the league and the fans need to stop the insanity of abusing the umpires and just get back to the game.
Let them play!
Umpires are under attack right now. There are dozens of websites and news sites that post everyday about a supposed mistake or missed call, calling them stupid, ignorant, embarrassing and all kinds of other things. All by people who have never once umpired a game and wouldn't recognize a rule book if it was handed to them, and don't know the difference between obstruction and interference.
These are people who go to their job every day just to get booed and attacked by spectators and the media. What do you think would happen if one of them admitted to making a mistake? It's more than just getting their feelings hurt thing. Its a physical danger. Umpires are attacked all over the country and the world on a regular basis. Umpires can't admit to mistakes because the so-called fans of the game have turned every call into a life or death situation.
Also, the league knows when they make a mistake. All of this is evaluated and used to decide promotions, post-season, etc. And has been for a long time. How would you like your evaluation at work to be released to the public?
It's not about not admitting mistakes. It's about protecting themselves. From some of the very people on this site who go apeshit every day because an umpire made a call based on a rule the complaining person doesn't even know.
It's one of those things, like the old neighborhood play. Most manager rarely came out and argued about unless it was just so obvious they had to, or to put on a show. You know why?
They want the same call themselves. If they went and complained about a neighborhood call and got it overturned while their team was batting, they would never get it called for them again when on defense. The umpires called it because that's what the managers wanted.
Sabremetrics before anyone knew about. I'll give up some of my outs on offense to get outs on defense.
This is the same thing. Every team teaches their players to run inside the line. For the fact that it causes this kind of play, and then leave it to the umpire to take the heat. Managers would go argue about it to look good to the fans, and know it wouldn't be overturned. And not care, because they were going to get the same exact call. And the umpires do it because it's what the teams want.
Martinez screwed up. He argued about it and showed up the umps. If he had kept his mouth shut, he would have gotten the same call on offense. Its not going to happen know.
You know, all of this went on for 100 years before instant replay, and no one knew anything about it except the people playing THEIR sport.
It's only the 24-hour video cycle that's sucked all the fun out of the game.
No, it's the fact that just basic technological advancements mean that more people can see the bad calls. And not just with Mythbusters-level instant replay, either.
Wait, I'm having trouble following this. Martinez screwed up because he argued a call on a play that cost his team the game? He "showed up" the umps by arguing, so he is not going to get the same call on offense? Leaving aside the fact that this same call went against him in the 2019 World Series, and another call of the same nature went against the Nats last year, the larger question should be why would umpires hold grudges against managers who "show them up" by arguing calls? That's an argument that validates the existence of #umpshow.
No, it's an explanation of the history of the game. Two completely different things.
It's really hard to explain baseball to people who don't know anything about the game except the jersey number of their favorite player.
Not a huge leap, just a turn toward the bag. When the ball hit his helmet, the runner was directly over first. Ruiz hadn't even released the ball yet in the photo Davey was waving around.
Yep. Copy/pasted from UmpireBible.com:
The base path is defined in Rule 5.09(b)(1):
"A runner's base path is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely."
The wording is important. The base path is established (created) "when the tag attempt occurs." in other words, until there is a tag attempt, there is no base path. And then this: The base runner is out if "running more than three feet away from the baseline to avoid being tagged." At the moment the base path is established (when the tag is attempted), the runner cannot veer more than three feet to the left or right of the base path for the purpose of avoiding a tag.
It's important that a base path only exists when a fielder is attempting to make a tag. At all other times there is no base path (no such thing) and in fact the runner is free (at his peril) to run pretty much anywhere he wishes. There are limits to this (see Rule 5.09(b)(10) regarding "making a travesty of the game"); however, the central point remains: the base runner creates his own base path.
Rule 5.09(a)(11) - that's the rule you need. And from the rulebook, not a website
I went to the rule book and quoted the right rule with commentary from UmpireBible. The rule you cite is about designated hitters.
I am not on this site to pick fights and will not respond to snippy comments.
Rule 5.09(a)(11) Comment: The lines marking the three-foot
lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to
have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking
the lane. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot
lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate
vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base
The rule I quoted. From the rulebook. I didn't post the rule, because I thought it might prompt you to go look it up. Which you didn't.
Please point out the words' designated hitters' in the rule I posted? This is the problem with you fanboys. Not only can you not read the rulebook, you can't even find the right rules when it's given to you.
My comment wasn't snippy. It was correct. But I'm starting to understand why you can't understand the difference.
Much as I appreciate your insight from an umpire’s perspective, that’s not the rule. The batter has to be in foul territory the second half of the way if a play is being made.
Source: https://www.mlb.com/glossary/rules/fielder-right-of-way
Yes, it is. You obviously didn't read the rule, or you would have seen that it's the rule that specifically addresses the running lane. Other lane rules are rules that don't cover this specific play.
It's about the running lane. Not the path between the bases.
Correct. Rule 5.09(c)(11) provides that the batter/runner is out for running inside the baseline if "while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs [inside the line] ... and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base ...." So the picture Martinez showed to the press isn't especially relevant, in that the batter/runner wasn't interfering with the play at the time of the picture. The question is where he was when he interfered with the play.
Based on the replays I've seen, it looks like the ball makes contact with the glove and/or helmet around the same time as when he's reaching the base. At that point, his right foot (about to strike the bag) is nearly touching the foul line.
What would really help in these situations is the proposed solution from softball -- use a double base where half extends into foul territory and require the batter to use the outer half.
I've been validated by Fred Garvin. This might truly be the best day of my life.
As long as umpires aren’t going to call it, runners are going to run inside the line. It’s hard play to make when the runner is where he’s supposed to be. If he’s inside the line, it’s a needle to thread with the throw.
As long as umpires aren’t going to call it, runners are going to run inside the line. It’s hard play to make when the runner is where he’s supposed to be. If he’s inside the line, it’s a needle to thread with the throw.
I'll be in my Davenport Recliners regalia.
Anyone notice that the Athletics have now won more games than the Royals. Who should have a cap on how much they can spend in the front office, because incompetence should come cheap.
Which cat is the editor?
Too bad for the O's Kyle Bradish last night, who turned in probably the best start of his career, going seven innings and giving up only a solo homer. But Jose Berrios was even better, so kudos to him.
And Nato, the internet says it didn't happen if there aren't photos. Have a great weekend.
Thanks StephenS - there will be pics, it will have happened!
This is me not saying "boy, I hope those game vs. Milwaukee spark the Twins!" Because I've said such things before and no spark ensued. So I'm not saying it now. Nope.
I guess I also hope this? I just wish that this particular scenario wasn't how it went down.
The Tigers have one win in June. Which is the same number of homers Miggy has for the season, having hit his first one last night.
thats still one more HR than Tim Anderson though.
Spencer Strider is really going through some things right now. He only got the W yesterday because the Braves blew up for 5 runs in the 4th and managed to build a lead the bullpen couldn't blow, despite Raisel Iglesias's best efforts to do so.
On a positive note, good to see Michael Harris II snapping out of it, and Eddie Rosario contributing a bit.
Velocity is down a little and his location within the strike zone was down right bad. Pitchers are either injured or about to be. And he is someone who lives on the very edge.
That “cheap” long term contract he signed may, unfortunately, be a good gamble for him.
...
In game two Ronald Acuna Jr tagged and scored on a pop up to the second baseman. The fielder was backing up but wasn’t turned around away from the plate. And the throw was not even close. Wow!
A second good sign for his knee: leading off 1B there was a grounder behind him. The fielder stepped on the back, taking away the force, and then threw to SS. Eventually Acuna was tagged out but stayed in a rundown a long time going back and forth.
Now that the A's have cleared the last hurdle to move to Vegas, how long do you think it'll be until they change the logo from the italicized 'A' to an Ace of Spades?
Personally I think a Ace of Clubs, in green and the club illustration stylized as a clover, would be more on the nose, but the owners doing anything to call back to the current team and it's history is doubtful.
I don't know if they've cleared all the hurdles. I already saw rumblings last night about a possible petition for a ballot initiative. If they can get enough people to get this on a ballot, then even Vegas might take the odds off the board.
It definitely sucks for Oakland and I'm sad for the city, but I'm very interested to see how the team brands itself going forward. How far is too far to have a team more or less in the pocket of Sin City? Will their armband ads shill for a casino? (It's quite possible) Will they have slot machines in the concourse? (I'm going to say yes) I love your Ace of (something) logo idea.
Note that the Nats do have a great deal of history with that play. Around here it is referred to as The Trea Turner Play. Game 6 of the 2019 World Series - Trea was called out for interference for EXACTLY the same thing.
I feel for the A's fans. I've been to games at Oakland twice. The ballpark is objectively a dump, but they've always been fun. One time a group of A's fans started to trash talk my group of friends since we were mostly wearing Tigers hats. The A's were playing the Angels. Go figure. The second time was one of those famous foggy days in the Bay Area. Myself, my buddy who lived in SF, and Mrs. Cosmo drank Pacificos in the parking lot and then joined probably 8,000 other fans to watch the game. Don't remember who the A's were playing but we collectively decided Josh Outman was our new favorite player since A) what a perfect name for a pitcher, and B) he was wearing stirrups.
I was at 2-3 As games back in the 1980s. Don’t remember the stadium being a dump, but there’s a lot of stuff I did in 80s that I now only vaguely remember. But back to the ballpark— has it always been this bad, or was it continuous neglect that’s gotten it to this point?
I just saw this on Field of Schemes:
"The Nevada state senate vote didn’t come until late in the day, but hours earlier it had become clear hours that something was in the works with the bill to build the Oakland A’s a stadium in Las Vegas. The day before, Gov. Joe Lombardo had signed several bills that he had previously opposed, including one requiring that health insurance cover gender-affirming care; then came word yesterday morning that the stadium bill was being amended to include two measures Lombardo had previously vetoed: a prevailing wage minimum for monorail projects and a 12-week family and medical leave law for projects getting tax abatements."
Now this does not mean that I will ever support public financing of private stadiums. But I can't say I am unhappy that the Dems leveraged some good things out of this morass.
Yeah Simon, I saw and read all that too. I wonder if it's a big-picture win for Nevada public policy, tempered by the fiscal mistake of funding a MLB ballpark? We'll see.
But I do know this: all of these concessions the Nevada state leg got from Lombardo could have been gotten for a ballpark for an expansion team instead.