MaxPower said:

---

Think I'd prefer to trade him rather than hope we can resign him against the market. Sick of watching guys walk while only receiving a dart throw 3rd round draft pick.

---

Who's playing SS this year? We're rolling the dice on Pena and/or Nova? Diaz?

I think you could argue Carlos would be the difference between winning and losing the division. You think we pass on a year of contention to get a few prospects?

Look at the haul the Indians got for Lindor & Carrasco... its fine. It's not game-changing at this point. We'd get less for Correa at this point.

The draft pick would be end of the first assuming we stay under the luxury cap.

Exactly 3 weeks away

True. It depends on the deal. Why not Adames and a prospect from the Rays? Adames isn't Correa but has 3 more years of control and a solid SS (great hitter away from Tropicana). Rays might do it because they have Franco waiting in the wings anyway and Correa is better this year.

But yes it will come down to what you can get. I can't think of any other teams that could line up where you get some help on your club this year as well.

Only rich clubs trade for rentals. Why in the world would the Rays trade 3 years of Adames for 1 year of Correa much less add in a prospect also?

The only way we trade Correa is if we don't extend him and we suck ass this year.

Then maybe if we're out of it someone in need overpays at the deadline.

MLB experimenting with getting rid of shifts

Because they have Franco ready to take over at SS so makes more sense for them to maximize production at the position in 2021.

"must have"

Or else what? Is it a balk? That's the penalty specified for the catcher I think?

MLB. Telling computers nerds to get out of baseball since 2021.

I have a feeling it will be quite the drought between Tucker and the next homegrown hitter. Our minor league bats suck absolute donkey balls... again.

Leon?

redline248 said:

---

Your indifference has nothing to do with a rule specifically created to stop certain defensive positions. Ag 07's point is valid. It's no different than creating a rule that says you can't have 4 infielders on the front edge of the dirt.

---

Having 4 infielders on the front edge of the dirt would be useless and suicidal. Would you be outraged if they created that rule? I'd feel the same as I do about the shift, which is "who cares"? I don't see that it adds anything to the game, and I'm find without it if the powers that be think it will "make baseball great again".

It sounds to me like you just don't want more rules. I hate to say it but if you don't like rules, then maybe baseball is the wrong game.

To me it's like football formation rules. Here's the rules, play within them. I don't have a problem with that.

Yes I agree with you and I don't think it's any secret that wanting more runs scored is exactly what they want. I think specifically they want more hits in the field of play, because that's fun...and I mean let's face it, they're right - more hits and baserunning and guys legging out XBH and great throws and close plays at the bag is fun! Even more fun IMO than watching someone hit it into the Crawford Boxes.

Grounding into the shift is not fun. And it's not like they're adding a sideshow feature to jazz up the game or trying to turn it back into chicks dig the longball roid era. They're just trying to return it to the way it has been for 99% of it's existence.

Another thing to think about: I think we're all pretty hard core baseball fans relative to average joe fan that watches casually so we enjoy the nuance and the strategy. But baseball is falling behind, and part of it is that compared to other sports there's not enough action to get average joe or younger fans excited. I don't hate baseball for wanting to return elements to the game that make it more attractive to the casual fan...and like I said, I can't think of anything so good about the shift that I'd fight to keep it.

Creating a rule to "make it more fun" isn't the way like you think it is. What would make it more fun is if players learned at a younger age to hit a ball the other way. Hit the ball back up the middle, balls on the ground that get things moving. Instead from a very young age kids are taught launch angle and exit velo. Those aspects and aims create a certain type of hitter and that type of hitter is trying to hit home runs and the usual way to do that is by pulling the ball. It's all a snowball effect.

No I don't like the shift but it was created as a reaction to how hitters changed. If it is in effect long enough hitters would begin to learn to take the ball the other way and the shifts would decrease naturally as less players were elevating the ball and rolling over on it.

redline248 said:

---

...and as to baseball falling behind, I put that more on the league's terrible marketing and obstacles to viewing. There is no reason a fan in Texas should have to use a VPN or illegal stream to watch the Astros or Rangers. Yet, that is the case for a lot of households, if not the majority of them.

---

That'd be a little different than having all 4 at the front edge of the dirt, but I see your point.

I hear all of these points and some are very good and made me think about it in a different way. i agree that I wouldn't want rules limiting the many defensive strategies mentioned.

That said, I still don't have a problem with setting boundaries on the shift. I don't think its the first step towards eliminating analytics or defensive strategy or anything that grand or sinister and am still not sure why all the panties are wadded around here.

I want the highest level of baseball. I want players and managers to put their players in positions to prevent runs on defense and score as many runs on offense. If the stats says a player can't hit a ball in the certain part of the field then why should the defense be forced to put someone there. It would be like the NFL saying defenses couldn't bring extra defenders to the line on 4th and goal from the half hardline.

My whole deal is where do you draw the line?

If you're going to outlaw shifts shouldn't you also outlaw outfielders lining up to close a gap or eliminate no doubles alignment? How about just a coach waving over a guy to play left CF instead of straight up? I don't see a difference between either of those and an infield shift.

The lines are blurred and for me it just doesn't make any sense to make shifts against the rules but allow for other defensive alignments.