Rightâit's already sudden death for visitors now but I wholeheartedly reject the premise that shortening games is any sort of priority. If it gets to extra innings, it's probably a fun game to be watching so why would I want less of that? I already don't like the Manfred Man because it makes that Happy Fun Time Ball⢠go by too fast.
There are also instances where the game is a boring pitcher's duel and extras just make it worse.
Rightâit's already sudden death for visitors now but I wholeheartedly reject the premise that shortening games is any sort of priority. If it gets to extra innings, it's probably a fun game to be watching so why would I want less of that? I already don't like the Manfred Man because it makes that Happy Fun Time Ball⢠go by too fast.
If MLB wants to shorten games even more, perhaps they could implement "sudden death" in extra innings - whoever scores first wins. Thoughts?
Or start with the bases loaded and 1 out....or 2 outs...or have a home run hitting contest with 5 pitches each. Time the fastest player to circle the bases?
They could do a lot to shorten the game... make all games 7 innings.
It can go too far.... the experience of going to the ballpark needs to remain valuable. I've heard complaints from my kids that if you go to get something to eat and hit the bathroom that you miss an inning or two. There is also value in getting those that showed up to pay for more of everything, and not feel like the $40 to park was extortion.
There is a balance, and I think right now things are pretty good.
Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at Gender:
Posted:
Jun 16, 2025 - 6:47am
PS.
I was talking to one of the upper management guys, who is my buddies godson, at his grandmothers funeral at the beginning of the season and Devers name came up in the conversation by me.
Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at Gender:
Posted:
Jun 16, 2025 - 6:39am
rgio wrote:
Assuming they got zero in return (which I don't think is the case....but.....)
Devers was apparently unwilling to discuss playing first base or DH, and was creating a distraction... possible cancer in the locker room.
What you got in return was NOT having to pay someone who you deem as a possible problem $250M for the next 8 years. That's very valuable.
I think in a few years you may look back with a different opinion.
I agree totally.
The handwriting was on the wall when John Henry had to fly in to talk to his $300M pissy boy.
He just wasnât happy with a big payday and wanted it his way, prima donna.
With that kind of money and to show up out of shape to Spring training was the beginning of the end.
But I still would have wished for one good player instead of the 4 they got.
The salary cap has been lowered.
Now to pay the hotdog venders before they go on strike. Lowest paid in all of MLB.
This trade isnât even in the same level as the Mookie Betts trade. That one hurt.
Red Sox SWEEP the Yankmees.
Then they trade Devers to San Francisco.
They get nothing of value in return.
WTF!
They get 2 young arms with club control AFAIK for several years. Harrison will join the club quickly (he was scheduled to start tonight in LA). Honestly I think Devers was not liking being the guy they were going to build a team around. I think the Giants are taking a massive gamble that he'll continue to produce and be a team player. Giants' 3B injured his hand and maybe it's worse than they let on. So they can put Devers there, and if Chapman comes back, Devers can DH. (edit) I guess they plan to DH him anyway. Giants go from "how are they still in the hunt?" to "Oh shit, Ohtani's pitching on Monday." I mean, "if the Dodgers get healthy they still have a chance."
Between the lines, it sounds like Devers was not happy and was demanding a trade. Front office problems sometimes do that.
