Keepleyland2

Yes. But you claim to know about prospect. You know you don't draft for positional need and you know the problems of drafting a first baseman only.

here's the list https://www.mlb.com/news/top-prospects-eligible-for-rule-5-draft

So how abut that rule 5 draft?

Fenech on a completely unnecessary war path this morning... https://www.freep.com/story/sports/mlb/tigers/2019/11/15/detroit-tigers-offseason-hires-rebuild/4191456002/

Ya'll gonna want to sit down for this news. LIke the Cy Young, no Tiger received votes for MVP

Country Strong!!!!!!!

And that's what usually happens when you trade very high level players. It's why many of us railed against trading JV in 2009, 10, 14, 15 etc.

Sure you do, just because someone is better doesn't mean they are ready.

In case anyone was wondering...no Tigers got votes

That's dumb. Gonna use the famous Motown sports analogy. You dont put a kid in Advanced placement calculus because he is good at algebra 1

So about the Astros?

But that's because they are winning. Your interested your invested. It doesn't change when you know there isn't much hope. I'll give you my personal example, in 2015 I couldn't get enough college football. Iowa was winning every week and I was watching every game I could. Oh they talked bad about us! Oh i need arkansas state to beat middle utah because it will raise our strength of schedule by .000000021. When Iowa is 8-4 or 6-6- or 4-8? I'll still watch on saturday, but that's about it. Same concept here. It wouldn't matter if the Tigers were 75 wins instead of 55 you wouldn't be checking in on every game. You'd would have accepted fate and knew in either situtation you weren't going to win the ultimate goal. You'd stil find other interest to fill those gaps. Once they win again you'll be right back to checking in on Oakland vs Toronto because it might have wild card implications.

Yes. You don't see the flucuations in the random odd years (our 2009 for exmaple). But, once a team is bad atendance is pretty much at mark X. SD is a great example. Since 2020. They've had one winnings season. A few 90 loses seasons in there a few 80s. They made some big trades and signed some huge free agents...attendance every year is about 2.2 million. The reds since their playoff run ended have hovered aroudn 1.8 million with 90 loss years. Spend some money, made a trade to bring in Kemp, Puig, Grey and everybody this year...their attendance was 1.8 million. The White sox have been around 1.7 million this decade whether they've gone 78-84 or 62-100. Now I dont have a great sample for us and the attendance is going down but that's because we've average 3 million for close to a decade. But, this year with 114 losses the attendance was 1.5. About the same as in 1992 when they went 75-87, and in 91 when they went 84-78 and 90 when they went 79-83 and in 89 when they went 59-103. Now, obviously there are park and other factors at play here. But, you can see about the same whether they are near 500 or crazy below (**** they had 1.36 million in 2003). This whole "I'd care more if they just put a better product on the field and only lost 89 instead of 110" is just an attempt to justify losing interest in one's head. It's natural to lose interest when your not contending and look for some type of way of hope to get it back. You know what will get it back winning alot. Not .500, the second the Tigers are back in teh playoff hunt, interest will go up and so will attendance, not to mention posts in the game threads. **** look at the Lions' threads. Early in the season, lots of posts. This week not so much. I doubt there would be any difference in the number of posts per week if the lions go 7-8-1 to finish the year or 3-12-1.

Bill O'Brien had winning seasons at Penn State while they had all their sanctions and has made the playoffs 3 out of five years in the NFL From the Browns you have Saban and Ferentz

Hey more power too you. But, I'm gonna guess the guy that got passed over for a TV guy with no experience, as well as 8 other jobs, is probably not the answer