I get it. The rule is new. However, if you're not going to let the runner crash the catcher (Buster Posey rule), it is only fair that the C cannot block the plate. You saw Cozart throw his hands up as he crossed the plate. Where was he supposed to go? Can't slide. Can't bowl the C. Can't jump over him. He is forced to run around the C and try to get to the plate from behind. Rule is fair and was applied correctly.

 

Oh yeah, I assume 3B Coach was involved in sending Cozart which is why he was out by 20 feet!!! That dude is a clown.

Sure it does. None of those leagues would need a cap without the existence of free agency.

 

Doesn't make sense.

 

The cap prevents what you say is the problem with baseball: big market vs small market.

 

NBA and NFL proves that.

 

Why do you care how much money is involved? A cap makes it an even playing field.

 

FA hasn't ruined any sport.

Doesn't make sense. The cap prevents what you say is the problem with baseball: big market vs small market. NBA and NFL proves that. Why do you care how much money is involved? A cap makes it an even playing field. FA hasn't ruined any sport.

 

It makes perfect sense. It doesn't make sense to compare the 3 sports when they don't play by the same rules. The salary caps are a direct result of free agency, and without a cap free agency has everything in the world to do with the huge discrepancies in payrolls and competitive balance.

I'd be in favor of letting the runner take out the catcher if he is on the line period. It used to be you could do whatever you go wherever you wanted to hit that catcher. I would say make a rule that says you can hit the catcher only if he is in the lane, if he is deemed outside of the runners line and the runner hits him, out and automatic ejection. This rule now sucks

It makes perfect sense. It doesn't make sense to compare the 3 sports when they don't play by the same rules. The salary caps are a direct result of free agency' date=' and without a cap free agency has everything in the world to do with the huge discrepancies in payrolls and competitive balance.[/quote'] Flawed logic. I gave you two examples that disprove your belief that FA causes a huge disparity in team payrolls. Are you trying to say that if MLB had a cap there would STILL be the disparity ?

Flawed logic. I gave you two examples that disprove your belief that FA causes a huge disparity in team payrolls. Are you trying to say that if MLB had a cap there would STILL be the disparity ?

My logic isn't flawed at all, you simply can't see how free agency changed the landscape of sports. Your logic is like saying the town of Worthington, Ky didn't flood due to the Ohio River reaching levels about it's normal confines because Ashland and Catlettsburg didn't flood because they have flood walls. Sure Worthington wouldn't have flooded if they had flood walls, but it was still the rising water that caused it to flood. MLB doesn't have a salary cap, so it is free agency that causes the disparity. And obviously if MLB had a salary cap then no you wouldn't have the disparity in payrolls, but they don't, so free agency is in fact the reason for the disparity in payrolls.

I get it. The rule is new. However, if you're not going to let the runner crash the catcher (Buster Posey rule), it is only fair that the C cannot block the plate. You saw Cozart throw his hands up as he crossed the plate. Where was he supposed to go? Can't slide. Can't bowl the C. Can't jump over him. He is forced to run around the C and try to get to the plate from behind. Rule is fair and was applied correctly.

 

Oh yeah, I assume 3B Coach was involved in sending Cozart which is why he was out by 20 feet!!! That dude is a clown.

 

There's no doubt that the rule was applied correct...it's just a dumb rule. The runner should be able to take out the catcher, and the catcher should be able to block home plate.

And obviously if MLB had a salary cap then no you wouldn't have the disparity in payrolls, but they don't, so free agency is in fact the reason for the disparity in payrolls.

 

See, you agree. There would be no disparity if there was a cap.

 

FA isn't the reason there is a disparity. The disparity stems from a team's ability and/or desire to pay.

 

Heck, if we want to go the A begot B which begot C route:

 

MLB payrolls are so large because of TV revenue which comes from TV's ability to sell advertisement which comes from loyal baseball fans always watching.

 

So, therefore, my friend - YOU are the reason for today's OUTRAGEOUS baseball salaries.

 

You feel good about yourself?

See, you agree. There would be no disparity if there was a cap.

 

FA isn't the reason there is a disparity. The disparity stems from a team's ability and/or desire to pay.

 

Heck, if we want to go the A begot B which begot C route:

 

MLB payrolls are so large because of TV revenue which comes from TV's ability to sell advertisement which comes from loyal baseball fans always watching.

 

So, therefore, my friend - YOU are the reason for today's OUTRAGEOUS baseball salaries.

 

You feel good about yourself?

So you finally admit you are wrong because that is a huge IF. There is no cap, so free agency is the reason for the disparity. No free agency, no large payrolls. It's that simple.

Reds are 25% finished with their sweep.

 

Latos on the bump tonight.

There's no doubt that the rule was applied correct...it's just a dumb rule. The runner should be able to take out the catcher, and the catcher should be able to block home plate.

 

agree 100% with you and with Redmond. To have a game decided in that fashion is a joke. Cozart had no where to go, yes. But when you are thrown out by 15 ft it should be a moot point.

Bruce back, Partch optioned back to Louisville. Why Partch and not Hoover?

Bruce back' date=' Partch optioned back to Louisville. Why Partch and not Hoover?[/quote']

 

Does Hoover have options?

Hamilton CF

Bruce RF

Frazier 1B

Mesoraco C

Ludwick LF

Schumaker 2B

Negron 3B

Cozart SS

Latos P

Does Hoover have options?

 

Pretty sure he does. If not, oh well.