Jeff Loria once again proves that he is the greatest troll in MLB.

Jose Reyes, Mark Buehrle, Josh Johnson and John Buck traded to Toronto for Adeiny Hechavarria, Yunel Escobar and "others".

Giancarlo Stanton tweets:

Leaving Miami with exactly $16 million worth of non-arbtration payroll.

And the AL East looking like the Premier League (with the Red Sox as QPR).

What is the antithesis of Miami ? Like the way Miami is so much better in theory than in practice, what is the opposite of that ?

In city terms, I don't know.

In baseball terms, probably Oakland?

Oakland's close, but the Marlins did win the 2 titles. I guess I'm thinking of a place where teams shouldn't be doing well, but are in terms of fan base and results.

The Marlins ownership are basically day traders with players being stock. It's crazy that this same team has been involved in salary dump trades -- and big trades -- three times in the last 15 years. I have to say that I never liked the Marlins but I think they have moved to the the top of list of most hated.

It's not all the same regime. The previous pump-and-dumps were by Wayne Huizinga, IIRC.

jasoñ voorhees wrote:


This year, the Reds are probably the closest other than the A's. A few years back it was the Twins - a great exciting team in a terrible stadium drawing pretty well. They're rebuilding now.

Well if the Blow Jobs can't do better than third in their division now, they never will.

This could be a great day for baseball in Canada.

Keith Olbermann: Move the Rays to Montreal

His point is thus: The Rays face an uphill battle to get public money for a new ballpark in a market that's less than optimal anyway. Old, poor, transplants, has bizarre geography that means the best place for a park is somewhere in the middle of Tampa Bay. With the Loria move, any chance of public funding is gone. So move the Rays to Montreal.

Admittedly there are holes all over that idea - who's going to own a Montreal team, will it be Sternberg? He's going to be paying for a stadium in Montreal because nobody in Quebec is ponying up more than a small sum of money.

But there's also some sound logic to it - the Loria move has become such a big deal that it will surely have a knock-on effect for the same team in the same state. The Rays are much better run, but not so much better that any trade of an expensive player is not going to be held against them as proof that they will be just like Jeff Loria if they get a new park.

And Montreal is better than any market that doesn't already have a team. And probably better than Tampa itself. The only place that would be better than Montreal is the New York/New Jersey area and I just don't think Sternberg will ever convince the Yankees/Mets to allow a third team.

There has been at least a little smoke about it lately, too. Some investors met with the mayor last year, there are claims the Rays are interested...oh, I wouldn't be dusting off Youppi's Expos jersey or anything, but it's plausible.

It would certainly be something if Loria's fire sale led to the return of baseball in Montreal.

In some ways this city is well prep'd for a MLB team. There's a stadium — originally planned for baseball — which would need a bit of retrofitting but could do the job. There's money. A fast growing population base of almost 2.5 million. And, given the demographics, more potential fan interest than ever. If franchises are on the move, I wouldn't be surprised if someone here took a flyer.

Toronto and Montreal would have to be in the same division. End of story.

I'm all for it.

I need the Nordiques and Expos to return on the same day, however. That's my only caveat.

Toronto and Montreal would have to be in the same division. End of story.

Not really. The Canada Day game was always more of a low-key national love-fest. There was never any rivalry. The Jays need to be in a division with Detroit, those series's were intense.

Buster Posey wins NL MVP, surprising no one, but Miguel Cabrera easily wins AL MVP over Mike Trout, making a lot of people upset. The freakout on Twitter was pretty amusing to me.

Piss on those who have a problem voting for a triple crown winner (who is not a DH) as MVP.

Ok. A little strong there. Trout had a great season and is a great ball player, but Cabrera is the man.

I appreciate and mostly agree with the sabermetricians on this, but it's silly to get too up in arms about it. MVP will always be a combination of great numbers plus "intangibles" since it's voted on by sportswriters.

It's like the Hall of Fame voting. Somebody's always going to be outraged. But since there's no real agreed upon measure of "fame" or "value," that's how it's going to be.

Cabrera had a great season, and it was cool to see somebody win the triple crown.

Cal Alamein wrote:


I think that had Cabrera not won the triple crown that Trout might have won MVP. But I'm guessing that most of the voters thought "how could the first triple crown winner in 45 years not be MVP?"

"I will never be a Hall of Famer and will never lead the league in strikeouts."

Cy Young Award winner R.A.Dickey's first line in his biography. He was on All Things Considered last night and appeared to be a really great guy. Outstanding spirit.

The Trout vs Cabrerra debate, while not important in itself, has revealed just how closed-minded and ignorant many of America's "leading" sportswriters really are. They don't seem to understand that the "stat geeks" aren't just making up metrics, they're describing what is actually happening in the game.

They also don't seem to know the definition of "intangible" and they also fail to recognize that the Angels had a better record than the Tigers.