Hoops!!! I know you're loving this Yankees run! Held serve at home with a 3-game streak! Pulling for them to get past Houston. I love some underdogs, and everyone all year thought it was going to be either Houston or Cleveland with most people saying Cleveland.

The young Yanks are looking dominant, now just need them to win an away game in this series.

(10-18-2017 08:02 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  Hoops!!! I know you're loving this Yankees run! Held serve at home with a 3-game streak! Pulling for them to get past Houston. I love some underdogs, and everyone all year thought it was going to be either Houston or Cleveland with most people saying Cleveland.

The young Yanks are looking dominant, now just need them to win an away game in this series.

Oh yeah! I didn't see it coming for sure. Honestly i went in to the PS just hoping they would win the WC game so the young guys could get some playoff experience. The magic is starting to feel a whole like 96 did! We are on vacay in Mexico but resort has at least a 100 inch projection! I watched the cubs from my balcony smoking a Cuban last night, that's clutch right there!

(10-13-2017 09:55 AM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(10-13-2017 08:10 AM)bricksnivy Wrote:  CG, is LA's offense better than Washington? I know they're stacked and were baseball's best team this year, but Washington had few holes from 1-8 in their lineup. Turner didn't have a great series, but his speed is a game changer, and facing Harper, Zimmerman, Murphy, Rendon, (excluding Wieters) and Taylor is a daunting challenge. I may change my mind in a week, but I think I'd rather see Seager, Turner and Bellinger than Harper, Zimmerman, Murphy, and Rendon. Taylor probably had better ABs than anyone the whole series.

Washington definitely has a monster lineup, but when I'm looking at consistency at the plate and manufacturing runs... for some reason the Dodgers worry me more than that Nationals lineup did. The Nationals offense was streaky. Luckily, they went cold right as the playoffs started (like they typically do). Not to mention you factor in the Cubs are who the Dodgers WANT. They want redemption after last year and you know they will be tuned up for this series. That factor worries me a bit. Our lineup isn't what it was last year either, IMO. We still don't really have a consistent leadoff man that scares a pitcher the way Dexter Fowler did. In the 2016 playoffs if Fowler got on base, pitchers instantly began to sweat. Our hitters haven't been as patient at the plate this year as they were last year either, forcing pitchers to work extra hard. More times than not our guys are hitting behind in the count.

I certainly think they CAN beat the Dodgers again, but I think it'll be harder than it was last year.

Bump...

told y'all. Anyways, congrats to the Dodgers. They have a stellar team this year and have the complete package that could deliver a WS like last year's Cubs. Best pitching, bullpen, and just a really, really, really good line-up that consistently gets it done top to bottom. There's not many holes in there. I'm hoping to see a Dodgers/Yankees WS, and honestly... I'll pull for the Yankees. Not because I like the Yankees, but I like the underdog in baseball (outside of my love for the Cubs). Could be another really good World Series! And when you look at the political BS the NFL product is putting out and arguably promoting, and the NBA just getting started, having back to back World Series that are exciting with fresh teams and stories is great for baseball. The MLB has needed this for a while. I just hope the umpiring is slightly better than it was in the Cubs/Dodgers series. They didn't lose it for the Cubs, but there were some reaaaaaaaally questionable calls at best, and at least one (Granderson K) that was an absolute train wreck of a call.

Shame that Hatcher was traded. It would have been nice to have a Hawk in the series again.

Sent from my SM-G900V using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-20-2017 11:34 AM)Proff Wrote:  Shame that Hatcher was traded. It would have been nice to have a Hawk in the series again.

Well that's part of why he was traded: He likely wouldn't have been on the Dodgers playoff roster. They sent Kenta Maeda from the rotation to the pen for playoff purposes, joining Kenley Jansen (closer), Brandon Morrow (2.06 ERA), Tony Watson (2.68), Ross Stripling (3.75), Tony Cingrani (2.79), Pedro Baez (2.95) and Josh Fields (3.98). There wouldn't have been room for him.

So he wouldn't have been in the World Series either way.

(10-20-2017 12:09 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 11:34 AM)Proff Wrote:  Shame that Hatcher was traded. It would have been nice to have a Hawk in the series again.

Well that's part of why he was traded: He likely wouldn't have been on the Dodgers playoff roster. So he wouldn't have been in the World Series either way.

He started the year with them and played, so IF they do win, he would get a ring correct?

(10-20-2017 12:10 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  He started the year with them and played, so IF they do win, he would get a ring correct?

Some players who were on the roster during seasons where teams win World Series get rings, but that's up to the discretion of each team.

(10-20-2017 12:16 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 12:10 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  He started the year with them and played, so IF they do win, he would get a ring correct?

Some players who were on the roster during seasons where teams win World Series get rings, but that's up to the discretion of each team.

Typically, he would get a ring, or it would at least be offered by LA. Not getting a ring would be an exception.

Well. Congrats to the Astros.

I'll say it, the Yankees not making the WS definitely made the Series less exciting to watch. I might catch a game or two here and there, but would have been more tuned in for a Yankees/Dodgers matchup, you know... since my Cubs didn't make it.

Pulling for the Dodgers to win it. I doubt that Hatcher gets a ring if they win the WS,most teams don't give WS rings to guys that are not with the team. as a result of a trade is what I have seen. Would be a nice gesture and they certainly have the money to do it.

Ring aside, it would have been nice to have a former Hawk in the WS again.

Sent from my SM-G900V using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-20-2017 12:21 PM)bricksnivy Wrote:  Typically, he would get a ring, or it would at least be offered by LA. Not getting a ring would be an exception.

Whether he gets a ring or not, it's not the same as pitching in a World Series and "winning" one. If he was still with the Dodgers but in AAA, I doubt he'd feel like he was part of that team that won it all.

For his career direction, the trade to the A's was a good thing. He has the potential of being a veteran leader on a team that has a ton of young players. I bet he'll be a clubhouse favorite.

(10-23-2017 11:18 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Whether he gets a ring or not, it's not the same as pitching in a World Series and "winning" one.

Of course, but that wasn't the question. If the Dodgers win the WS, they'll offer him a ring. He can choose to turn it down; he wouldn't be the first. Adam Warren accepted a ring from Chicago last year, but refused to have it presented publicly and stated that he didn't feel comfortable wearing it.

(10-23-2017 12:05 PM)bricksnivy Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:18 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Whether he gets a ring or not, it's not the same as pitching in a World Series and "winning" one.

Of course, but that wasn't the question. If the Dodgers win the WS, they'll offer him a ring. He can choose to turn it down; he wouldn't be the first. Adam Warren accepted a ring from Chicago last year, but refused to have it presented publicly and stated that he didn't feel comfortable wearing it.

Oh for sure, I know the conversation morphed into that, but originally, the discussion was about how it was a shame Hatcher got traded to the A's because he would have otherwise gotten to actually pitch in a World Series.

Whether he got traded by LA or not, it looks like there's a chance he could get a ring.

(10-23-2017 01:38 PM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 12:05 PM)bricksnivy Wrote:  

(10-23-2017 11:18 AM)Seahawk Nation 08 Wrote:  Whether he gets a ring or not, it's not the same as pitching in a World Series and "winning" one.

Of course, but that wasn't the question. If the Dodgers win the WS, they'll offer him a ring. He can choose to turn it down; he wouldn't be the first. Adam Warren accepted a ring from Chicago last year, but refused to have it presented publicly and stated that he didn't feel comfortable wearing it.

Oh for sure, I know the conversation morphed into that, but originally, the discussion was about how it was a shame Hatcher got traded to the A's because he would have otherwise gotten to actually pitch in a World Series.

Whether he got traded by LA or not, it looks like there's a chance he could get a ring.

I look for good things out of Chris in Oakland. Dodgers pen is nice. I'll be surprised if they don't win it all. I've got LA in 6.

(10-23-2017 02:26 PM)bricksnivy Wrote:  I look for good things out of Chris in Oakland. Dodgers pen is nice. I'll be surprised if they don't win it all. I've got LA in 6.

It's gonna be a very interesting series. Dodgers have the better pen and the better overall pitching because of Kershaw alone, but Houston is no joke, especially in their building. If they can steal one of the first 2 games in LA, watch out!

Personally, I feel like the Cubs losing their offensive touch this year and HORRID bullpen made the Dodgers appear a lot better than they actually are. No doubt, they're very good but the Cubs absolutely falling apart in that entire series made them look unstoppable. And don't forget, as bad as the Cubs looked... the Dodgers only led one of those games they won wire to wire. The other three they had to come back to win.

Astros in 5.

08 Does it burn you to see former Mets turn into way better players after they leave. I'm thinking of 2 in particular, Turner and Murphy.

(10-25-2017 08:46 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  08 Does it burn you to see former Mets turn into way better players after they leave. I'm thinking of 2 in particular, Turner and Murphy.

I actually thought Murphy has declined since he left the Mets.

(10-25-2017 08:46 AM)Seahawkhoops Wrote:  08 Does it burn you to see former Mets turn into way better players after they leave. I'm thinking of 2 in particular, Turner and Murphy.

Murphy no. Turner yes.

Murphy is still a defensive liability. Always was gonna be that way. He also hit his apex with the Mets during that magical postseason. What, exactly, has he accomplished since? Nice lefty hitter but it was the right move to let him walk, both at the time and in hindsight.

Turner would have been a centerpiece at third base after David Wright began his decline.