This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
It could also be how GMs valued veterans back then. by No Right Turn on Red
Back in the day, it seemed common for teams to sign someone who they could "depend on" to give someone a rest every once in a while. These players were relatively cheap (Mabry made about $500,000-$1,000,000 per year on single year contracts in his 30s).
When it comes to bench players nowadays, you see teams willing to depend on young prospects over veterans. The players are cheap, and it gives teams the opportunity to see what they've got. Rather than signing a player with a long track history of mediocre at best.
There are still exceptions. For example, the Cardinals give at bats to Taylor Motter last year. Or the Cardinals giving at bats to Brandon Crawford and Matt Carpenter this year.