And a big thanks to those that missed my posts here while I was sitting on a jury.
Your e-mails and pm's are appreciated....
[ November 17, 2011, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
Stevie Williams
Stevie Williams
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Stevie Williams
Steroid era aside, there has never been a breakout home run period for a player over a two year period like Roger Maris.
Maris hit 100 home runs during the 1960-61 seasons.
This was totally unfathomable before he did it and some still have different theories on how Maris accomplished it.
In short, he was the perfect hitter (dead pull), at the perfect time (new teams in the league), at the perfect ball park (Yankee Stadium, with a short porch in right field)
Maris was among the best right fielders in the game when the game was flush with excellent right fielders in Clemente, Aaron, and Kaline.
After the record, Maris was treated in the 60's as a Vietnam war vet was treated in the 70's. Not as a hero, but someone to be shunned. Their stories are similar. Maris and the war vets never asked for their events to happen. They were just doing their jobs and as a result, society, for the most part, turned their backs on them.
Maris was scoffed at. It was hard for folks to think that a 'nobody' could even be mentioned with the likes of Babe Ruth.
They wanted an asterisk.
They wanted their 'real hero'.
They wanted Mickey Mantle to break the record.
They wanted an apology.
For those that served in Vietnam, they came home to derision and were asked how they could serve in such a war.
As if they had a choice.
As if it was something they preferred.
As if the questioners wouldn't do the same.
Since then, generations have come to the realization that both Maris and the Vets should be saluted.
They prevailed in an atmosphere where many wished failure.
They excelled in spite of public opinion.
And although most Vets and Maris did not get to experience the about face of their achievements by the masses, their families did.
At least there is that.
[ November 17, 2011, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
Maris hit 100 home runs during the 1960-61 seasons.
This was totally unfathomable before he did it and some still have different theories on how Maris accomplished it.
In short, he was the perfect hitter (dead pull), at the perfect time (new teams in the league), at the perfect ball park (Yankee Stadium, with a short porch in right field)
Maris was among the best right fielders in the game when the game was flush with excellent right fielders in Clemente, Aaron, and Kaline.
After the record, Maris was treated in the 60's as a Vietnam war vet was treated in the 70's. Not as a hero, but someone to be shunned. Their stories are similar. Maris and the war vets never asked for their events to happen. They were just doing their jobs and as a result, society, for the most part, turned their backs on them.
Maris was scoffed at. It was hard for folks to think that a 'nobody' could even be mentioned with the likes of Babe Ruth.
They wanted an asterisk.
They wanted their 'real hero'.
They wanted Mickey Mantle to break the record.
They wanted an apology.
For those that served in Vietnam, they came home to derision and were asked how they could serve in such a war.
As if they had a choice.
As if it was something they preferred.
As if the questioners wouldn't do the same.
Since then, generations have come to the realization that both Maris and the Vets should be saluted.
They prevailed in an atmosphere where many wished failure.
They excelled in spite of public opinion.
And although most Vets and Maris did not get to experience the about face of their achievements by the masses, their families did.
At least there is that.
[ November 17, 2011, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Stevie Williams
Sam Crawford
.
.
.
.
.
.When we say, 'Records that will never be broken', we talk of Joe DiMaggio and Cy Young, and others that have accomplishments like Johnny VanDerMeer that will never be duplicated.
A fella that should be in this conversation is Sam Crawford. Sam Crawford's heydays were while playing alongside Ty Cobb in the early 1900's.
Crawford mentored young Cobb in fielding and base running till Cobb realized that his physical abilities exceeded Crawford's.
The mentor-pupil relationship turned to a rivalry. It was made worse by Tiger Management who allowed Cobb liberties that other players were not afforded.
Cobb was allowed to show up late for spring training. He was allowed his own seat on the bus. He had his own hotel room on trips.
This and Cobb's personality, not only provided a rift for Crawford, but for all Detroit players. When Nap LaJoie beat out Cobb on the last day of the season for a batting championship, most of the Tigers sent LaJoie letters of appreciation. Some even collected money to send him.
Walter Johnson was beginning his career and faced the Tigers. The Big Train threw well, but was taunted throughout the game by Cobb for looking like a 'hayseed' and someone who fell out of a farmers truck. As time went by after this game, Crawford and Johnson became best friends. A friendship they would share throughout their careers.
Johnson was known to 'go easy' on batters he liked and never give in to players he disliked.
It always confounded Cobb that Crawford could hit Johnson so easily while he couldn't touch him.
Crawford's untouchable records are 12 inside the park home runs in a season and 309 career triples.
Both will never be touched.
Crawford had almost 3,000 career hits, yet had to be 'veterans committeed' to reach the Hall of Fame. Another embarrassment for those voters.
Just to show how difficult Crawford's 309 triples over a lifetime is to break, consider this-
Of the top 50 lifetime triples hitters, the most recent player on the list is Roberto Clemente who last played 40 years ago in 1972.
Sam Crawford should be remembered. Even if it is to just use his name as the answer for a trivia question.
Great ball players should always be remembered. Crawford was a great player.
[ November 18, 2011, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
.
.
.
.
.
.When we say, 'Records that will never be broken', we talk of Joe DiMaggio and Cy Young, and others that have accomplishments like Johnny VanDerMeer that will never be duplicated.
A fella that should be in this conversation is Sam Crawford. Sam Crawford's heydays were while playing alongside Ty Cobb in the early 1900's.
Crawford mentored young Cobb in fielding and base running till Cobb realized that his physical abilities exceeded Crawford's.
The mentor-pupil relationship turned to a rivalry. It was made worse by Tiger Management who allowed Cobb liberties that other players were not afforded.
Cobb was allowed to show up late for spring training. He was allowed his own seat on the bus. He had his own hotel room on trips.
This and Cobb's personality, not only provided a rift for Crawford, but for all Detroit players. When Nap LaJoie beat out Cobb on the last day of the season for a batting championship, most of the Tigers sent LaJoie letters of appreciation. Some even collected money to send him.
Walter Johnson was beginning his career and faced the Tigers. The Big Train threw well, but was taunted throughout the game by Cobb for looking like a 'hayseed' and someone who fell out of a farmers truck. As time went by after this game, Crawford and Johnson became best friends. A friendship they would share throughout their careers.
Johnson was known to 'go easy' on batters he liked and never give in to players he disliked.
It always confounded Cobb that Crawford could hit Johnson so easily while he couldn't touch him.
Crawford's untouchable records are 12 inside the park home runs in a season and 309 career triples.
Both will never be touched.
Crawford had almost 3,000 career hits, yet had to be 'veterans committeed' to reach the Hall of Fame. Another embarrassment for those voters.
Just to show how difficult Crawford's 309 triples over a lifetime is to break, consider this-
Of the top 50 lifetime triples hitters, the most recent player on the list is Roberto Clemente who last played 40 years ago in 1972.
Sam Crawford should be remembered. Even if it is to just use his name as the answer for a trivia question.
Great ball players should always be remembered. Crawford was a great player.
[ November 18, 2011, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Stevie Williams
Just a follow-up to the Sam Crawford story....
After Ty Cobb died, it was found that he had many letters that were written imploring Hall of Fame voters to vote in Crawford.
He had always said that Crawford was a great player, but that he had to play second fiddle to a guy on his own team.
Crawford had no idea that Cobb was doing this on his behalf. Maybe Cobb wasn't such a bad guy after all.
Over 100 years later, they would both get a chuckle in seeing that Crawford still holds the N.L. record with 12 inside the park home runs, while Cobb is the A.L. leader for a season with nine.
After Ty Cobb died, it was found that he had many letters that were written imploring Hall of Fame voters to vote in Crawford.
He had always said that Crawford was a great player, but that he had to play second fiddle to a guy on his own team.
Crawford had no idea that Cobb was doing this on his behalf. Maybe Cobb wasn't such a bad guy after all.
Over 100 years later, they would both get a chuckle in seeing that Crawford still holds the N.L. record with 12 inside the park home runs, while Cobb is the A.L. leader for a season with nine.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Cub Fans and the Hall of Fame
.
.
.
Ron Santo had class. If he could speak from on high, he would probably say, "Hey, it's ok that I didn't get in the Hall when I was alive. No big deal."
I don't have that kind of class. I went through my day pisssed off yesterday. The voters are morons who do not do their jobs. As common folks, we get enough of that from our politicians.
Still seething from the news yesterday, I had lunch with a Cubs fan.
He met me with a smile and a ,'Hey, did you hear Santo finally got voted in?'
I said yeah and gave him an earfull of what I thought about the timeliness of the vote.
Afterwards, he just smiled and said, 'I'm just glad he got in'.
Then, it hit me. After seeing some Cubs fans responses to the news on the Boards yesterday and my friends reaction, I thought to myself, are these Cub fans so beaten down that they have to take whatever good news they get to heart without considering the bad?
If so, I'll be their torch bearer.
It was an absolute disgrace and that ceremony will have a bittersweet feeling to it.
It could have been one of the best inductions ever, but the voters robbed us and Santo of that moment.
I've been critical of the Hall before and average two letters a year to the Hall.
It is an absolute shame that Dummy Hoy is not in the Hall of Fame and I've reminded the Hall of that every year for the last 30 years.
The system needs to be changed. Most voters think sabermetrics is a place where they get swords cleaned. They haven't a clue.
Dale Murphy has gotten a high of 24% of the vote since he's been eligible.
Here is a player who won back to back MVP awards and was the cornerstone of his team for a decade, yet gets little consideration.
And don't even get me started on Shoeless Joe Jackson.
Sufficith to say that the system is broke. It is a travesty and injustice to baseball and its fans.
Geez, I guess I need more than a day to get over this Santo thing
Thanks for listening to the rant....
.
.
.
Ron Santo had class. If he could speak from on high, he would probably say, "Hey, it's ok that I didn't get in the Hall when I was alive. No big deal."
I don't have that kind of class. I went through my day pisssed off yesterday. The voters are morons who do not do their jobs. As common folks, we get enough of that from our politicians.
Still seething from the news yesterday, I had lunch with a Cubs fan.
He met me with a smile and a ,'Hey, did you hear Santo finally got voted in?'
I said yeah and gave him an earfull of what I thought about the timeliness of the vote.
Afterwards, he just smiled and said, 'I'm just glad he got in'.
Then, it hit me. After seeing some Cubs fans responses to the news on the Boards yesterday and my friends reaction, I thought to myself, are these Cub fans so beaten down that they have to take whatever good news they get to heart without considering the bad?
If so, I'll be their torch bearer.
It was an absolute disgrace and that ceremony will have a bittersweet feeling to it.
It could have been one of the best inductions ever, but the voters robbed us and Santo of that moment.
I've been critical of the Hall before and average two letters a year to the Hall.
It is an absolute shame that Dummy Hoy is not in the Hall of Fame and I've reminded the Hall of that every year for the last 30 years.
The system needs to be changed. Most voters think sabermetrics is a place where they get swords cleaned. They haven't a clue.
Dale Murphy has gotten a high of 24% of the vote since he's been eligible.
Here is a player who won back to back MVP awards and was the cornerstone of his team for a decade, yet gets little consideration.
And don't even get me started on Shoeless Joe Jackson.
Sufficith to say that the system is broke. It is a travesty and injustice to baseball and its fans.
Geez, I guess I need more than a day to get over this Santo thing
Thanks for listening to the rant....
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Marlin Fishing
,
,
,
,
,
,
Hanley Ramirez will be 3b eligible after two weeks next year. The thought of Hanley with all that talent being eligible at two short of talent positions has some folks salivating. A friend called me and asked if this made Ramirez a top 5 pick. Talent-wise, Ramirez has never stopped being a top five pick. Anybody who speaks numerish will tell you the same thing. BUT, there is one thing numerish fails in showing us. Numerish is a harsh judge that only looks at players from the neck down. While Ramirez is a five tool hitter, he is missing a few tools in his cerebrum.
He's not a hustler. Never has been. He plays the game individually which is ok for fantasy, but will drive teammates and management a little crazy.
Unfortunately, his five tool talent is effected by his less than filled toolbox above the neck. Ramirez likes being the big man on campus and playing where he wants. The move to third base could be one of those things that frustrates him all year. He'll only move to third because he is being told to, not because it benefits the team.
Sure, Ramirez garners extra eligibility, but it also may take first round numbers and make them 10th round numbers. Fantasy players will have to judge him in spring training to evaluate the risks.
What isn't being said about Reyes signing with the Marlins is the effect on Emily Bonifacio. Reyes takes over the leadoff spot and in a traditional sense, Bonifacio is not a number two hitter. Omar Infante does not mind taking pitches and is an ideal number two hitter for Reyes steal attempts. Still, I can see Ozzie loading up the top of the lineup with speed, just because he can.
Bonifacio is not really a center fielder either. He is only playing the position because Logan Morrison and Mike Stanton are even less of a center fielder and will be more of an injury risk playing the position
Bonifacio may be another multi-position guy who will be downgraded because of the Reyes signing. If they sign Pujols, he could find himself being a super utility player. Great for real baseball, hell on fantasy players.
Watching the Marlins during spring training will be intriguing. Guillen has never shied away from the press and should back his decisions with plenty of rhetoric. His lineups in spring will be a tell as to whether Infante or Bonifacio gets the initial chance to hit behind Reyes. A battle between Ramirez and Guillen seems inevitable. We don't know how it'll manifest itself, but it awaits. It's just a matter of time.
When Marlins fishing at drafts next year, it could be a lot like the Marlins real team. They could be a big hit or they may be a huge miss. The gamble will be up to you and I.
,
,
,
,
,
,
Hanley Ramirez will be 3b eligible after two weeks next year. The thought of Hanley with all that talent being eligible at two short of talent positions has some folks salivating. A friend called me and asked if this made Ramirez a top 5 pick. Talent-wise, Ramirez has never stopped being a top five pick. Anybody who speaks numerish will tell you the same thing. BUT, there is one thing numerish fails in showing us. Numerish is a harsh judge that only looks at players from the neck down. While Ramirez is a five tool hitter, he is missing a few tools in his cerebrum.
He's not a hustler. Never has been. He plays the game individually which is ok for fantasy, but will drive teammates and management a little crazy.
Unfortunately, his five tool talent is effected by his less than filled toolbox above the neck. Ramirez likes being the big man on campus and playing where he wants. The move to third base could be one of those things that frustrates him all year. He'll only move to third because he is being told to, not because it benefits the team.
Sure, Ramirez garners extra eligibility, but it also may take first round numbers and make them 10th round numbers. Fantasy players will have to judge him in spring training to evaluate the risks.
What isn't being said about Reyes signing with the Marlins is the effect on Emily Bonifacio. Reyes takes over the leadoff spot and in a traditional sense, Bonifacio is not a number two hitter. Omar Infante does not mind taking pitches and is an ideal number two hitter for Reyes steal attempts. Still, I can see Ozzie loading up the top of the lineup with speed, just because he can.
Bonifacio is not really a center fielder either. He is only playing the position because Logan Morrison and Mike Stanton are even less of a center fielder and will be more of an injury risk playing the position
Bonifacio may be another multi-position guy who will be downgraded because of the Reyes signing. If they sign Pujols, he could find himself being a super utility player. Great for real baseball, hell on fantasy players.
Watching the Marlins during spring training will be intriguing. Guillen has never shied away from the press and should back his decisions with plenty of rhetoric. His lineups in spring will be a tell as to whether Infante or Bonifacio gets the initial chance to hit behind Reyes. A battle between Ramirez and Guillen seems inevitable. We don't know how it'll manifest itself, but it awaits. It's just a matter of time.
When Marlins fishing at drafts next year, it could be a lot like the Marlins real team. They could be a big hit or they may be a huge miss. The gamble will be up to you and I.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Not anybody....DOUGHBOYS wrote:A friend called me and asked if this made Ramirez a top 5 pick. Talent-wise, Ramirez has never stopped being a top five pick. Anybody who speaks numerish will tell you the same thing.
26th on my hitter list
2019 Mastersball Platinum
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
Re: Stevie Williams
Ah, but you've missed the point, my friend.
You are counting his head and situation into the thought process of placing him 26th on your list.
I was only talking of pure talent and having a full toolbox.
Without Reyes, and with Hanley's BMOC mentality (bonus points for using mentality and Hanley in the same sentence) in Florida, Hanley is a poor man's Rickey Henderson. BUT, factoring in a more permanent lineup change, a position change, and being 'just another guy in the lineup' , along with a volatile manager and Hanley becomes a major risk factor and becoming of a 26th placement on even a numerish speakers list.
You are counting his head and situation into the thought process of placing him 26th on your list.
I was only talking of pure talent and having a full toolbox.
Without Reyes, and with Hanley's BMOC mentality (bonus points for using mentality and Hanley in the same sentence) in Florida, Hanley is a poor man's Rickey Henderson. BUT, factoring in a more permanent lineup change, a position change, and being 'just another guy in the lineup' , along with a volatile manager and Hanley becomes a major risk factor and becoming of a 26th placement on even a numerish speakers list.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Actually, this is 100% an objective (numerish) ranking, from my first run of projections. Funny thing is, my personal draft list would slot him a little higher, but probably still at a spot he will be taken, say mid-teens.DOUGHBOYS wrote:Ah, but you've missed the point, my friend.
You are counting his head and situation into the thought process of placing him 26th on your list.
I was only talking of pure talent and having a full toolbox.
Without Reyes, and with Hanley's BMOC mentality (bonus points for using mentality and Hanley in the same sentence) in Florida, Hanley is a poor man's Rickey Henderson. BUT, factoring in a more permanent lineup change, a position change, and being 'just another guy in the lineup' , along with a volatile manager and Hanley becomes a major risk factor and becoming of a 26th placement on even a numerish speakers list.
1) The numbers are beginning to reflect the so-called intangibles
2) My playing time estimate, which is admittedly subjective ( and perhaps is tempered by the other stuff ) is 620 PA, some may have more, which will increase production, obviously. But even if I gave him the 652 he got in 2009, his line would still not be top-5 worthy.
Now, with all this said, I actually agree with your overall point -- this may just not be the best example as like I said, Hanley's numbers are in decline.
Using James Loney as an example, I know there are going to be some that look at his last couple of months and target him as their corner, predicting, or maybe just hoping the power increase he displayed was real, perhaps rationalizing it by contending his manager, Donnie Baseball profiles as a similar player and if his manager says it is OK to adjust his swing on occasion and loft the ball, he is a pretty good authority on the matter.
There is nothing "wrong" with this analysis, so to speak. However, when I wear the projection guy hat, I have to ask the question "was Loney's stretch real or just random variation?" When 750+ guys play for 6 months, there will be some that finish the season with their best two months strictly randomly.
The numerish guy will say what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and unless EVERY player that had a great final 2 months is boosted, than NO ONE will.
I am not afraid to admit that is how I produce projections.
However, I will note the upside potential in a profile and at the draft table, may invest in that upside potential.
2019 Mastersball Platinum
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
5 of the past 6 NFBC champions subscribe to Mastersball
over 1300 projections and 500 player profiles
Standings and Roster Tracker perfect for DC and cutline leagues
Subscribe HERE
Re: Stevie Williams
It's true. As drafters we value what happened at a later time over what occurred earlier.
If Loney had started off the year with those two months, then had typical Loney months over the last four months, not many eyebrows would be raised.
Same with Hanley, we know he is capable of a Matt Kemp year from a multi-position eligible player. If it happened, he would be THE fantasy player. But, we've seen what he's done lately and forgotten his past. We know the likelihood of Hanley having a Kemp year is a low percentage wager.
Sometimes, only relying on what we see lately comes back to haunt us.
Lance Berkman looked like and played like Larry King in a Yankee uniform. That was our memory going into the draft last year. This year, our memories will be fonder and he'll go higher in drafts.
It's a tough nut.
Shandler likes to say once a player shows the skills, he then owns them. But for most players, those skills come in waves, even within a year. With ebbs and tides. They're not even consistent skills from year to year in some cases.
Of course not, that would make our game much too easy.
If Loney had started off the year with those two months, then had typical Loney months over the last four months, not many eyebrows would be raised.
Same with Hanley, we know he is capable of a Matt Kemp year from a multi-position eligible player. If it happened, he would be THE fantasy player. But, we've seen what he's done lately and forgotten his past. We know the likelihood of Hanley having a Kemp year is a low percentage wager.
Sometimes, only relying on what we see lately comes back to haunt us.
Lance Berkman looked like and played like Larry King in a Yankee uniform. That was our memory going into the draft last year. This year, our memories will be fonder and he'll go higher in drafts.
It's a tough nut.
Shandler likes to say once a player shows the skills, he then owns them. But for most players, those skills come in waves, even within a year. With ebbs and tides. They're not even consistent skills from year to year in some cases.
Of course not, that would make our game much too easy.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
White Washed....
.
.
.
.
.
.
Frank White has been in the Royals organization sense he was recruited out of an Academy that the Royals used from 1971-75. The Academy was a novel idea. Kids from all walks of life, just good athletes who didn't get noticed could try out for the Royals Academy to display their skills and maybe get signed by the Royals.
Frank White was fired by the Royals last week and will be leaving the organization. He was fired from his tv job for being too critical of the Royals on air. Each major league team owns the rights to their own broadcast, both on radio and on tv. It's too bad. Unlike a national broadcast, we don't get fair reporting from a local broadcast. We get a slanted version that uses each broadcast as propaganda that encourages folks to watch the great home team players at the local ball park.
Most fans know the truth and take the fluff with a grain of salt.
At the end of the year last year, it was clear that Marlins management had instructed their announcers to be highly critical of their ball park and to call it 'Baseball in a football stadium' to set the stage for the new park in the coming year. It started with a mention, then cascaded into an every other inning conversation piece. Clearly, the last month of Marlin games were not about what went on, on the field. It was about the field itself.
We have local announcers now, who speak the truth as long as it doesn't hurt the local clubs sales pitch. Errors are accompanied by 'how a player gives 110 per cent'. A pitcher getting bombed and staying out on the mound while the manager remains in the dugout is 'taking one for the team' instead of being mismanaged.
Ticket sales override the truth. A cold, hard fact.
The Royals have averaged over 90 losses a year for a lot of years. There is a lot to be critical about. Their management at the major league level has been disturbing both on and off the field. Frank White could see that. Most Royal fans know it. Royals management didn't want to hear it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Frank White has been in the Royals organization sense he was recruited out of an Academy that the Royals used from 1971-75. The Academy was a novel idea. Kids from all walks of life, just good athletes who didn't get noticed could try out for the Royals Academy to display their skills and maybe get signed by the Royals.
Frank White was fired by the Royals last week and will be leaving the organization. He was fired from his tv job for being too critical of the Royals on air. Each major league team owns the rights to their own broadcast, both on radio and on tv. It's too bad. Unlike a national broadcast, we don't get fair reporting from a local broadcast. We get a slanted version that uses each broadcast as propaganda that encourages folks to watch the great home team players at the local ball park.
Most fans know the truth and take the fluff with a grain of salt.
At the end of the year last year, it was clear that Marlins management had instructed their announcers to be highly critical of their ball park and to call it 'Baseball in a football stadium' to set the stage for the new park in the coming year. It started with a mention, then cascaded into an every other inning conversation piece. Clearly, the last month of Marlin games were not about what went on, on the field. It was about the field itself.
We have local announcers now, who speak the truth as long as it doesn't hurt the local clubs sales pitch. Errors are accompanied by 'how a player gives 110 per cent'. A pitcher getting bombed and staying out on the mound while the manager remains in the dugout is 'taking one for the team' instead of being mismanaged.
Ticket sales override the truth. A cold, hard fact.
The Royals have averaged over 90 losses a year for a lot of years. There is a lot to be critical about. Their management at the major league level has been disturbing both on and off the field. Frank White could see that. Most Royal fans know it. Royals management didn't want to hear it.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Hanley Ramirez
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We all have opinions. We value our own above all others. If we don't, we're in the wrong hobby.
Other opinions help us form ours. Although we are a fact based hobby, with numbers in hundreds of categories, we still depend on other opinions. We value other opinions for different reasons. Some may have a narrower focus. For one, I followed Jason Grey's opinions very closely. I thought him to have a good handle on prospects along with a fantasy spin that I found desirable.
Believe it or not, I don't value anybody in the NFBC's opinion over another. Well, except for our Advisory Board which is a trio of NFBC'ers who throw opinions and ideas at each other. This is not to say that I don't value NFBC opinions, just not one over another. To me, we are all a group with different methods and philosophies. If one values Hanley Ramirez as a certain first rounder, while another would not touch him till the third round, it wouldn't matter to me who thought more or less of Hanley.
I bring up Hanley Ramirez name on purpose. Here's my opinion on Hanley.
Nothing.
Nothing, because I think Hanley's situation will change. I've seen two snipets of him talking to reporters. He has the looks of a kid who was king of the fifth grade, but now has to move on to Middle School and start all over again. In fewer words, he does not look happy.
The Marlins have already seen Ramirez attitude when he plays happy. Like the Hulk, I don't think they want to see him when he's angry. The Red Sox have lusted after Hanley since he was traded to the Marlins for Beckett. I don't know whether the lust was a Theo love or the Red Sox organization, but it would not surprise me to see the Red Sox reach out to the Marlins to take Ramirez off their hands.
I feel strongly that he'll be traded, if not to the Red Sox, then to some other team. When I feel this strongly in a trade at this time of year, I rank the player on merits and demerits and take away ball park and team factors. The old and new Miami park were/are pitchers parks so Hanley gets a bump up there. We don't know where he'll hit in the lineup, but it's a good bet he won't be leading off. It's a good bet that the team that trades for Hanley will use him at shortstop. No sense in trading for him and pissing him off right from the get go. So that rules out dual eligibility.
On whole, I'd give Hanley a little bump up the list because of the park and emotional effects .
But, it's just another opinion.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We all have opinions. We value our own above all others. If we don't, we're in the wrong hobby.
Other opinions help us form ours. Although we are a fact based hobby, with numbers in hundreds of categories, we still depend on other opinions. We value other opinions for different reasons. Some may have a narrower focus. For one, I followed Jason Grey's opinions very closely. I thought him to have a good handle on prospects along with a fantasy spin that I found desirable.
Believe it or not, I don't value anybody in the NFBC's opinion over another. Well, except for our Advisory Board which is a trio of NFBC'ers who throw opinions and ideas at each other. This is not to say that I don't value NFBC opinions, just not one over another. To me, we are all a group with different methods and philosophies. If one values Hanley Ramirez as a certain first rounder, while another would not touch him till the third round, it wouldn't matter to me who thought more or less of Hanley.
I bring up Hanley Ramirez name on purpose. Here's my opinion on Hanley.
Nothing.
Nothing, because I think Hanley's situation will change. I've seen two snipets of him talking to reporters. He has the looks of a kid who was king of the fifth grade, but now has to move on to Middle School and start all over again. In fewer words, he does not look happy.
The Marlins have already seen Ramirez attitude when he plays happy. Like the Hulk, I don't think they want to see him when he's angry. The Red Sox have lusted after Hanley since he was traded to the Marlins for Beckett. I don't know whether the lust was a Theo love or the Red Sox organization, but it would not surprise me to see the Red Sox reach out to the Marlins to take Ramirez off their hands.
I feel strongly that he'll be traded, if not to the Red Sox, then to some other team. When I feel this strongly in a trade at this time of year, I rank the player on merits and demerits and take away ball park and team factors. The old and new Miami park were/are pitchers parks so Hanley gets a bump up there. We don't know where he'll hit in the lineup, but it's a good bet he won't be leading off. It's a good bet that the team that trades for Hanley will use him at shortstop. No sense in trading for him and pissing him off right from the get go. So that rules out dual eligibility.
On whole, I'd give Hanley a little bump up the list because of the park and emotional effects .
But, it's just another opinion.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Albert Pujols
.
.
.
.
.
.
It's of little surprise that Albert Pujols went to the highest bidder. A lot of folks seem to be holding that against him.
Hasn't he earned it?
I know in our everyday jobs we want to make the most money we possibly can.
The attacks come on Albert from many directions.
Some call him a money hungry baseball whore.
Some wish him bad luck.
Fantasy folks wish him ill in other ways.
'Facing A.L. pitchers may be a tough adjustment'.
'Anaheim isn't an easy place to hit'.
'Nobody behind him in the lineup'.
I'll drop him down on my lists'.
All of which is Crap.
Albert is going to hit in any ball park, against any pitcher, it won't matter who is in the on deck circle, and if he's dropped down on lists for any of those reasons stated above, then that is the drafters bias and not a decision made of constructive thinking.
As fantasy players, we play year to year, excluding keeper leagues. The term of any contract is of little consequence, unless somebody is in a contract year and we feel that adds a little zip in his doo da for the coming year.
Pujols is the same player as last year, only in a different situation. If he were a below the neck player, we would have concerns. But, Pujols lives and dies baseball. He wants to be the best. Ever.
The Angels have taken their share of flak too. They went out and got the best hitter in baseball. They didn't care about the years. Heck, if they cared about years they never would have taken on Vernon Wells contract. They are playing the Yankees game. Heightened star power salaries will be more than made up in television revenue, fannies in the seats revenue, and playoff and World Series revenue. It's good to be the Angels. Like the Yankees, they are kings of a very large city. To remain king, they spend like a king.
Matt Kemp may have been the best player in baseball last year. Few are thinking about Matt Kemp now. When spring training rolls around, it's a guaranty that L.A. newspapers will be wondering how and what Pujols is doing more than Kemp.
Pujols is the new Disneyland attraction and the Dodgers have been moved to the back pages.
It worked for the Yankees. It'll be intriguing to follow the scenario on the other coast.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It's of little surprise that Albert Pujols went to the highest bidder. A lot of folks seem to be holding that against him.
Hasn't he earned it?
I know in our everyday jobs we want to make the most money we possibly can.
The attacks come on Albert from many directions.
Some call him a money hungry baseball whore.
Some wish him bad luck.
Fantasy folks wish him ill in other ways.
'Facing A.L. pitchers may be a tough adjustment'.
'Anaheim isn't an easy place to hit'.
'Nobody behind him in the lineup'.
I'll drop him down on my lists'.
All of which is Crap.
Albert is going to hit in any ball park, against any pitcher, it won't matter who is in the on deck circle, and if he's dropped down on lists for any of those reasons stated above, then that is the drafters bias and not a decision made of constructive thinking.
As fantasy players, we play year to year, excluding keeper leagues. The term of any contract is of little consequence, unless somebody is in a contract year and we feel that adds a little zip in his doo da for the coming year.
Pujols is the same player as last year, only in a different situation. If he were a below the neck player, we would have concerns. But, Pujols lives and dies baseball. He wants to be the best. Ever.
The Angels have taken their share of flak too. They went out and got the best hitter in baseball. They didn't care about the years. Heck, if they cared about years they never would have taken on Vernon Wells contract. They are playing the Yankees game. Heightened star power salaries will be more than made up in television revenue, fannies in the seats revenue, and playoff and World Series revenue. It's good to be the Angels. Like the Yankees, they are kings of a very large city. To remain king, they spend like a king.
Matt Kemp may have been the best player in baseball last year. Few are thinking about Matt Kemp now. When spring training rolls around, it's a guaranty that L.A. newspapers will be wondering how and what Pujols is doing more than Kemp.
Pujols is the new Disneyland attraction and the Dodgers have been moved to the back pages.
It worked for the Yankees. It'll be intriguing to follow the scenario on the other coast.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Some of you will be starting drafts next week-
In case you lost the threads or were unaware, I was involved in two e-mail drafts after the last pitch of the 2011 season.
Since you had the good sense to look here - Here are the first rounds from both those drafts...
1. Kemp.........1. Kemp
2. Tulowitzki....2. Pujols
3. Ellsbury.......3. Ellsbury
4. Pujols........4. Braun
5. AGonzalez...5. Tulowitzki
6. Braun........ 6. Cabrera
7. Granderson..7. AGonzalez
8. Cabrera......8. Votto
9. Upton.........9. CGonzalez
10. Bautista....10. Cano
11. Fielder......11. Fielder
12. Votto........12. Granderson
13. Cano.........13. Bautista
14. Longoria.....14. Upton
15. Kershaw......15. Pedroia
Probably little ado about something.
For the most part, the same names only shuffled around a bit. But, something to ponder as the drafting season begins.
In case you lost the threads or were unaware, I was involved in two e-mail drafts after the last pitch of the 2011 season.
Since you had the good sense to look here
- Here are the first rounds from both those drafts...1. Kemp.........1. Kemp
2. Tulowitzki....2. Pujols
3. Ellsbury.......3. Ellsbury
4. Pujols........4. Braun
5. AGonzalez...5. Tulowitzki
6. Braun........ 6. Cabrera
7. Granderson..7. AGonzalez
8. Cabrera......8. Votto
9. Upton.........9. CGonzalez
10. Bautista....10. Cano
11. Fielder......11. Fielder
12. Votto........12. Granderson
13. Cano.........13. Bautista
14. Longoria.....14. Upton
15. Kershaw......15. Pedroia
Probably little ado about something.
For the most part, the same names only shuffled around a bit. But, something to ponder as the drafting season begins.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Ryan Braun and the After Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
And no, the subject title is not a takeoff on Josie and the Pussycats. but it sounds like it, right?
I don't know much about the Ryan Braun case. We all don't. It was leaked, and the problem with leaks is that we get partial information. We can't really judge one way or the other. But, two things come to mind.
One, we all know how much of a fantasy hit Braun will take if he is found to be suspended 50 games. One third of a first rounder's season missing translates into at least a four round hit. More interestingly, what if it is found that he didn't?
The bell can't be unrung. We still have thoughts of Braun 'maybe getting away with something'.
It's the first round. As a whole, we like our first round picks to be safe. True, this could happen to any player. But now, Braun isn't any player, he's marked.
The other thing is that some folks want Braun to give his MVP Award back. Even if found guilty, he won't have to return the award. Shandler likes to say that once a player displays a skill, he owns it. Same premise for Braun and for ARod in 2003. Once they've won the award, they own it. Baseball does not punish it's players while they're playing. The Hall of Fame has become the police for that.
Hall of Fame voters have taken into account what a player does off the field into their reckoning on what a player did on the field. McGwire and Palmeiro have felt the full wrath of the voters. Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa will most likely feel it next year. The Hall of Fame voters have become MLB's police and that doesn't seem right.
They're fighting a losing battle. Even if they stem the tide and keep Bonds, Clemens, etc out of the Hall, it'll only be temporary.
Some player, maybe a Todd Helton or a Chipper Jones, or an Ivan Rodriguez will be elected to the Hall of Fame, then reveal that he did take ped's. Not to say that these players took them, but this will open the door for others who are being turned away now.
The 'wounds' of the steroid era are still fresh. Braun's case is a reminder that it is not completely over. In time, even if the aforementioned scenario does not play out, a veterans committee will make sure that the 'steroid superstars' are inducted.
For Braun's sake, we can hope that he'll get into the Hall someday. That this was just a mistake in testing and not an error in Braun's decision making.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And no, the subject title is not a takeoff on Josie and the Pussycats. but it sounds like it, right?
I don't know much about the Ryan Braun case. We all don't. It was leaked, and the problem with leaks is that we get partial information. We can't really judge one way or the other. But, two things come to mind.
One, we all know how much of a fantasy hit Braun will take if he is found to be suspended 50 games. One third of a first rounder's season missing translates into at least a four round hit. More interestingly, what if it is found that he didn't?
The bell can't be unrung. We still have thoughts of Braun 'maybe getting away with something'.
It's the first round. As a whole, we like our first round picks to be safe. True, this could happen to any player. But now, Braun isn't any player, he's marked.
The other thing is that some folks want Braun to give his MVP Award back. Even if found guilty, he won't have to return the award. Shandler likes to say that once a player displays a skill, he owns it. Same premise for Braun and for ARod in 2003. Once they've won the award, they own it. Baseball does not punish it's players while they're playing. The Hall of Fame has become the police for that.
Hall of Fame voters have taken into account what a player does off the field into their reckoning on what a player did on the field. McGwire and Palmeiro have felt the full wrath of the voters. Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa will most likely feel it next year. The Hall of Fame voters have become MLB's police and that doesn't seem right.
They're fighting a losing battle. Even if they stem the tide and keep Bonds, Clemens, etc out of the Hall, it'll only be temporary.
Some player, maybe a Todd Helton or a Chipper Jones, or an Ivan Rodriguez will be elected to the Hall of Fame, then reveal that he did take ped's. Not to say that these players took them, but this will open the door for others who are being turned away now.
The 'wounds' of the steroid era are still fresh. Braun's case is a reminder that it is not completely over. In time, even if the aforementioned scenario does not play out, a veterans committee will make sure that the 'steroid superstars' are inducted.
For Braun's sake, we can hope that he'll get into the Hall someday. That this was just a mistake in testing and not an error in Braun's decision making.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Week (or weak) Events
.
.
.
.
.
.
James Loney hit three cars in one day.
Hey, at least he is hitting.
I'll bet his car doesn't have much power either.
Loney had an interview over the weekend, "because nothing is more important than my young fans, and I want them to hear directly from me."
This comment after he tried to hide the accident from not only his fans, but the Dodgers as well.
I don't know Loney's middle name, but it should start with a B.
James B. Loney. Yep, that fits.
All news reports say Ryan Braun is appealing.
Fantasy owners are not attracted.
The Cubs traded Ty Colvin to the Rockies for Ian Stewart.
How can anybody with the name of Ty hit .150?
How can anybody with power and over 100 at bats, not hit a home run at Coors?
We hardly ever see a dual 'sucks here sucks there trade'.
A 'sucks here sucks there trade is when a GM gives up on a player and tells his trading partner GM, "He sucks here, let's see if he sucks there too."
Billy Beane knows that his pitchers are helped by ball park effect.
Remember Zito, Mulder, and Hudson?
They've never been the same.
Trevor Cahill can be the same and still not be that good.
Cahill's E.R.A. at the Coliseum was a nice 3.20 last year
5.23 away from home.
The Diamondbacks were hit with a Beane ball.
Last, Albert Pujols, and I'll be a little more serious here...
I have to be feeling that Cardinals ownership were not that disappointed by Pujols signing with the Angels.
The Cards got the best out of Pujols career and didn't pay the big bucks for it.
More simplistic, the Cardinals only bid on Pujols because of goodwill towards their fans. They can't afford him and really could not afford the 10 year hit, like the Angels can.
Pujols signing was a win-win-win.
For the Angels, Pujols, and the Cardinals.
.
.
.
.
.
.
James Loney hit three cars in one day.
Hey, at least he is hitting.
I'll bet his car doesn't have much power either.
Loney had an interview over the weekend, "because nothing is more important than my young fans, and I want them to hear directly from me."
This comment after he tried to hide the accident from not only his fans, but the Dodgers as well.
I don't know Loney's middle name, but it should start with a B.
James B. Loney. Yep, that fits.
All news reports say Ryan Braun is appealing.
Fantasy owners are not attracted.
The Cubs traded Ty Colvin to the Rockies for Ian Stewart.
How can anybody with the name of Ty hit .150?
How can anybody with power and over 100 at bats, not hit a home run at Coors?
We hardly ever see a dual 'sucks here sucks there trade'.
A 'sucks here sucks there trade is when a GM gives up on a player and tells his trading partner GM, "He sucks here, let's see if he sucks there too."
Billy Beane knows that his pitchers are helped by ball park effect.
Remember Zito, Mulder, and Hudson?
They've never been the same.
Trevor Cahill can be the same and still not be that good.
Cahill's E.R.A. at the Coliseum was a nice 3.20 last year
5.23 away from home.
The Diamondbacks were hit with a Beane ball.
Last, Albert Pujols, and I'll be a little more serious here...
I have to be feeling that Cardinals ownership were not that disappointed by Pujols signing with the Angels.
The Cards got the best out of Pujols career and didn't pay the big bucks for it.
More simplistic, the Cardinals only bid on Pujols because of goodwill towards their fans. They can't afford him and really could not afford the 10 year hit, like the Angels can.
Pujols signing was a win-win-win.
For the Angels, Pujols, and the Cardinals.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
'References'
.
.
.
.
.
.
There is a thread on General Discussion about references. The writer wanted to know what references that NFBC veterans use.
We all know that the best reference is you. You take in all information, process it, and make a final decision in how to parlay that information into a winning fantasy team.
I'm not missing the point. The writer really wants to know which tout we favor the most.
Last year, I went on a jag and promised myself that I would not buy one printed publication that used the word 'expert' on the cover. I ended up buying one magazine. That magazine was useless to me. I brought that one on myself, didn't I.
I'm still tired of hearing the word and I get it that maybe it sells a few more books and magazines, but I digress.
I'm inherently cheap, (those in the contract leagues know exactly how cheap I am) so I do not subscribe to any online fantasy sites. I'll view the free parts and leave the paid parts to my imagination.
The writer of that post really wasn't looking for a reference, he was looking for an influence. A service that could steer him in the right direction.
In my mind, most services are detrimental. They are designed for the Yahoo Kid. Somebody who could be easily driven by the word, 'expert'. It seems everybody has a similar list of players. We can get those free at a lot of sites. But, for some reason, some players want to pay to see some of these lists. Let me tell you now, these lists will not vary much from the lists that are free.
Being NFBC players, we need something more. Beyond mere lists. We need to know the why before the where.
Ron Shandler was one of the first to realize this and he put out handbooks with his reasonings and philosophies on why the numbers are the numbers. This was a major step. Since then, we've gotten Shandlered to the gills.
Shandler entered the NFBC and was soundly thrashed. It was a one time thing and it could have happened to anybody, but Shandler isn't anybody. In effect, it was a token appearance. But, I got a sense that Shandler is too diversified to throw his all into the NFBC. And with that, anything from him now has the residue of that token year for me.
I've never looked at Shandler's site. I can not judge it. I take that back, I think I did look at it once when I was doing research for a post about touts, but besides that, I don't remember being on his site.
I have been on the Mastersball site. Just the free stuff. I tried posting there but either I did something wrong or it doesn't let the freebies post.
If I were to look for 'references', I would look here.
First, Todd has been in the NFBC before I was.
Second, they seem to give the personal service that Greg and Tom furnish here. There is no worse feeling than going somewhere and being treated like a nobody. If you go to Mastersball, you can ask an NFBC question and get an NFBC answer.
Third, everybody has the same numbers. Again, the why is more important than the where. Ultimately, we choose the where with our own lists, not others. Mastersball will give you the why and let you make your own call.
I'm not shilling for Todd or Mastersball. In effect, I'm shilling for the NFBC players. In my mind they're the best, and should have the best of all the 'reference' out there.
And what is better than somebody who talks on an NFBC level?
.
.
.
.
.
.
There is a thread on General Discussion about references. The writer wanted to know what references that NFBC veterans use.
We all know that the best reference is you. You take in all information, process it, and make a final decision in how to parlay that information into a winning fantasy team.
I'm not missing the point. The writer really wants to know which tout we favor the most.
Last year, I went on a jag and promised myself that I would not buy one printed publication that used the word 'expert' on the cover. I ended up buying one magazine. That magazine was useless to me. I brought that one on myself, didn't I.
I'm still tired of hearing the word and I get it that maybe it sells a few more books and magazines, but I digress.
I'm inherently cheap, (those in the contract leagues know exactly how cheap I am) so I do not subscribe to any online fantasy sites. I'll view the free parts and leave the paid parts to my imagination.
The writer of that post really wasn't looking for a reference, he was looking for an influence. A service that could steer him in the right direction.
In my mind, most services are detrimental. They are designed for the Yahoo Kid. Somebody who could be easily driven by the word, 'expert'. It seems everybody has a similar list of players. We can get those free at a lot of sites. But, for some reason, some players want to pay to see some of these lists. Let me tell you now, these lists will not vary much from the lists that are free.
Being NFBC players, we need something more. Beyond mere lists. We need to know the why before the where.
Ron Shandler was one of the first to realize this and he put out handbooks with his reasonings and philosophies on why the numbers are the numbers. This was a major step. Since then, we've gotten Shandlered to the gills.
Shandler entered the NFBC and was soundly thrashed. It was a one time thing and it could have happened to anybody, but Shandler isn't anybody. In effect, it was a token appearance. But, I got a sense that Shandler is too diversified to throw his all into the NFBC. And with that, anything from him now has the residue of that token year for me.
I've never looked at Shandler's site. I can not judge it. I take that back, I think I did look at it once when I was doing research for a post about touts, but besides that, I don't remember being on his site.
I have been on the Mastersball site. Just the free stuff. I tried posting there but either I did something wrong or it doesn't let the freebies post.
If I were to look for 'references', I would look here.
First, Todd has been in the NFBC before I was.
Second, they seem to give the personal service that Greg and Tom furnish here. There is no worse feeling than going somewhere and being treated like a nobody. If you go to Mastersball, you can ask an NFBC question and get an NFBC answer.
Third, everybody has the same numbers. Again, the why is more important than the where. Ultimately, we choose the where with our own lists, not others. Mastersball will give you the why and let you make your own call.
I'm not shilling for Todd or Mastersball. In effect, I'm shilling for the NFBC players. In my mind they're the best, and should have the best of all the 'reference' out there.
And what is better than somebody who talks on an NFBC level?
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
P.S.-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just a p.s. to the reference post.
The best stuff I read last year was the stuff that came via Shawn Childs.
Shawn does not now work for a service as far as I know, but last year, he profiled every fantasy relevant player and did a terrific job.
As stated before, the numbers are there for us for free. It's up to us to know what to do with them.
If however, you are looking for help in the form of others opinions, I would hold the opinions of those that have played and had some success in the NFBC above others.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just a p.s. to the reference post.
The best stuff I read last year was the stuff that came via Shawn Childs.
Shawn does not now work for a service as far as I know, but last year, he profiled every fantasy relevant player and did a terrific job.
As stated before, the numbers are there for us for free. It's up to us to know what to do with them.
If however, you are looking for help in the form of others opinions, I would hold the opinions of those that have played and had some success in the NFBC above others.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Worst Organization of the Year
.
.
.
.
.
.
And the winner for the 'Worst Organization of the Year' award goes to...you thought I'd say Kansas City Royals, didn't you.
Well, you're wrong. Even though Kansas City still wages a battle to have the best triple AAA team in baseball, while disregarding their Major League team , there is still a worse organizational team.
While the other teams in baseball have arms on their team that bear the brand 'Remington', the Royals have arms on their team branded, 'Tonka'.
Still, there is a worse organization.
That organization is the Mets.
To even call the Mets an organization is a misnomer for the word, organization.
Who runs this place?
Is it the owners?
They who have little money and have borrowed 25 and 40 million dollars in loans since the season ended?
Is it the GM, Alderson?
Who traded Jose Reyes for...oh wait, he forgot to trade him to get SOMETHING for him.
It's hard to tell.
The Dodgers are in limbo and still have been making better moves than the Mets.
The Mets best move this off season was to move their fences in.
Finally, a deal they got the best of!
So, we have a bottom floor, Mets Management is smarter than a fence post.
When Alderson was asked if the Mets would be looking to sign David Wright long term, he said that it wasn't in the near future plans.
Neither is winning.
Why'd they move those fences in again?
The best thing the Mets can do now if not retaining Wright, is save money by trading Wright and Bay for prospects.
This would have to come before MLB forces them to get new ownership.
The Mets are being laughed at, and the real travesty is that they don't know it or refuse to see it.
They'll start the year with Thole, Tejada, Murphy, and Torres up the middle of their diamond.
A New York team with that up the middle?
The Royals can beat that in Omaha.
Even in transition, the Dodgers have signed Matt Kemp long term.
In Hollywood, they know star power plays to the media.
They know it makes them money in the long run.
The Mets longest term star, if Wright is not re-signed, is Mr. Met, their mascot.
Problem being, that Mr. Met could give one of the players up the Mets a middle, a battle for playing time.
He's got a real head for baseball. And we can't say that about Mets Management.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And the winner for the 'Worst Organization of the Year' award goes to...you thought I'd say Kansas City Royals, didn't you.
Well, you're wrong. Even though Kansas City still wages a battle to have the best triple AAA team in baseball, while disregarding their Major League team , there is still a worse organizational team.
While the other teams in baseball have arms on their team that bear the brand 'Remington', the Royals have arms on their team branded, 'Tonka'.
Still, there is a worse organization.
That organization is the Mets.
To even call the Mets an organization is a misnomer for the word, organization.
Who runs this place?
Is it the owners?
They who have little money and have borrowed 25 and 40 million dollars in loans since the season ended?
Is it the GM, Alderson?
Who traded Jose Reyes for...oh wait, he forgot to trade him to get SOMETHING for him.
It's hard to tell.
The Dodgers are in limbo and still have been making better moves than the Mets.
The Mets best move this off season was to move their fences in.
Finally, a deal they got the best of!
So, we have a bottom floor, Mets Management is smarter than a fence post.
When Alderson was asked if the Mets would be looking to sign David Wright long term, he said that it wasn't in the near future plans.
Neither is winning.
Why'd they move those fences in again?
The best thing the Mets can do now if not retaining Wright, is save money by trading Wright and Bay for prospects.
This would have to come before MLB forces them to get new ownership.
The Mets are being laughed at, and the real travesty is that they don't know it or refuse to see it.
They'll start the year with Thole, Tejada, Murphy, and Torres up the middle of their diamond.
A New York team with that up the middle?
The Royals can beat that in Omaha.
Even in transition, the Dodgers have signed Matt Kemp long term.
In Hollywood, they know star power plays to the media.
They know it makes them money in the long run.
The Mets longest term star, if Wright is not re-signed, is Mr. Met, their mascot.
Problem being, that Mr. Met could give one of the players up the Mets a middle, a battle for playing time.
He's got a real head for baseball. And we can't say that about Mets Management.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Theories
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We've all done it. We come up with a sure fire plan that will dominate our fantasy baseball leagues. We put so much thought into these plans that we convince ourselves in the process that failure is not possible. I've done it with several teams.
I've gone hitter heavy, pitching heavy, weak position heavy, best player regardless of position theory, closer early, closer late, no closer, strike out heavy, homer happy, speed in the first rounds, 75-75, 100-50, and the lists go on.
Do any of these work?
Yep.
They all do. BUT, and it is a Bartolo Colon sized but, you have to pick the right players regardless of the plan.
A couple of years ago, I picked six outfielders with my first six picks. Of course, my league mates ridiculed me, but I had a plan in place for that draft. I was taking the best hitter in the first seven rounds regardless of position.
I had to alter the plan slightly. My best player in the seventh round was, again, an outfielder.
The six outfielders I picked were all gold. Five were never taken out of the lineup for injury or slump, the other got hurt late in the year. I won that league.
I haven't tried that plan again. I could. I won with it. But, each year is different and each year we need a new plan.
This year, some folks I've talked to are going to go a little pitching heavy. Their thoughts are that we are going through an era of pitching dominance and that they don't want to be caught with their pants down.
The only response I have to this is, why?
If we are living in a pitching era, doesn't that make hitting all the more important?
Pitching heavy can mean a lot of things. It can mean we have two or three of the greatest pitchers in history. It could mean that every team is flush with starters. It could mean that losing a back end starter is of little consequence because there are a lot more where that came from down on the farm.
My opinion is that none of these things have happened. There are no pitchers that are a first round lock. Has anybody seen Kansas City's or Baltimore's staff's? And few teams can say that their system is so full of pitchers that they could easily take a hit with their starting five.
It is just fair to say that the pitchers are getting the better of hitters lately.
My theory for this year is to zag, if others are zigging. In one of the e-mail drafts, I took two starters in the first 13 rounds and one of those was the questionable Josh Johnson. My fate isn't sealed in whether Johnson is healthy or not. My fate is sealed in whether I read that draft right.
It seemed to me that a lot of drafters were liking pitchers a little too much for my liking starting with the fourth round. Pitchers I felt should be drafted in the ninth round were going in the seventh, etc until we got to the 14th round when I thought that pitchers were again fairly priced.
With the drafting of so many hitters, I do have a better chance of getting ahead in those five categories, but only if I picked the right hitters. For some reason, no matter the year, no matter the circumstances, I don't feel at all uncomfortable in being light on pitching. Starting pitchers are hurt or sent down on a weekly basis once the season begins. Pitching is more of a lottery than hitting is.
This post is to say that any theory will work with the right players. But, make sure it's a well thought out plan that is conducent to this year. And don't be afraid to veer off the original plan if you notice something not going well in that particular draft. Each draft takes on a different odor. Be a bloodhound and find the smell.
Oh, and one more thing, if you come up with a new thought or theory, post it here or pm me. I love seeing the different thoughts.
Here is one from a buddy of mine who just finished an December draft. He says that he went with a pitchers 75-75 theory in the first 10 rounds. He picked Verlander, Hamels, Kimbrel, Hanson, Axford, and Scherzer in the first 10 rounds, which in his mind guarantees him 75 wins and 75 saves with good peripherals. My comment was that he could choose ANY four pitchers and not get 75 wins but I wished him good luck. To me, this wasn't a 75-75 draft, just pitcher heavy with a different name.
Todd, Perry, Ryan, I, and a few other NFBC vets start an e-mail draft shortly.
I'll let you know if there are any strategies that stand out, or could be used during the upcoming year.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We've all done it. We come up with a sure fire plan that will dominate our fantasy baseball leagues. We put so much thought into these plans that we convince ourselves in the process that failure is not possible. I've done it with several teams.
I've gone hitter heavy, pitching heavy, weak position heavy, best player regardless of position theory, closer early, closer late, no closer, strike out heavy, homer happy, speed in the first rounds, 75-75, 100-50, and the lists go on.
Do any of these work?
Yep.
They all do. BUT, and it is a Bartolo Colon sized but, you have to pick the right players regardless of the plan.
A couple of years ago, I picked six outfielders with my first six picks. Of course, my league mates ridiculed me, but I had a plan in place for that draft. I was taking the best hitter in the first seven rounds regardless of position.
I had to alter the plan slightly. My best player in the seventh round was, again, an outfielder.
The six outfielders I picked were all gold. Five were never taken out of the lineup for injury or slump, the other got hurt late in the year. I won that league.
I haven't tried that plan again. I could. I won with it. But, each year is different and each year we need a new plan.
This year, some folks I've talked to are going to go a little pitching heavy. Their thoughts are that we are going through an era of pitching dominance and that they don't want to be caught with their pants down.
The only response I have to this is, why?
If we are living in a pitching era, doesn't that make hitting all the more important?
Pitching heavy can mean a lot of things. It can mean we have two or three of the greatest pitchers in history. It could mean that every team is flush with starters. It could mean that losing a back end starter is of little consequence because there are a lot more where that came from down on the farm.
My opinion is that none of these things have happened. There are no pitchers that are a first round lock. Has anybody seen Kansas City's or Baltimore's staff's? And few teams can say that their system is so full of pitchers that they could easily take a hit with their starting five.
It is just fair to say that the pitchers are getting the better of hitters lately.
My theory for this year is to zag, if others are zigging. In one of the e-mail drafts, I took two starters in the first 13 rounds and one of those was the questionable Josh Johnson. My fate isn't sealed in whether Johnson is healthy or not. My fate is sealed in whether I read that draft right.
It seemed to me that a lot of drafters were liking pitchers a little too much for my liking starting with the fourth round. Pitchers I felt should be drafted in the ninth round were going in the seventh, etc until we got to the 14th round when I thought that pitchers were again fairly priced.
With the drafting of so many hitters, I do have a better chance of getting ahead in those five categories, but only if I picked the right hitters. For some reason, no matter the year, no matter the circumstances, I don't feel at all uncomfortable in being light on pitching. Starting pitchers are hurt or sent down on a weekly basis once the season begins. Pitching is more of a lottery than hitting is.
This post is to say that any theory will work with the right players. But, make sure it's a well thought out plan that is conducent to this year. And don't be afraid to veer off the original plan if you notice something not going well in that particular draft. Each draft takes on a different odor. Be a bloodhound and find the smell.
Oh, and one more thing, if you come up with a new thought or theory, post it here or pm me. I love seeing the different thoughts.
Here is one from a buddy of mine who just finished an December draft. He says that he went with a pitchers 75-75 theory in the first 10 rounds. He picked Verlander, Hamels, Kimbrel, Hanson, Axford, and Scherzer in the first 10 rounds, which in his mind guarantees him 75 wins and 75 saves with good peripherals. My comment was that he could choose ANY four pitchers and not get 75 wins but I wished him good luck. To me, this wasn't a 75-75 draft, just pitcher heavy with a different name.
Todd, Perry, Ryan, I, and a few other NFBC vets start an e-mail draft shortly.
I'll let you know if there are any strategies that stand out, or could be used during the upcoming year.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Carlos Pena
.
.
.
.
.
This is a post I had from last year after the Cubs signed Carlos Pena.
There will be more of this current post at the bottom of the page.
Ruth, Rose, and Pena
by DOUGHBOYS » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:51 am
I watch some of the press conferences after players are signed. One thing is always said. In one form or another, every player says, 'This is where I should be'.
Makes me laugh every time.
If that is where they should be, than why did they waste their time where they came from?
During Carlos Pena's press conference, he said the line that makes me giggle. That giggle turned into outright laughter when Pena said that he had never been to Wrigley Field.
Sure, he is meant to be where he has never been.
Describes me and Ann-Margret.
Sorry, I didn't want to make this a post about players and press conference demeanors...
No, I was watching the Carlos Pena press conference and a lightning bolt struck me...
10 MILLION DOLLARS FOR A GUY WHO BATTED BELOW THE MENDOZA LINE!!!
Mario Mendoza is doing cartwheels somewhere.
It made me think of some other contracts thought to be outrageous at the time. After Babe Ruth hit 59 home runs for the Yankees in 1921, he given the unGodly amount of $52,000.
Ruth was always self-righteous about how much money he made. At the time. he was quoted as saying, "A man who knows he's making money for other people ought to get some of the money he brings in."
Way ahead of his time, that Babe. Well, that and prostitutes charged him more than 'the regulars', but that's another story.
Anyway, the Babe made a little less than $1,000 per home run. The Yankees knew he was worth it. Besides Ty Cobb on a lesser level, The Babe was the only player to put a lot of fannies in the seats.
Now, lets fast forward to 1970.
Pete Rose is on his way to becoming the all time hits leader. In 1970, he becomes the first 'singles hitter' to receive $100,000.
He was quite proud of that. Telling every reporter that interviewed him about his salary. Rose, who had hit double digit home runs from 1966-71 would only reach 10 home runs once more.
Maybe, he took it to heart a little much, or the change from Crosley to Riverfront changed his approach, who knows.
Rose had 205 hits in 1970, gives him about $500 per hit. To me, this shows how much salaries hadn't really changed much in 50 years. Really Ruth's salary in 1921 and Rose's salary 50 years later is likened to a cost of living increase. Owners had it good, didn't they?
Of course, so did fans, the cost of a ball game didn't match a Beatles concert.
Now, let's fast forward again to the present and get back to our press conferencing friend, Carlos Pena. Of course no other hitter in baseball has been paid as much for hitting below the Mendoza line. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think Andruw Jones got a huge amount after hitting .222 one year, the closest I could recollect.
Now, I know comparing Ruth, Rose, and Pena is blatantly unfair to Pena. And this isn't a post to run down Pena, more to be amazed at how numbers have changed, or not changed, over the years. And how much players are getting paid for those numbers.
Anyway, so far we have Ruth with less than $1,000 per home run and we have Rose with $500 per hit.
Now, get this,
CARLOS PENA GETS PAID $50,100 PER POINT OF BATTING AVERAGE
Again, not picking on Carlos. He hits home runs and is above average defensively. Like the Babe said, he's making money for other folks. Of course, unlike the Babe, there are no extra fannies in the seats, Wrigley is packed every day with or without Carlos Pena.
On another scale, players like ARod make even more per point of average, given that they make twice the salary and do not double Pena's average.
For some reason, that is more ok with me.
By the same token or another scale, it is similar to a Starbucks employee getting paid $1,000 per coffee served.
Asked about his one year contract, Pena called it a 'platform' year. A Boras term for, "I improve this year, to make more next year'.
When asked about hitting below the Mendoza line, he took the McGwirish approach and said, "I don't look back".
C'mon Carlos!
Political correctness abounds now, I know, but get a little of the Ruth self-righteousness or a little of the Rose pride, stand up and say,
"Hey, I am the first $10 million dollar player to hit below the Mendoza line!"
[ December 12, 2010, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
I don't care who won the game,
And I know it sounds a little lame
But that is Fantasy,
Can't ya see?
Your Reality is my Fantasy
DOUGHBOYS
Posts: 5753
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:00 pm
Top
...................................................................................................................................................
Current post-
Over/under- Does he get more than a one year contract this year and does he get more than the 10 million that the Cubs paid him.
I'll go first-
There was two things I was pretty certain of going into this off season-
1. That Pujols would sign with a team other than the Cardinals
2. That the Cubs would sign Prince Fielder
So, in my mind, I am saving the Cubs from themselves by taking Pena off their Board. This leaves Pena for the Mariners, the Rangers, or the Orioles.
The Orioles already have Carlos Pena. His name is Mark Reynolds.
The Rangers would like to have him as a fielder and for his obp and power. I don't think they trust Moreland to be a full time 1b so they are still on the look out.
The Mariners have Smoak.
So we're talking three teams that are not exactly desperate for Pena, he'd just be a nice piece for their puzzle.
I'll also throw in two more teams, the Cardinals and Brewers who are missing their former sluggers.
The Cardinals have Berkman and would prefer to get another outfielder.
The Brewers might bite, but they're not big money players.
With this in mind, I'll go one year at less than 10 million.
Boras and Pena thought with a great year at Wrigley, that it could be used as a springboard for a great contract.
That plan didn't backfire but at the same time, this contract won't be helped by Pena's year.
One thing is for certain, wherever Pena signs, it'll be 'where he should be'.
.
.
.
.
.
This is a post I had from last year after the Cubs signed Carlos Pena.
There will be more of this current post at the bottom of the page.
Ruth, Rose, and Pena
by DOUGHBOYS » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:51 am
I watch some of the press conferences after players are signed. One thing is always said. In one form or another, every player says, 'This is where I should be'.
Makes me laugh every time.
If that is where they should be, than why did they waste their time where they came from?
During Carlos Pena's press conference, he said the line that makes me giggle. That giggle turned into outright laughter when Pena said that he had never been to Wrigley Field.
Sure, he is meant to be where he has never been.
Describes me and Ann-Margret.
Sorry, I didn't want to make this a post about players and press conference demeanors...
No, I was watching the Carlos Pena press conference and a lightning bolt struck me...
10 MILLION DOLLARS FOR A GUY WHO BATTED BELOW THE MENDOZA LINE!!!
Mario Mendoza is doing cartwheels somewhere.
It made me think of some other contracts thought to be outrageous at the time. After Babe Ruth hit 59 home runs for the Yankees in 1921, he given the unGodly amount of $52,000.
Ruth was always self-righteous about how much money he made. At the time. he was quoted as saying, "A man who knows he's making money for other people ought to get some of the money he brings in."
Way ahead of his time, that Babe. Well, that and prostitutes charged him more than 'the regulars', but that's another story.
Anyway, the Babe made a little less than $1,000 per home run. The Yankees knew he was worth it. Besides Ty Cobb on a lesser level, The Babe was the only player to put a lot of fannies in the seats.
Now, lets fast forward to 1970.
Pete Rose is on his way to becoming the all time hits leader. In 1970, he becomes the first 'singles hitter' to receive $100,000.
He was quite proud of that. Telling every reporter that interviewed him about his salary. Rose, who had hit double digit home runs from 1966-71 would only reach 10 home runs once more.
Maybe, he took it to heart a little much, or the change from Crosley to Riverfront changed his approach, who knows.
Rose had 205 hits in 1970, gives him about $500 per hit. To me, this shows how much salaries hadn't really changed much in 50 years. Really Ruth's salary in 1921 and Rose's salary 50 years later is likened to a cost of living increase. Owners had it good, didn't they?
Of course, so did fans, the cost of a ball game didn't match a Beatles concert.
Now, let's fast forward again to the present and get back to our press conferencing friend, Carlos Pena. Of course no other hitter in baseball has been paid as much for hitting below the Mendoza line. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I think Andruw Jones got a huge amount after hitting .222 one year, the closest I could recollect.
Now, I know comparing Ruth, Rose, and Pena is blatantly unfair to Pena. And this isn't a post to run down Pena, more to be amazed at how numbers have changed, or not changed, over the years. And how much players are getting paid for those numbers.
Anyway, so far we have Ruth with less than $1,000 per home run and we have Rose with $500 per hit.
Now, get this,
CARLOS PENA GETS PAID $50,100 PER POINT OF BATTING AVERAGE
Again, not picking on Carlos. He hits home runs and is above average defensively. Like the Babe said, he's making money for other folks. Of course, unlike the Babe, there are no extra fannies in the seats, Wrigley is packed every day with or without Carlos Pena.
On another scale, players like ARod make even more per point of average, given that they make twice the salary and do not double Pena's average.
For some reason, that is more ok with me.
By the same token or another scale, it is similar to a Starbucks employee getting paid $1,000 per coffee served.
Asked about his one year contract, Pena called it a 'platform' year. A Boras term for, "I improve this year, to make more next year'.
When asked about hitting below the Mendoza line, he took the McGwirish approach and said, "I don't look back".
C'mon Carlos!
Political correctness abounds now, I know, but get a little of the Ruth self-righteousness or a little of the Rose pride, stand up and say,
"Hey, I am the first $10 million dollar player to hit below the Mendoza line!"
[ December 12, 2010, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
I don't care who won the game,
And I know it sounds a little lame
But that is Fantasy,
Can't ya see?
Your Reality is my Fantasy
DOUGHBOYS
Posts: 5753
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:00 pm
Top
...................................................................................................................................................
Current post-
Over/under- Does he get more than a one year contract this year and does he get more than the 10 million that the Cubs paid him.
I'll go first-
There was two things I was pretty certain of going into this off season-
1. That Pujols would sign with a team other than the Cardinals
2. That the Cubs would sign Prince Fielder
So, in my mind, I am saving the Cubs from themselves by taking Pena off their Board. This leaves Pena for the Mariners, the Rangers, or the Orioles.
The Orioles already have Carlos Pena. His name is Mark Reynolds.
The Rangers would like to have him as a fielder and for his obp and power. I don't think they trust Moreland to be a full time 1b so they are still on the look out.
The Mariners have Smoak.
So we're talking three teams that are not exactly desperate for Pena, he'd just be a nice piece for their puzzle.
I'll also throw in two more teams, the Cardinals and Brewers who are missing their former sluggers.
The Cardinals have Berkman and would prefer to get another outfielder.
The Brewers might bite, but they're not big money players.
With this in mind, I'll go one year at less than 10 million.
Boras and Pena thought with a great year at Wrigley, that it could be used as a springboard for a great contract.
That plan didn't backfire but at the same time, this contract won't be helped by Pena's year.
One thing is for certain, wherever Pena signs, it'll be 'where he should be'.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Re: Stevie Williams
Michael Cuddyer
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today, the Rockies signed Michael Cuddyer. I was stunned that the Rockies would give any free agent 31 million dollars. They've signed 'their own' to large contracts, such as Todd Helton, Troy Tulowitzki, and Carlos Gonzalez, but I can't remember them shelling out big bucks for any free agent since the Hampton/Neagle fiasco in 2000.
Since then,the Rockies have mostly relied on their minor league system and minor signings and trades.
There are a lot of things to like about the Cuddyer signing. The Rockies image is of a religious tone. In fact, in 2006, Clint Hurdle, the Rockies Manager began a 'Christian code of conduct' for Rockies players. This code effectively banned music with cuss words or of an explicit nature and men's magazines. There was also a tone that any bad behavior would not be tolerated.
Hurdle is gone, but the rules have not changed much. Michael Cuddyer was noted as an upstanding leader in Minnesota so it is of little surprise that this player would be the recipient of Rockies money. And he should fit in nicely.
On the field, Cuddyer is a little past his prime. He'll be 33 when he begins play with the Rockies. He's a nice little player in that the Rockies can expect .275/75/20/10/85 type stats while playing anywhere the Rockies seem fit.
He'll most likely hit in the fifth spot in the order. The Rockies are unsure what to do with their 2b and 3b positions and it wouldn't surprise me to see Cuddyer used in either of those spots, even for brief periods of time.
For now though, he is thought of as a full time outfielder and part time 1b. This paves the way for Seth Smith to be traded and Smith has already been marketed to other clubs.
From a fantasy stand point, Cuddyer is, of course, helped by ball park effect and may be re-energized by his new environment. There haven't been many free agent signings this off season in which a player has been bolstered a lot by a new team. This signing moves Cuddyer up, possibly a whole round.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Today, the Rockies signed Michael Cuddyer. I was stunned that the Rockies would give any free agent 31 million dollars. They've signed 'their own' to large contracts, such as Todd Helton, Troy Tulowitzki, and Carlos Gonzalez, but I can't remember them shelling out big bucks for any free agent since the Hampton/Neagle fiasco in 2000.
Since then,the Rockies have mostly relied on their minor league system and minor signings and trades.
There are a lot of things to like about the Cuddyer signing. The Rockies image is of a religious tone. In fact, in 2006, Clint Hurdle, the Rockies Manager began a 'Christian code of conduct' for Rockies players. This code effectively banned music with cuss words or of an explicit nature and men's magazines. There was also a tone that any bad behavior would not be tolerated.
Hurdle is gone, but the rules have not changed much. Michael Cuddyer was noted as an upstanding leader in Minnesota so it is of little surprise that this player would be the recipient of Rockies money. And he should fit in nicely.
On the field, Cuddyer is a little past his prime. He'll be 33 when he begins play with the Rockies. He's a nice little player in that the Rockies can expect .275/75/20/10/85 type stats while playing anywhere the Rockies seem fit.
He'll most likely hit in the fifth spot in the order. The Rockies are unsure what to do with their 2b and 3b positions and it wouldn't surprise me to see Cuddyer used in either of those spots, even for brief periods of time.
For now though, he is thought of as a full time outfielder and part time 1b. This paves the way for Seth Smith to be traded and Smith has already been marketed to other clubs.
From a fantasy stand point, Cuddyer is, of course, helped by ball park effect and may be re-energized by his new environment. There haven't been many free agent signings this off season in which a player has been bolstered a lot by a new team. This signing moves Cuddyer up, possibly a whole round.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
-
rockitsauce
- Posts: 1095
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:00 pm
Re: Stevie Williams
how's that "religious image" working? who cares? i'm feeling a bit less tolerant of religious crap this am, a man of massive intellect & courage has died and i'm not happy about it. So not in the mood to hear about the jump4 jesus boys on the Rox. What it sounds like to me is Hurdle tried to institute a white man culture in the locker room? Just put on Garth Brooks boys, i love me sum friends n low places! When asked what he disliked most, Christopher Hitchens replied, "Stupidity, especially in it's nastiest forms of racism & superstition". That's what Hurdle's 'code' sounds like to me, some stupid racist bs centered around HIS faith. keep it to yourself.DOUGHBOYS wrote:There are a lot of things to like about the Cuddyer signing. The Rockies image is of a religious tone. In fact, in 2006, Clint Hurdle, the Rockies Manager began a 'Christian code of conduct' for Rockies players. This code effectively banned music with cuss words or of an explicit nature and men's magazines. There was also a tone that any bad behavior would not be tolerated.
Hurdle is gone, but the rules have not changed much. Michael Cuddyer was noted as an upstanding leader in Minnesota so it is of little surprise that this player would be the recipient of Rockies money. And he should fit in nicely.
I wonder if the Rockies will ship off Fowler considering he was working out w/ Kemp this off season. I'm sure there was music w/ (gasp) "cuss words"
being played during those workouts. Of course Dexter is Ivy Lge educated so he knows what he has to do to 'get along' w/ the tebows of the locker room. that 'christian code of conduct' is no more needed in a lockeroom than it is in a classroom. keep it to yourself.btw, cargo came from A's, who i believe got him from dbacks. btw, I dislike Islam even more than xtianity, xtians get their panties in a bunch if u say 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry xmas', muslims wanna cut your head off if u disrespect their invisible man in the sky, so i'll take my chances w/ tebow & co
Always be closing.