Some Phillies Links for You, May 27, 2010: Not Quite Runny, Of Joses and Men, Smugtastic
by WholeCamels on May 27, 2010 7:44 AM EDT
Email
PrintPhollowing the Phillies: The latest injury: Chooch's right shoulder
Q: Can it be managed by giving him day off here and there?
Amaro: "You guys are making too big of a deal out of it."
Q: That’s the same thing you said when Lidge had first cortisone shot at end of March.
Amaro (getting sarcastic): "Ok, he's going to have an MRI, it's blown out. Four (bleeping) tears. He's just getting a day off because he's sore."
Sooooooooo smug.
PhillyBurbs.com: Mets blank Phils again
The Phillies now have been shut out in three of their last four games.
Phillies shut out Dogs
Drew Naylor goes the distance in win complete game shutout victory.
Brad Lidge nears return; Charlie Manuel praises Jose Contreras
Jose Contreras must remain the closer.
Ace won't be on Phillies' list when they go starter shopping - MLB - CBSSports.com Baseball
Good, I don't want another major prospect deal.
Resurgent Jose gives Mets much-needed lift - NYPOST.com
I think I'm going to be sick...
Bill Conlin: Top baseball prospect Bryce Harper lives up to the hype
Baseball is being infected with "Bryces" and "Bradens" and "Brodys."
Washington Nationals Knock Tim Lincecum Out Early, Beat San Francisco Giants, 7-3. - Federal Baseball
I'll be damned, Timmy.
Braves Victimize Marlins Bullpen En Route To Victory - Talking Chop
Braves top Marlins 7-3.
61 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
smug confusion
And pardon the blue language, but as a close follower of RAJ syntax, were the actual words he used:
“For fucking tears!” (tears here rhyming with beers)
Or
“For fucking tears!” (tears rhyming with bears)
Or
“Four fucking tears!” (again, rhyming with bears)
???
I think it’s option 3. Perhaps it should have read…
“Ok, he’s going to have an MRI, it’s blown out – Four (bleeping) tears.
(with a dash in between “it’s blown out” and “Four bleeping tears” instead of a period). That sentence ends the dicky sarcastic smugness aimed at the reporter, and the next sentence (and I’m picturing him breaking eye contact and looking for the next question as he finishes his thought… “He’s just getting a day off because he’s sore.”
Formerly Bye, Dawk :(
I think we are analyzing the wrong thing… Remember, this is RAJ involved, and I remember him saying in the offseason that the Phillies were not going to be involved in any major offseason trades… And I seem to remember Santa bringing us a pitcher for Christmas…
I treat RAJ as I would a politician… I do not believe a word he is saying and wait to see the actions… I will believe that Chooch is fine when he starts playing like he is.
by dannijd on May 27, 2010 9:54 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
What is his problem? Why does he have to be such a jackass? Sure it has its benefits at times, but this kinda stuff grates on me.
by FuquaManuel on May 27, 2010 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
While I see your point, in 15-20 years or so, I would very much like to see how a GM Fuqua reacts after taking some dumbo questions from the Randy Miller of the next generation.
True, but there was no reason for him to react this way to simple inquiries into the health of our starting catcher.
by FuquaManuel on May 27, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
In contact sports usually GM’s get all top secret about this stuff I suppose to protect they players from having that injury attacked by other teams, in this case maybe teams would be more inclined to run on us if they knew the extent of his injury – it could be some time before he gets his arm strength back depending on the severity of it. Although I can’t remember the last time we’ve thrown out a baserunner so what does that really matter.
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/articles/2010/05/27/sports/srv0000008378400.txt
READING — About the only thing hotter than the sweltering conditions at FirstEnergy Stadium Wednesday night was the bat of Matt Rizzotti.
Since joining the Reading Phillies two weeks ago, the slugging Rizzotti has been treating Eastern League pitchers the way Tony Soprano treats those in debt to him.
Emphasis mine.
Thas raycess!!! What, because he’s Italian, they have to compare him to a fictional mobster?
“Since joining the Reading Phillies, the slugging Dom Brown has been treating Eastern League pitchers the way Stringer Bell treats witnesses.”
by FuquaManuel on May 27, 2010 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Ooh, this is excellent. My turn.
“Since joining the Lakewood Blue Claws, the slugging Domingo Santana has been treating South Atlantic pitchers the way Tony Montaña treats rival drug lords.”
(Not really, but hopefully he will someday.)
"Since joining the Philadelphia Phillies, the slugging Wilson Valdez has been treating Major League pitchers the way Wil E. Coyote treats the Road Runner."
No, you are missing the whole racial/ethnic element.
by FuquaManuel on May 27, 2010 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
“Since Joining the Phillies, Valdez has run the Phillies offense aground like a drunk ship captain.”
by Cormican on May 27, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
“Since joining the Milwaukee Brewers, the slugging Ryan Braun has been treating National League pitchers the way Sgt. Donny Donowitz treats Natzis.”
by FuquaManuel on May 27, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m sick of Bryce Harper already. Conlin’s article is kinda hyperbolic, but at least he briefly mentioned 2 flaws.
Goldstein says Harper is simultaneously the best player in the draft, and the most overrated.
He’s not Baseball Jesus (that’s Heyward) but he’s awfully talented.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
Don’t worry, they’ll find a way to fuck it up…
"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel
I’m in agreement here. Since 1994, the expos/nats franchise has been abonimable. I imagine they’re only second to Pittsburgh in the NL.
Since 1994, they’re finishes in the division:
1st: 0
2nd: 2
3rd: 1
4th: 6
5th: 7
That’s sort of a nonsensical analysis, considering that they now have a different owner than they did for most of that period, a different GM than they did for most of that period, and are in a different city than they were in for about half of that period. Is there any reason why events that occurred in the ’90s might be in any way relevant?
I’m pointing out the futility of an organization. Maybe they’ll come out of it, and sooner or later every dog finds a bone. The events of the 90’s are relevant because they show that being a Nats/Expos fan really sucks, sucking only slighltly less than being a Pirates fan, but I don’t think there are any of those left.
wrt to their future performance, I’ll call it the snakebitsuck factor, and while I agree it’s not very scientific, I have a hard time believing that they will be at all relevant in a division where they have to beat out the Mets (spend lots of $), the Phils (spend slightly less $ and have decent not ancient talent), the Braves (who might regress sans Cox) and the Marlins (boom and bust).
The Nats don’t get the stigma that the Pirates, Royals, and Clippers get, but they’ve been very bad for quite a while.
Yeah, that makes zero sense. An organization is made up of human beings. If you replace all the human beings with other human beings, you don’t have the same organization anymore.
maybe if you wipe them all out at once like an organizational cleansing, but you don’t do that IRL. Futility breeds futility, and the Nats franchise is a damn guinea pig of late.
Yes you do IRL. We’re not talking about the Baltimore Police Department here. Baseball teams are not particularly large organizations, and changes in ownership and financial circumstances make very significant differences in a team’s fortunes. In fact, it’s much more common for teams’ fortunes to change than to stay the same.
If concrete examples are really necessary, there’s this one organization called the Phillies that changed its general partner in 1997 and got a new ballpark in 2004. The team became competitive for the first time in years in 2000, and went on an extended postseason run in 2007.
But now I see someone anticipated my point below.
So, the Phillies are owned by a limited partnership. Check it out:
http://www.quickmba.com/law/partnership/limited/
So in an L.P., the company is split up between a general partner and limited partners. The general partner has all the control, while the limited partners are just investors.
In Phillies L.P., David Montgomery is the sole general partner, so he has total control over the company even though he actually only owns a very small stake. The limited partners own most of the company and get most of the profits, but they have no control over day-to-day affairs. (Obviously, if you’re putting up the money, you have some indirect influence over the general partner, but you have no formal right to control him.)
Before 1997, Bill Giles was the general partner. That year, he decided to step down, and the partners all got together and appointed Monty to take his place. The limited partners all stayed the same.
As an example to bolster your point, think about how completely futile the (Devil) Rays were from their inception through 3 years ago. But once they replaced Chuck Lamar with Andrew Friedman, they’ve been on a steady ascent to league powerhouse — despite being every bit as futile and snakebitten as the Nats are now.
Good one. Another decent example is the Brewers, who used to be a no-hope organization under Wendy Selig, but have improved a lot ever since they were sold to Mark Attanasio. They’re not on the Rays level, but they’re still a reasonably well-run organization, and they’ve had a pretty good amount of success when you consider that their economic circumstances are possibly the worst in MLB.
I’m not saying they can’t turn it around, I’m just not expecting them to.
Houston hired a new GM. How’s that working for them?
Change isn’t always improvement.
Do you have any basis for your expectation? Since you’re now conceding that what happened in the ‘90s etc. isn’t actually relevant. Is there anything about the current regime that would indicate that they won’t be successful? Do you even know who the Nats’ current owner and GM are?
Obviously if you replace a bad old owner with a bad new owner, you’re going to stay bad. But in this case, you’re drawing a conclusion that they’re going to stay bad without even knowing anything about the new owner. That’s just nonsense. If you don’t actually know anything about the new owner or the new GM or the economic differences between running a team in a new ballpark in DC vs. a decrepit ballpark in Montreal, then you don’t have a right to an opinion about whether or not they’re likely to be successful.
Your “Houston” argument is a terrible one and a non-sequitur for so many reasons that I’m not even going to waste my time explaining it to you. Just think it through for about 30 seconds and hopefully you will be able to think of at least some of the flaws on your own.
listen dude….I’m not saying the Nats aren’t ever going to win. I’m saying that they have sucked for so long it’s going to take a long time to fix it.
If concrete examples are really necessary, there’s this one organization called the Phillies that changed its general partner in 1997 and got a new ballpark in 2004. The team became competitive for the first time in years in 2000, and went on an extended postseason run in 2007.
By your own example it took 10 years for them to reach a post-season after a change in ownership. They did mix in a few years of competitveness but still couldn’t climb over the hump because the competition in the division was too strong.
The Royals have this guy named Zach Greinke, and they still suck as a team. Strasburg does not make the Nats relevant now. A new owner does not make them relevant now.
They have sucked for a long time. They will continue to suck in the near future, because in baseball you cannot overhaul an organization quickly.
Feel free to continue with the attacks because you don’t like my rationale. That will make me not take you seriously because when folks resort to…
That’s sort of a nonsensical analysis
Yeah, that makes zero sense
you don’t have a right to an opinion
Your "Houston" argument is a terrible one
it makes me not take you seriously. I’m sorry that you disagree with my takes that:
It takes a long time to fix a baseball team.
Just making a change doesn’t always mean improvement.
It’s apparently irked you very much. I’m sorry about that.
This:
It takes a long time to fix a baseball team.
Is not the argument you made before. You are changing your position in midstream because you can’t defend the point you were making earlier.
This:
Just making a change doesn’t always mean improvement.
Is a non sequitur because I did not say that “just making a change always means improvement.” What you are doing here is beating a straw man, which is legitimately irksome.
They will continue to suck in the near future, because in baseball you cannot overhaul an organization quickly.
Again, this is not relevant to the point I was making. Go back and read our earlier posts. Did I say that the Nationals are likely to quickly turn around their on-field results because of their new management. No, I did not. What I said was that just because old management made bad decisions does not prove that new management is likely to make bad decisions now.
If I ever use harsh language to counter your arguments, it isn’t personal. It’s just because it’s what I think those particular arguments deserve. If and when you make better arguments, I’ll speak less harshly. The fact is that the arguments you’ve made in this particular thread are illogical, inconsistent, and feature a lot of irrelevancies, non sequiturs, and attacks on straw men. When you do stuff like that, I’m going to say so.
How about them Pirates?
change GMs in 2001 (Bonifay to Smith to Littlefield)
change manager in 2005 (McClendon to Tracy)
change owners in 2007 (McClatchy to Nutting)
change GMs in 2007 (Littlefield to Huntington)
change manager in 2007 (Tracy to Russell)
change presidents in 2008 (McClatchy to Coonelly)
Change does not always improve the organization. It needs to be directed change, with a common goal throughout the organization and sufficient tools provided to achieve that goal.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
I never said that change always improves an organization. This is how the discussion went:
1:33 PM PDT: Bilzo says the Nats are likely to mess up their current advantageous situation because they have not won since 1994.
1:38 PM PDT: I say that is a bad argument because past performance is not a good predictor of future performance where all of the relevant decision makers have changed over. NOTE: I did not say that the Nationals are definitely going to do well under their new management. What I said was that you can’t assume they’re going to do badly under their new management based on what their old management did, which is a completely different statement.
2:07 PM PDT: Bilzo stubbornly maintains the position that what happened under previous administrations is somehow relevant as a predictor of what’s going to happen under a completely different administration.
2:19 PM PDT: I again point out that when new people are in charge of a team, you cannot assume that they’ll mess things up just because the old people who used to be in charge used to mess things up.
Again, I did not say that the new people are definitely going to be better than the old people. My point, all throughout this conversation, has been that the record of the old people is not relevant to an evaluation of the new people and how the new people are likely to behave in the future.
Curious though, can you correlate the change from Lamar to Friedman with the Rays success or had the core players already been ripening in their farm system before he arrived. I don’t know enough about the Rays to say – just wondering, thought you might. In general, it seems that there is alot of overlap when leadership changes hands. Sometimes the new guy has to clean up the mess the old guy leaves behind (and doesn’t get credit for it) or sometimes the new guy is the beneficiary of the hard work done by the guy on the way out, hard work that can lay the foundation for future success that goes unseen at the time. Jim Leyland, I recall went out his way to emphasize that he he was fortunate to take over a young club that Trammel navigated threw some rough growing pains when he took over the Tigers.
Lamar drafted talent, personality issues be damned. Therefore the Rays were stocked with Delmon Young, Josh Hamilton (to be fair he was a literal choir boy prior to injuries derailing his personal life) and Elijah Dukes. The first thing Friedman did was eliminate the bad apples (Dukes and Young).
Upton and Crawford were drafted before Friedman came along. Niemann, Davis and Brignac were drafted when Friedman was in charge of player development (no idea how much say he would have had in those picks). Longoria, Price and Hellickson are all his picks and Joe Maddon is his hire. It’s very similar to the Gillick situation, in that Wade brought in most of the young talent and Gillick fixed a few of Wade’s errors.
Both Friedman and Gillick came into organizations stocked with talent. Rizzo, meanwhile, took over a team with one of the worst minor league systems in baseball. And it will take a few years to restock. Even if the Nats get competitive, they will be unable to trade for any spare parts needed to stay competitive (which is fine, the Rays never make big trades, either). They will have to rely entirely on a farm system which is barren outside of Storen, Strasburg and, soon, Harper (though, admittedly, those could be 3 of the top 10 prospects in all of baseball, arguably).
Yeah, Jim Bowden was totally incompetent. But their farm system, while top-heavy, isn’t quite as barren today (beyond the three) as it was then. Sickels.
If Rizzo plays his cards right, I think they could contend in four years or so.
You may be right… But you have not given ne a reason to believe that the blind squirrels in Washington could not find the nut that is success… You have just said that they new to get lucky… And maybe they will.
by dannijd on May 28, 2010 1:45 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Interesting, somewhat curiously written article about Jarred Cosart:
http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2010/05/27/sports/doc4bfdfe6b57762079501546.txt
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
St. Louis Cardinals
Thursday, May 24, 2012, 8:15 PM EDT
Busch Stadium
Clear. Winds blowing out to left field at 15-20 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 85.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
- Will Smith shows why making your big-league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
- The Juice: Brandon Phillips flip sets up Todd Frazier walkoff for Reds
- Josh Hamilton makes great catch, destroys part of fence at Safeco Field
