Some Phillies Links for You, August 5, 2010: Ridiculousness, Cosart Shelved, Thank you Mets (Boo)
by WholeCamels on Aug 5, 2010 7:55 AM EDT
Email
PrintSweeney traded to Philadelphia, farewell Mike!
I'm comforted to read that pretty much everyone (including Certified Mensch Raul Ibanez) calls Mike Sweeney a great human being. Hopefully he can hit, too.
Phillies Notebook: History not on Oswalt's side against Marlins
Not freaking out based on small sample.
Rendell playing active role in potential sale of baseball franchise - News - The Times-Tribune
"I hate the Yankees," said Mr. Rendell, a Chicago White Sox and Philadelphia Phillies fan. "If we're going to have minor league baseball in Pennsylvania, why not have the best brand? The Yankees are the No. 1 brand. Let's keep them here."
Oh Ed, don't ever change.
Phils Win for Now; Lose for Future
J.A. Happ has the chance to dominate National League hitters for the next ten years or more. Roy Oswalt may have a good year or two left in him. It’s no coincidence that the Phillies acquired him after he started having injury problems. It was a while ago when people wondered if Oswalt would be the "next Nolan Ryan" and the answer was no.
It's a few days old, but it's still one of the most spectacularly ill-informed things I've ever read.
The Juice: Padilla no-hits Padres for seven, finishes with shutout
Always nice to see former Phillies/sociopaths succeed despite their disabilities.
Phillies Notes: Cosart out for rest of season
Not really a shock or especially bad news. His stock is still dramatically higher than it was back in March.
The Fightins - Domonic Brown takes his fashion cue from Sarge Matthews
The young fellow is a snappy dresser.
Nolan Ryan's group wins bid for Texas Rangers - latimes.com
This whole thing was so weird and crazy. I'll admit I was pulling for Mark Cuban.
Braves Cruise Past Mets 8-3 But Lose Medlen To Injury - Talking Chop
Damn you, Brian McCann.
268 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Happ article - and I quote:
Amaro must go. If nothing else, he needs to be fired for booking TV time for himself to prattle on during games. Fire Amaro now!
Longtime followers of the team and blog remember the Ed Wade days and like crucifixions. I’m not about to say that RAJ is perfect, but I really do appreciate the fact that he goes in there swinging and has pulled off some good deals. This is over the top.
Hell, I have a chance to dominate the National League’s hitters. We all do until the grim reaper shows up. And while I grant that Happ is far futher along than I am (due to, say, talent and age), and that the jury’s mostly out, it’s not like RAJ traded Strasburg.
Yeah. Even in today’s age, its still rare that you find an article where every single premise on which the author based his argument is incorrect. This guy deserves kudos.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 9:17 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
If i have to highlight all the text in your article so that I can actually read it (this just in….black text on a dark red background is bad) the odds of you getting more people to read are not good.
To add to the snickerage of stupidity….is it really applicable to call the farm system a ghost town, and then have one point of evidence be that the major league team called up Domonic Brown? Isn’t the end goal of minor leaguers to make the majors, especially within the organization???
I guess you could argue that the Phils should’ve had anothe ML quality OFer on the roster and not have needed to call up Brown, maybe?? but that’s pretty bad.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt after reading that article. It’s possible the pharmacy made a mistake on his meds. After losing 10 minutes of my life I won’t get back reading the other articles, I have revised my opinion and think he’s just a bad writer. My apologies to Mr Stapleford’s local CVS.
Ed Wade just swindled Amaro out of our top prospect (JA Happ)
Most awesomely stupid quote ever. EVER.
Parenthesis are mine
I take it all back, this guy is a genius
I’ve decided no one can be this stupid and even if he isn’t just pretending the writing is so atrocious that I am finding it exceedingly entertaining to thumb through his other articles. Here’s a doozy from his July 30th piece:
There is a small difference in baseball between an ace and an ass. As I’ve written before, you can be an ace one day and an ass the next. You can see the difference by comparing the two "Roys" in the Phils’ starting rotation. Roy Halladay is the ace. He stops losing streaks. Roy Oswalt is a mere ass.
You can’t make this shit up. This was written right after Oswalt’s first start.
oh man, this is incredible
There’s this thing they call chemistry in baseball even though it’s not an exact science. Right now, the Phillies pitching staff has it. When Oswalt and the rest of the team get together for the first time tomorrow, who knows what happens to it? What if Oswalt has some stupid habit that annoys all the other pitchers? What if he insists on buying his very own shower attachment and doesn’t let anyone else use it? What if there’s something even my imagination can’t invent that divides the team?
This guy doesn’t get paid to write for a living does he?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
and that shower head thing, that can’t be random, obviously someone wouldn’t let our fair writer use their special shower head in the past
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Happ's first start much worse than Oswalt's
1 IP 7 earned… ironically figueroa came in for relief the next 3 innings.
Actually, he’s not an ass
neither is oswalt
but the guy who wrote this article is an ass-tard
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Corrections
Padilla no-hits Padres for seven…
Actually lost his no hitter after 6 1/3.
And yes, that “Phils Win for Now” article is atrocious. I don’t know where to begin, but how about this one:
…the Phils swept a seven game homestand from two admittedly inferior teams…
Um, before the Phillies swept them, Colorado was 51-44, two games AHEAD of the Phillies in the wild card race.
Medlen
The Inquirer noted that the Braves are 13-1 in Medlen’s 14 starts. Did not know that, but I’m not about to commiserate with any other team, least of all the Braves, about the poor luck and timing of key injuries. So let’s see how they respond.
Also, the injury came from an unexpected source. Saito, Wagner, Jones…the DL will see you soon.
Medlen
I just picked him up in the ol’ fantasy league yesterday and he goes and get hurt. Turrible
"It was almost like if Harry didn't call it, it wasn't real." - Jayson Stark
SB Nation
Braves might call up hot prospect Mike Minor to take Medlen’s place.
I think this would be a bad decision by them since (1) Minor only has five AAA starts to his name, albeit good ones, and (2) they already have Kenshin Kawakami, who’s a perfectly competent fill-in. But it’s possible that they’d get lucky with this dice-roll and end up with a pitcher better than Medlen.
Braves have the potential to be pretty scary next year. They will probably have four top-flight talents on the major league roster, all making the major league minimum. If any one of them has a bigtime breakout next year, we could be in serious trouble.
If they could just raise their payroll to $100 million, they could basically keep their current talent level intact and add Cliff Lee on top of it.
But how will they win if the heart and soul of the braves retires?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Why is Rendell a White Sox fan?
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 9:50 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Corruption is kinda a nebulous term to me when it comes to politics, but that aside, I think the degree to which Rendell has acted as a booster for the casino industry in this state is utterly despicable.
Not to mention, he strikes me as a disgusting slob.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 10:03 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Casino’s are a sad necessary evil. People gamble. You won’t be able to stop them. My parents are a prime example. My parents live in Gloucester Co and travel to Atlantic City at least 3 times a week to play slots, poker, and blackjack.
When Harrah’s Chester opened, they started going there 2x a week (closer to home) and AC twice a week. Now that Chester has poker, I suspect it’ll be Chester 3x a week and AC once a week if that.
Net result is that now the State of Pennsy will get 75% of the tax revenues from my parents gambling losses instead of New Jersey.
My parents were going to gamble either way.
Fair enough, people will gamble. But that doesn’t mean you have to give them a place to gamble here.
You are right about them providing revenue for the state, and that is exactly the problem. Casinos, represent a tax that falls disproportionately on the shoulders of people who are least able to afford it (poor and working people) and the only reason they have become viewed as a politically viable stream of revenue is because of the right-wing onslaught in this country over the past 30 years has seen it become increasingly impolitic to raise taxes among the segment of the population that can actually afford to pay them.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 10:21 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Smoking and Alcohol are necessary evils, and also more likely to shorten your life, but gambling is illegal and more demonized.
Heard a guy on the radio that wants to legalize sports gambling in California, one comment he made was that in the US we tend to stink at preventing people from doing what they want to do (prohibition was his example)
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m all in favor of taxing the stupid. I much prefer it to taxing people based upon their ability to contribute to society.
I’m in favor of sterilizing the stupid.
As for your other statement, I find it nonsense.
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s amazing to me how politicians can continually get people to vote against their best interests.
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
Ideology. It’s a beautiful thing. To paraphrase someone smart: the ideas that prevail in any society are the ideas of the ruling class.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 11:18 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Many people just vote along party lines in an electio they dont’ listen to the ideas, but at the same time, the ideas are often distorted and presented in a way that may present a less than accurate fact. Money and lobbyists
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Gambling isn’t illegal, it just is when certain people do it in certain places. I don’t think people shouldn’t be free to do what they want. I do, however, find it a sad reflection on our culture that poor and working people can look at a casino and see a way out, a fun weekend, or whatever other redeeming qualities they project onto those shiny palaces of depression.
On the other hand, people on Wall Street can gamble with hard working peoples’ retirement benefits, send the country into an economic tailspin, and still get bonuses at the end of the year.
America, fuck yeah.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 10:35 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
there’s no way to condone the crap that wall street does, you’ll get no arguement from me there, but the issue I have with statements like
“raise taxes among the segment of the population that can actually afford to pay them”.is that just about everybody who subscribes to that belief sets the imaginary line of who should bear the brunt of taxation at a level just above the maximum of what they think their maximum income level could ever reach.
I don’t think this is a very good argument for not taxing the wealthy.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 10:46 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Haha, no indeed. Not unless the Amazing Kreskin is president.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 10:51 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
every day I am more and more impressed with how much we disagree on things politically. I’ve never found some this diametrically opposed to me until you, congrats
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
~Thomas Jefferson
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Aug 5, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions
…so you WOULDN’T want the Amazing Kreskin to be president?
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 11:03 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
lol
very well done
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
~Thomas Jefferson
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Aug 5, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s disturbing when one agrees with someone who is clearly as disturbed as you?:)
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
In his defense, most people who write the laws aren’t aware how it works either
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
The brackets don’t work to the best of their abilities. They don’t take into account things like corporate cars, corporate houses, ie anything provided to you by the corporation you work for. You will find many of these individuals with low salaries but the benefits they get are through the roof.
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
~Thomas Jefferson
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Aug 5, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Let’s not forget the wonder of loopholes
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
A human invention that’s been around for as long as human beings could one up eachother? There will always be a loophole, because no contract is bulletproof so to speak. In fact there are people who are paid obscene amounts of money to find these loopholes, they’re called lawyers
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
~Thomas Jefferson
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Aug 5, 2010 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes, I’m aware of that, and the irony is that the more money you have (and probably the more taxes you should be paying) the more you can afford to pay less than what you are required to pay.
Many of the loopholes could be closed I’m sure by changes in the tax code, but that’s why satan invented lobbyists (god had nothing to do with it)
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
btw if I came off as condescending I apologize for it, that was not the intent
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
~Thomas Jefferson
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Aug 5, 2010 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
c’mon TP…you want me to ask him to set up tax level brackets etc?? This isn’t a house sub-committee…
Let me rephrase to suit you (who I didn’t ask the question)..
At what income level should the taxable income level really start to skyrocket?
It should be a percentage of some sort, not a flat number, but that’ my mostly uninformed opinion.
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Ideally, we would just have a logarithmic function so that the marginal rate increased gradually with income. The brackets cause a lot of confusion among those who don’t know the difference between an average rate and a marginal rate. It’s not like anyone ever calculates their taxes anyway, they just look it up on the tax tables.
I’m still waiting to hear FM define “wealthy”.
I’ll admit to being raised republican, I’m a Dr’s kid, and while we were comfortable, we didn’t have butlers or crazy crap like that. I’ve mellowed my political stance since I’ve grown up, but I still cling to the idea that taxing people who have more money isn’t appropriate. I finally read Atlas Shrugged last summer. It’s exaggerated but has very good points about the absurdity of expecting the wealthy to essentially carry the nations fiscal responsibility.
I’m a dr’s kid, and I was comfortable, and I grew up in an ‘affluent’ section of the Phildlephia suburbs.
i wasn’t raised a republican though.
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree with taco pal, essentially. How I define wealthy is not relevant.
And I won’t touch the Ayn Rand thing, because it would be an exercise in futility.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 11:31 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Read this GQ piece on her? I liked it and agree she has created a cult of sorts.
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
Who wanted to hear about xenu and theta waves?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
This, basically.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 11:22 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
What $ do you think correlates to top 10%?
(still no response from FM on where he thinks the line should be drawn)
Why are you obsessed with the fixed $ amount, salaries vary for a variety of reasons, a percentage makes more logical sense than a fixed dollar amount
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
because assigning a percentage is assigning a faceless value to a level of tax responsibility. If you say “top 10%” the average person (including me…) has no idea of who you’ve assigned the bar at. If you say $141K, well…now you have an idea if your uncle joe is in that group, and whether or not he’s ‘wealthy’.
Folks who say “tax the rich” seem to be passing that burden off to people they don’t know, who feel those folks should subsidize their needs. Perhaps if they are shown who those people are, and assign a face to the guy they’re trying to legislate having additional taxation assigned to, it’ll make them think harder about it.
I don’t know anyone who says tax the rich except pundits who try to mis represent the facts, most people say ‘pay your fair share’ and feel that a 1% tax increase on the 5% richest folk in America wouldn’t really hurt them so much but would help out the government ‘tax income’ greatly (for example)
A fixed number is too easy to avoid for those who it would affect.
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
so why is it a fair share for a guy who makes $1M a year to pay $380K in (38%) taxes when a guy who makes $100 K a year pays only $30K (30%).
(values totally guessed at…).
Because he makes more money??
That’s the reason?
I’m all for “fair share”. I loved the Steve Forbes ‘flat tax’ initiative. That way everything is paid on consumption, you simplify the code and eliminate loopholes. (then you just have to worry about bartering or off the books transactions)
Who said taxes were ever fair?
Is it fair that my generation is going to pay for the retirement of all those living too long baby boomers?
In fact social security is a great reason for why going with a strict number is stupid. When they set up 65 as the retirement age, people didn’t live as long, if they used some sort of calculation based on life expectancy it would probably be different now, but hey, going with a flat number makes it simpler for everyone.
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
And of course we’re ignoring the fact that some people who make a lot more money pay more to live as well and have to pay state taxes.
In fact, since I just had an interview for a job in wisocnsin today, I compared the cost of living where i am now north of LA and madison. If i got the same salary in wisconsin i would have an extra 20K in disposable income than what i have now.
Not to mention the state income tax in Wisconsin is lower
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, I know, been there, not that cold, unless you’re a wussy
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Compared the LA it’s also cleaner, nicer and just an overall better place to live (in my estimation)
I’ve dealt with Madison winters, if I get this offer at any sort of fair salary I would have to seriously consider it (it was a ‘cold call’ through my monster.com resume i updated)
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
The Flat tax is actually quite unfair as it placed extra burden on those who make less, mostly middle class. I agree with Neil Boortz on very, very few things, but his Fair Tax National Sales Tax is a good idea, though I would pair it with a traditional, but reduced income tax on the top 10% of earners.
how’s the middle class treated unfairly there? Do they spend a higher percentage of their income than do the upper and lower class?
If you make 50,000 dollars in Town A and pay 10% – you have 45,000 left to live on
If you make 250,000 dollars in Town A and pay 10%, you still have 225,000 dollars to live on
Trust me, I live in a place where cost of living sucks eggs
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
No, the Flat Tax is a flat tax rate, not a tax on consumption. What Forbes proposed was that everyone pay X% income taxes. That creates a greater burden of middle class, as they spend a higher % of their income on necessities than the wealthy (the poor likely would have been waived from paying taxes in that case).
Bilzo, the reason why progressive taxation is not only justifiable but morally compelled is that money, like all other commodities, has a diminishing marginal utility. If you only make $1,000 per year, then all $1,000 are extremely precious to you because you have to pay for all of your necessities. As you make more income, a smaller and smaller percentage of your income must be devoted to necessities. The middle class probably spends half of its income on necessities with most of the remainder going to things that are not absolutely necessary but are very important expenses, and only a small portion being devoted to luxuries. As you get to the very wealthy, only a minuscule percentage of their income is devoted to necessities and the vast majority of it is classifiable as pure luxuries.
Now, we need to stipulate that the government needs some level of revenue $X in order to function properly. It doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion whether we agree or disagree on what X equals. The point is that the number X exists, and that it must be funded from somewhere.
So then, we need to decide where it should be funded from. And the question that you need to answer is: should the same money that goes to one man’s necessities be taxed at the same percentage rate as the money that goes to another man’s luxuries? I think it morally imperative that one must answer that question in the negative. If you have a reason why the answer should actually be yes, then I would like to hear it.
The fact that cost-of-living varies between cities is not a good response. Yes, this is a problem with a progressive tax system, but it is every bit as much of a problem with a flat tax system or, for that matter, a consumption tax system. If you think the tax system should include a cost of living adjustment, then the solution is to advocate a cost of living adjustment, not to advocate a different type of tax system that has the same cost-of-living problems associated with it.
the issue I have with one man’s excess being used to be for another person’s neediness is that you are not giving people a reason to improve themselves.
If I can be paid to do nothing, why should I work?
(caveat – I recognize the need for fiscal assistance in some areas, such as disability as an example…but if you’re caught fibbing about that kind of stuff…you’re butt should be thrown in jail).
Nobody is being paid to do nothing, unless you’re thinking of welfare (which has a time limit) or disability (for which there is a very good reason to pay the person not to work, since they can’t work). There are benefits that the poor receive, but the way these programs are structured, work is always more profitable than non-work.
Welfare benefits are muchmore generous in Western Europe and Canada, yet their economies continue to function just fine, and people continue to obtain employment in all those countries. People are not going to stop working just because of welfare, let alone progressive taxation.
we just philosophically disagree (as often is the case).
I’m against the perpetual crutch, you say there is no perpetual crutch.
I think that’s BS. My brother has been stuck on unemployment on and off for the past years after getting laid off and he can barely make ends meet (in fact he often can’t).
Even if you tax a millionaire at 50%, they would still strive to earn more as that’s part of their nature, they’re driven people and $501,000 is still more than $500,000. You argument only makes sense in the case of an income ceiling where 100% of money over X would go to the Govt.
And, in fact, one of the most amusing historical occurrences in economics is that one of the periods of rapid growth (the late 1940s and 1950s) was when we had the highest income taxes, with the top marginal rate ranging from 82.13% (in 1948-49) to 92% (in 1952-53). All of the “taxes are too high” complaints are ignoring the fact that we haven’t had tax rates this low for this long since the 1920s. 1925-1931 was the last six-year period where the top marginal rate never exceeded the current 35%.
I’ll need to track the article down tonight, but last year roughly 9.2% of payroll went to taxes, which I believe was the lowest rate since the very early 1900s, possibly the late 1800s. The tax rate in the United States is already historically low, which makes the appearance of woe-is-me anti-tax zealots at this point in time rather humorous.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
In 2004 (so the information’s a little out of date, but still provides a ballpark), the top 10% were those with incomes of $143,800 or more. It would probably be higher now, as the top percentiles very rarely have a decline in income, as opposed to the bottom three quintiles, who have had their income decline since 2001.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
$143.8K….guess it now sucks to live in NYC even more, but it’s a good time to live in ND.
Oh wait…that means if I make more money because where I live the cost of living is higher, I get whacked even worse for taxes.
If you’re going to be in NYC, you’ll get whacked worse anyway. Between the state and city income taxes, New York City has the highest marginal tax rate of any location in the United States, at ~12.6% top marginal combined state and city tax. The next highest is Hawaii, at a maximum marginal rate of 11%
Honor is no substitute for victory.
Look man, after reading your comments downthread about simply trying to provoke responses from and also about you drawing your political framework from the writings of Ayn Rand, it is really difficult for me to take this or any discussion with you seriously.
Also, its quite apparent that our ideal worlds would look very very different. People can read the two sides and decide for themselves which view seems more logical and humane.
In any case, to answer your question, which I believe is a bit of a red herring, I would have no problem looking my rich uncle right in the eyes and telling him that I believe his taxes should be higher (and indeed I have done so). Hell, when I had a few too many glasses of manishewitz at a seder I probably told him I thought his wealth should be expropriated. But again this comes down to a fundamental difference and worldview. You say “rich people shouldn’t be punished for being rich,” I say “there should be no rich people.”
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
And for the above reasons, I have been trying to avoid this discussion with you.
By the way, I have no problem with the top 10% line…
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
Now see, that’s just a pointless direction to take this. The economics of the unique athlete and justification for what they make is OBVIOUSLY going to be against what FM believes in. Hell even I know that
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
It brings baseball back into the discussion, and I think even FM is going to have a hard time saying Gload and Howard should be equally compensated.
If you have a problem with what ballplayers make, don’t buy a Phillies hat and subsidize them.
I can’t speak for Fuqua like you’re trying to do, but I also know he’s a socialist, so wouldn’t be surprised if he says exactly what you think he won’t.
I don’t have a problem with what ball players make…I have a problem with guaranteed contracts :)
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought it was weird to hear that sports gambling is only legal in 3 states and that they were delaware, nevada and oregon, only one of those (nevada actually) popped to mind.
I also think it’s ridiculous that it’s a federal law that prevents it in other states, it should be a states decision.
Not for nothing, but can someone explain to me how ‘card clubs’ which are basically gambling locations, are legitimate and legal off of reservations?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Same reason why gentleman’s club is a better name than strip club
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
~Thomas Jefferson
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Aug 5, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
That wasn’t my question, my question is why are they legal? What loophole allows people to gamble playing poker, etc…outside of vegas, atlantic city, or an indian reservation, but they can’t play roulette or craps.
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
poker is a game of skill whereas the others are purely independant of a players intelligence.
That’s the typical loophole.
Well that’s kind of true, as intelligent people don’t play roulette and craps cause they know how bad the odds are.
Blackjack requires skill does it fall into the loophole?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
short of card counting, if you play the perfect blackjack system, the house still has a mathematical advantage meaning you will lose.
Is the fact that you are up against other players as opposed to squarely against a ‘house’ a factor as well (it’s just a thought I had). Someone (not the house) wins the majority of the money in a poker hand while the house gets the rake?
I’ve never been to HPC, I love poker, I just don’t have the disposable income.
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
(what’s HPC?)
Player vs player isn’t the sticking point I don’t think. I think it’s the fact that all interested parties in the pot have equal odds at the start which are then varied by their decisions and betting, with mathematical odds and observation being the basis for those decisions.
Except that once the cards are dealt, not everyone has equal mathematical odds based on the cards they get :)
Interesting theory they have though (HPC is Hollywood Park)
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s a sort-of-accurate loophole, because a good poker player will beat a scrub most but not all of the time.
An intelligent blackjack player will lose in the long run everytime, but will lose less than a stupid blackjack player.
An intelligent craps player will lose in the long run everytime, but will lose less than a stupid craps player.
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-just-in/2130161/report-papelbon-claimed-al-team
According to reports last night the Cuban bid was higher than the Ryan bid.
How does the lower bid keep winning in baseball?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 9:51 AM EDT reply actions
MLB owners are REAALLLLY afraid of Mark Cuban getting a team. He’s not status quo, and I suspect that scares them and their gravy train.
Yeah, but if MLB had taken the highest bid a couple years ago, the Dodger fiasco wouldn’t be happening.
Marc Cuban made a desolate unloved franchise one of the best franchises in his sport, I’m not sure why MLB is against that
Plus think of all the added income to the MLB offices for his fines
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions
general perception is that most MLB owners are old fat-cats with oceans of money. They don’t want some young hot-shot who mouths off to umpires and sends league offices tapes of umpire fiascos who sits by the dugout in a sweatsuit bringing in their club. He’s not their type.
I can recall seeing Turner at some Braves games, but aside from him, most MLB owners are hidden, aside from an occasional interview with the press (and even then, it’s almost exclusively written).
Cuban is just not their type, and if you think about it, the Yankees are pretty much the only club that upsets the balance now with the way they spend $ disrupting payrolls. (i know, i know…other clubs like the Red Sox and Phils spend lots of money too). They fear the unknown in Cuban.
I think MLB also avoids the ‘big money’ guys to keep cost controls under wraps, which is what happened with the dodgers, they took the mccords ‘leveraged’ purchase as oppose to a guy wo was offering all cash and had money to spend (which is the kind of owner MLB really needs in LA actually)
The Guy who ran the expos into the ground, was allowed to purchse another team.
MLB does sometimes take the preferred owner instead of the highest bid
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
And unless the team is bankrupt, they can do that— the only reason that this auction took place is that it was ordered by the bankruptcy court because the sale price was less than the amount necessary to pay off all of the creditors (including A-Roid of all people).
Oh I understand that they can do it, I just find the whole system kind of weird, and if I were an owner, selling my team, I’d be pissed if MLB did not allow me to take the best offer. If I were MLB I would want owners committed to, and having the necessary assets, to building the best possible team they can within the rules of the league.
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
This is a fair point. But on the other hand, when you buy the team to begin with, you know what strings will be attached to a future sale, so you can take that into account in deciding how much to buy it for.
There is a good reason for allowing MLB to exercise some sort of veto power over new owners, since you don’t want some mobster to come in and buy a team or whatever. But a case can certainly be made that this power is sometimes abused.
And the Dodgers disaster is a prime example.
I know he hasn’t ruined his second team, but the guy who destroyed the expos getting another team is just deplorable to me
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions
The details of that Loria deal are hazy now so I could be wrong about this, but I think MLB gave him the Marlins as an incentive to give up the Expos so that they would be able to move them to DC. So it wasn’t like Loria sold the Expos, then reapplied to buy another team, and got approved again. The second team was to allow them to pry the first team away from him.
That’s not the story I had heard, but you may be right, who knows, but even if true, it doesn’t make sense.
Here’s the thing though, if MLB has a right to approve owners and tell owners they can’t take the highest bid if they don’t like who is presenting it, why can’t MLB tell an owner they have to sell because of their poor performance in maintaining a competitive baseball team?
I know Selig hates Marc Cuban, but what could he do for Pittsburgh, Kansas City, or even the Florida Marlins (who win primarily because of developing prospects and then letting them leave).
Why isn’t it good for baseball to have MORE owners whose primary concern is building the best possible team to win?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
why can’t MLB tell an owner they have to sell because of their poor performance in maintaining a competitive baseball team?
That is an excellent question, one I would love to get an answer for.
They did just recently tell the Marlins that they had to start increasing their payroll, maybe that is a step towards ultimately one day forcing a team to sell as you asked.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
I believe they did that because there is a rule in place regarding a minimum payroll isn’t there?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions
For one thing, I don’t know if this would be legal, since, once you buy the team, it actually becomes your property.
Setting that aside, one practical problem this would create is that it would seriously lower the value of all the teams. Just because MLB had a good reason for kicking out one owner doesn’t mean they’ll have a good reason for kicking out the next owner. “Poor performance” is inherently subjective, and every prospective owner in the future would have to think about his decision to buy or not to buy knowing that he could get his team confiscated in the future based on the whims of Bud Selig or a majority of his peers.
For one thing, I don’t know if this would be legal, since, once you buy the team, it actually becomes your property.
Well it’s your property but MLB can tell you who you can and can’t sell it to, so if they can tell you who you can or can’t sell your property to, why can’t they tell you you have to sell as well, a little corruption of eminent domain is probably all it would take – “for the good of the game”
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, I suppose it could be legal if there were preexisting rules allowing such a thing. I have no idea. I doubt that any such rules exist, however.
Anyway, my main point is the second one, which I think would strongly discourage anyone from wanting to write such a rule.
Or your second point would discourage ‘investors’ from purchasing a baseball team and would limit the potential purchasing pool to folk committed to spending to win, like a Marc Cuban, but would prevent folk who have to take out large amounts of loans against real estate holdings from buying one of the jewel franchises
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think it would work that way.
You don’t make a multimillion dollar investment in anything if other people have unlimited discretion to turn it into a losing investment. Creating a “commitment to win” requirement is completely open-ended and has no objective meaning. In practice, it would just mean they could take your team away from you if they just felt like it. The fact that you, in actuality, might have a “commitment to win” would provide you with no practical protection, if the interpretation of “commitment to win” is within the judgment of human beings rather than some objective factor.
every team can’t be above average. It’s mathematically impossible. For every Yankees org you need a Pirates to balance them out.
I’m not looking for above average as much as competitive balance. A guy like Cuban would try and make the pirates (he tried to buy the penguins as his first foray in to pro sports and was rebuffed I believe). Not all big contracts or free agent signings work out of course, but wouldn’t it be better if fans in more cities (all of them ideally) believed that when a prospect becomes a star they’d have a good shot of keeping them for more than just their ‘early’ years in terms of salary?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
agreed, but the problem is I think the other organizations are perfectly content with the Pirates business model. It serves the needs of MLB in that they have to subsidize it through profit sharing, the Pirate owners appear content, and the other teams get to scavenge their players after the Pirates develop them.
How do Pirates fans (or Royals fans) feel about the business model do you think?
I’m trying to look at it from the fan point of view, the game is for the fans right, without the fans the leagues wouldn’t exist?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
oh it totally sucks for them, no questioning that, but the problem is until they wean themselves from following the local team, it doesn’t matter, and with the MLB blackout rules, if you live in KC and like baseball, you’re going to have a hard time pulling for a different team.
Does the ROyals home market over lap with st louis at all? Just wondering
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
probably does…but I don’t think anybody living in KC is going to drive to STL to go to a game. I’d be curious if they carry STL games in KC over the air as well. I’ve got a friend in KC…I’ll check.
Point is that most folk who live in KC aren’t driving to KC to a game though. So if they can get Cardinals games ‘over the air’ – changing allegiance is easier (just because you used the royals as the example :)
For instance, in LA you could easily become a fan of the ANgels if you wanted to give up the dodgers. Sure getting to anaheim is a pain but all angels games are on over the air cable
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Well it could be argued that the way the Dodgers are currently being run, that they won’t be reasonably competitive until they are sold.
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Jayson Stark
last year said on the Mike Miss show that the Royals were given somewhere around $40-50 million (if memory serves me) from MLB revenue sharing.
What baseball needs to do is ensure that the money given to these teams in re-invested into the team(minors, free-agents, extensions, etc…)
The Royals probably are reinvesting their money in the minors. Their farm system is arguably the best in baseball.
And there’s nothing wrong with that, but when/if those prospects become stars, how excited can a royals fan get if they know that there’s no way the royals will shell out the 12-18 mil per year (depending on the player) that it will require to keep said players past the arbitration years?
The “marlins model” (as I call it) does not seem to engender long term fandom but a year or two of great performance until the pieces are sold off again
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
It is definitely reasonable to have it dampen one’s enthusiasm. I think it is a mistake, however, to deem the source of this problem to be a failure of the will on the part of these teams’ owners. The reason why the big market teams spend more money than the small market teams is that their market fundamentals allow them to make more money, not because they have more of a “will to win” or what have you.
unless of course the royals ENTIRE operating budget comes out of that revenue sharing (which I doubt)
Is the Royals payroll for this entire year less than the 40 million in revenue sharing – and when stark said 40 million is that yearly or total?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
again this was a year ago
so my memory is a bit foggy…but he basically said that they made a nice profit combining revenue sharing and their own revenue sources. Come to think of it I vaguely remember him saying that a large portion of their payroll was covered before they sold 1 ticket (so the number they were given was probably higher than I first stated… I just remember being totally shocked when I heard the amount)
But when a fanbase deserts the team, the team loses revenue so where does that get them. I’d say years of wandering thru the desert until they get lucky enough to develop a good batch of prospects at the same time. Developing talent is one thing, developing it all simultaneously is another.
ANd then of course there’s keeping it
Everyone hates the yankees for spending so much but a lot of people ignore that they ALSO have a lot of home grown talent that succeeded
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s pretty much exactly how it went down from what I understand. It seemed like one big plan by Selig to get the Expos out of Loria’s ownership by dangling the Marlins. What I don’t know, is if Henry then buying the Red Sox after selling the Marlins to Loria was also part of this big plan, or if that just happend to work out independently of the previous sales.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
I thought the red sox were involved somehow but I wasn’t entirely sure
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
The curious thing is that John Henry was seen as a pretty terrible owner with the Marlins – every bit as bad as Loria is today – but now he’s one of the best owners in MLB with the Red Sox.
Does anyone know – i’m just asking not presuming – if Henry was sole owner of the marlins or red sox or who he was partnered with and if it was different folks?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Henry was the sole owner of the Marlins.
With the Red Sox he is the Principal Owner but not the only one with a voice(publicly or privately).
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
Interesting, so maybe Henry sucks as an owner, but in Boston he just has a lot more folk to prevent him from being himself?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Tom Werner is part owner of the team, he and Henry bought the team as well as NESN and a few other things in 2002. Larry Lucchino is the President and CEO as well as I believe a minority owner.
So to your point, I believe that with the Sox, Henry doesn’t have the ability to, and maybe not the desire to run the show on his own. Not to mention the Sox generate income that every pro team in Florida combined(probably a stretch) will never touch. Certainly makes it easier to own a team I would think.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
Did he happen to ask him what it was like dating Katie Couric?
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
I doubt it, we don’t talk about it all that much, heck I don’t even have the guts to ask him to get me tickets
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
This is incorrect. Cuban had the higher opening bid, but the Greenberg group had the higher final bid.
Also, since this sale occurred in bankruptcy court, MLB did not make the final decision on who would win. That decision was made by Tom Hicks’ creditors with the supervision of the judge.
You are going to hear a lot of ignorant statements about the sale from sports fans and sports media in the near future. Best to ignore them.
Then, after 9 p.m. Texas time and much complaining by Mr. Lauria that the process violated rules set down by Judge D. Michael Lynn, Mr. Cuban went to $355 million cash, plus the assumption of the debt. “We’re not here for bluster, arguments or fluff,” Mr. Jessup said. “We want that team.” They ultimately bid $581.2 million, but announced they were done when the Ryan-Greenberg team bested them by another $10 million
Interestingly, one of those creditors was Alex Rodriguez. Hicks owes him $25 million. He probably isn’t one of the bigger ones though, so I doubt his lawyer had a big say.
Cuban’s bid was the highest last night…Ryan’s bid was higher this morning. Ryan’s bid was higher than what Cuban and his group was willing to go. Thus Ryan had the highest bid and MLB accepted it.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
DomBrown really looks like a young skinny RyHo in that picture. It’s the nose
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Aug 5, 2010 9:53 AM EDT reply actions
Ryan Howard playing HS basketball
I don’t see a lot of resemblance.
check it out
Julio Rodriguez (RHP, eighth round pick in 2008) was promoted to Lakewood two weeks ago. Since then, he’s pitched 14.0 innings, and has a 25-2 K-BB. He is 19 years old.
I’m no expert or anything, but I know enough to know that that is another legit pitching prospect in Lakewood.
Pretty soon, we will have way more pitching prospects down there than spots on the future ML roster.
As Marlo Stanfield would say, “sounds like one of those good problems.”
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 10:41 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
do lots of clubs have pitching prospects all over the minor leagues now? This may seem like a silly question (and aside from TINSTAAPP) with the pendulum swinging back to a cleaner game (ESPECIALLY in the minors with the recent HGH ban that will take a while to see effects from), and the decrease in homers in the majors of late…..I wonder if the bar for what’s a good pitching prospect might have been raised??
Why don’t do some research and write a fanpost. All the stats and player ages are available on minorleaguebaseball.com
because when I do research it gets few reads or I get called “fradulent” by FM. Therefore, it means I must not be good at it, and I have no desire to waste my or anybody else’s time, and I’m not really interested in getting better at it. I have other hobbies I enjoy more.
put up one last year about HR% by teams making playoffs / winning WS…
looked up stats to back up my claim that when Baez gets the first guy out he’s markedly better (with caveat that of course he should be when getting first guy out, only working with a 2 out inning afterwards..) quick and dirty research on Howard and his K rate vs PPA…
You talk about how TP and FM do all this stuff to so many people and such, but what I’ve been noticing, it’s usually on you, and you instigate most of it
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
I fight back more than others, and openly admit to instigating FM. TP and I disagree often, but I respect his intelligence and research.
If you want to give yourself that kind of ego stroking credit of ‘fighting back more than others’ go right ahead, though it seems more often than not, you’re wrong, and fighting back just to fight back.
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
No reason it can’t be both you know
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
and I didn’t make any accusation of TP debasing my attempts at research, because he does a lot of it, and I don’t expect that he would blindly ridicule somebody’s effort for the sole sake of ridicule.
This would make sense if I actually did any of these things. Your research was flawed. I pointed it out. You got butthurt.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 2:23 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
the conversation went like this (feel free to look it up..)
“Baez usually does well when he gets the first guy out”
“WHOA…You need to do research before making a claim like that”
(presented numbers stating it would be biased and should probably be compared to league averages in similar situations, but showed my case ex-post facto)
FM (after being asked about it 1-2 days later) "i didn’t even know you checked the numbers….then reads posts with my disclaimers) and says “that’s fraudulent”.
Lesson learned . ..when FM assails you for making an intuitive observation, don’t bother checking to see if you’re right. There’s no point.
I’m pretty sure there were still serious flaws with your research even after you compared it to the league averages. And I don’t remember ever using the word fraudulent. I didn’t have time at the time of your fanpost to go through the ways your research was less than adequate.
In any case, I can rest assured that the majority of times I make baseball-related arguments on this site, they are grounded in some kind of statistical reality. Can you do the same?
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 2:46 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
But did you use the word fradulent?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I would have to go back and read every single back and forth. I think your account of the issue misstates certain details.
Look, contrary to what you may believe, I don’t enjoy sparring with you over stupid shit like this. I can admit I probably didn’t handle that situation as tactfully as I should have (as you can see, I have trouble handling things tactfully) but I would honestly love to press the reset button on our interactions because this is just getting old.
So we forget about the Baez episode, the Abreu episode, and I stop calling you a racist unless you really really ask for it. Can we agree on this?
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
You know, when we were talking last week about Brett Wallace getting traded over and over again, I kept thinking to myself, “WHERE’S WALLACE? HUH? WHERE’S WALLACE?”
“This is me yo, right here.”
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
by FuquaManuel on Aug 5, 2010 10:49 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
How about Josh Zeid at Lakewood? I’ve heard absolute nothing about him although he’s at 75 IP, 2.97 ERA, 75K, and 21BB of work. Granted, he’s 23 so former college pitchers (Tulane) should carve through Low-A, but he’s putting up respectable numbers.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Aug 5, 2010 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
How many were game related?
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Aug 5, 2010 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Over Under on 200
"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
~Thomas Jefferson
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Aug 5, 2010 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Our (the TC) record is around 3,000, I think.
"Tony Gwynn made sacrifices. Cal Ripken made sacrifices. I'm not sure Derek Jeter made sacrifices given the ungodly deep pockets the Yankees have." - Chipper Jones
______________
Nothing is worse than the end of the chip bag.
Think about how high it might be if you guys actually made the playoffs once in a while.
Lol, jk, that was totally unnecessary, Im sorry.
by philiafan14364 on Aug 5, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
How many good years does Happ even have left?
I mean he’s been in the minors, but he is already 27. That one article said he would be around for a more than a decade. I highly doubt that. Probably more like 7 years.
My guess is the guy who wrote the article doesn’t know how old Happ. He presumes he’s young due to him being a rookie last year?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions
So does anyone think that Papelbon being put through waivers was significant or just standard procedure? And should the phillies have mad a claim?
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:02 AM EDT reply actions
Standard procedure…just like Manny and Dunn both going through waivers…yes the Phillies should have put in a claim but they wouldn’t have been awarded the claim anyway.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
The Dodgers are trying to trade Manny, it’s a fire sale in LA folks…they want someone to take his money for the rest of the year
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Are they actually trying to trade him? I don’t blame them, they should, especially now that their season is basically over. They should have just traded him to Chicago when the White Sox tried to get him, but no, they foolishly thought they were still in contention.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
The rumors floating around here is that they are quite motivated to get rid of Manny. The “Mannywood” sign came down last week but they are saying that they had an insurance company that wanted to buy the space for the next couple months (and the dodgers need every dollar they can)
The moment the separation was announced I knew it was bad for the Dodgers, but a lot of Angelino Dodger fans didn’t think it would have that much impact.
It happened in San Diego as well a few years ago, but less people care about the Padres
by SportingFanaticism on Aug 5, 2010 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Matt Rizzotti...
Was promoted to Lehigh last night. I didn’t see that mentioned and despite the vast skepticism surrounding him I think its a significant development.
Kinda funny that the Phillies just picked up a guy in Sweeney that profiles out to kinda being a best case scenario for Rizzotti
by phanatic's phloozies on Aug 5, 2010 11:23 AM EDT reply actions
Indeed…but not much of a fielder…which is the ultimate rub on Rizzotti
by phanatic's phloozies on Aug 5, 2010 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Bout time. Of course it must suck to be him, because hes, ya know, in Leigh now.
by philiafan14364 on Aug 5, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Indeed…but not much of a fielder…which is the ultimate rub on Rizzotti
by phanatic's phloozies on Aug 5, 2010 11:37 AM EDT reply actions
Am I the only one that doesn’t understand the Mike Sweeney trade?
Looking at their career numbers is the thought here to start Sweeney vs righties and Gload vs lefties?
Sweeney has played a grand total of 27 games in the field, all at 1B in the last 4 years.
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
It’s not a deal you do handsprings over, because it was born of necessity, but even given that, it’s still pretty good.
I would get hung up on his 2010 splits, which look like an anomaly plus are only based on a limited number of PAs. Still, something to keep an eye on for sure. Also look at career numbers, where splits are far less pronounced. In fact, it’s rare to see a player with that kind of longevity be so consistent vs leftys or rightiies.
From as best I could figure, Sweeney gave the Phillies an extra .100 points of OPS than any other combination the Phillies could stitch together at at 1B (and he’s certainly now on the downslope of his career, but even so has a better shot of an .800 OPS level than anybody else over the next few weeks. The Phillies are trying to replace a guy who accounts for 20-25% of their offensive output, and with Utley out, more power was called for than what they had.
I was trying to post this earlier, but the board went bonkers on me.
I’ve got a gut feeling RAJ will trade Gload for Jess Todd, convert him to 1B, and run with a Sweeney Todd platoon.
Honor is no substitute for victory.
OT: Absolutely amazing catch
http://deadspin.com/5604310/spider+man-outfielder-commits-gloved-robbery
Looking forward to the Kevin Kolb era.
5-8-10...the day the Purdue Boilermakers basketball team won the 2011 NCAA Championship!!
PLEASE
Stop with the politics. I don’t want to have to wade through 100+ posts of that crap to find the baseball discussion.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
