Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Archives Thursday Pinch-Hit QOTD: Rocket or Pickpocket?
Today, self-described "avid Bauxite reader/poster" Marc provides us with a short essay and QOTD on a topic nobody in the entire city of Toronto has any opinions about at all. Nope, none. That's right, it's a fond editorial and question directed at the topic of "Rocket" Roger Clemens. Read on and post your thoughts, gentle Bauxites. Admit it -- Marc's headline alone makes you want to comment, right?

Rocket or Pickpocket?
Pinch-Hit Contribution by Marc Hulet

So Roger Clemens wants $22 million. He (or his agent) wants to set a record for arbitration, besting the previous mark achieved by Derek Jeter, when he asked for (and received) $18.5 million in 2001.

Winning the Cy Young award last season, after initially announcing his intention to retire, was one of the best stories of 2004. After all, how many 41-year-old pitchers in their 21st season have been considered the best pitcher in their league -- not to mention struck out more than 200 batters or won 18 games?

Last season, Clemens took a hometown discount to play for his beloved Houston Astros for a mere $5 million, or half of what he made the previous year with the New York Yankees. That discount will not happen again. Now keep in mind that this is a man who has made more than $100 million over the span of his career.

So is this $22 million an ego thing? Could he possibly need the money? Or is he setting himself up for an excuse not to come back after a season that showed he has more left in his tank than do most 27-year-old pitchers still in their primes?

The Astros are in an interesting situation, very much between a rock and a hard place. After their failed pursuit of Carlos Beltran, fans know that they have the $22 million available, so if Clemens fails to come back to Houston, it will appear as though the front office and ownership dropped the ball.

The flip side of this arbitration debate is whether or not this outrageous request will soil Clemens' image. It is easy to understand Clemens not wanting to take a significant pay cut again, but is $22 million even reasonable? It is more than double the salary he made in any other season in his career.

Which brings us to today's ...

Question of the Day: Will Clemens' legacy, when his career is finally over, be that of one of the best pitchers ever in the game -- period -- or that of a great pitcher who, as we see far too often in professional sports, got greedy?


Got a Pinch-Hit QOTD you'd like us to consider publishing? Send it along.
Posted by Mick Doherty on Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:19 PM EST.
Thursday Pinch-Hit QOTD: Rocket or Pickpocket? | 163 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_sweat - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:02 AM EST (#3165) #
I've heard to many stories about Clemens being [starts with a p, ends with a rick] just to think of him as a great pitcher. Certainly you can call him greedy, but you would have to call 90% of all other pro atletes greedy too. All I can really say is that the news of his salary arbitration figure is a lot less surprising than his home town discount was.
[ Reply to This ]
_CaramonLS - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:10 AM EST (#3166) #
Only way this makes any sense is 2 years @ 27 Million (5 mill + 22 mil)(so 13.5 a season). Maybe thats his logic?

The thing is hes probably going to get it. Hes going to say 2 words to the arb - "Randy Johnson". Who makes 17.5 and who he beat out for the Cy Young.

Not only that, the deal Clemens is looking for is probably going to include, not usually travelling with the team during road trips where he doesn't start.

He wants to make 22 Million? No special treatment for you.

But I'm more shocked than anything... this really doesn't make any sense on his part...
[ Reply to This ]
_J.D. Clubbie - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:58 AM EST (#3167) #
I would take Clemens for 1 year/$22M in a second and so would anybody else in the game. Randy, Barry, and Roger ARE worth that precisely because their performances are so bankable and so overwhelmingly great. You learn to deal with whatever baggage (if any) comes along with the package.

When Clemens is finished, nobody will remember what his salary was in 2005. His legacy will speak for itself. Seven Cy Youngs, an AL MVP, 4000+ strikeouts, 330+ wins, two pitching Triple Crowns, 6 ERA titles...sign me up, I'll take two.
[ Reply to This ]
_actionjackson - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 02:07 AM EST (#3168) #
My fellow bauxites, what is the most common angle we view Clemens from when he is at work? Besides his name one can see the number '22' on his back. Roger is quite a simple fellow. What if he just wants to take a run at making his uniform # times 1 million dollars his contract for his final season. Professional athletes are very quirky especially when it comes to numbers and superstition. Throw in a healthy (ahem!) dose of ego and you have this ridiculous personalized contract demand. How are the Astros going to wiggle out of this one? They can't non-tender him anymore. Maybe they can just ask him nicely to retire, before this embarassment of a contract goes on their books and they have to start dumping their higher priced talent to compensate. They can't count on the arbitrator ruling in their favour. Wow, Clemens will truly be despised in all four cities he pitched in, including his 'hometown'. What a waste of such tremendous talent on an utter jerk.
[ Reply to This ]
_Michael - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 02:53 AM EST (#3169) #
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=1118
Clemens is probably worth nearly $22 million to Houston in win value + odds increase of making the playoffs (from nil to slim) + fan draw.

On a different note: ESPN is running a playoff of the last 16 WS champions, winners decided by votes (COMN). Gotta support the 92 and 93 Jays. The 93 Jays face the 96 Yankees while the 92 Jays face the 99 Yankees.
[ Reply to This ]
_J.D. Clubbie - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 03:41 AM EST (#3170) #
I saw that playoff thing earlier today, and I'm a bit surprised that the 93 Jays are leading the voting over the 96 Yankees so far. I thought that all the blind NY-centrics would have them in the lead on name value alone, but honestly they were not a great team. There is no way they could have slugged with Rickey + WAMCO.
[ Reply to This ]
_Chuck Van Den C - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:57 AM EST (#3171) #
Will Clemens' legacy, when his career is finally over, be that of one of the best pitchers ever in the game -- period -- or that of a great pitcher who, as we see far too often in professional sports, got greedy?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Many great players in the game's history have not always been exemplary human beings. Clemens' 2-year am-I-retiring-or-am-I-not posturing has gotten really old and this year's pitch for $22M is just one more in an endless series of grabs at self-promotion.

As time marches on, his narcisissm won't be forgotten but it will be pushed to the back burner as the enormity of his career is allowed to once again be brought into focus.

Maybe the HoF can be divided into two sections: classy and classless. There's an idea for a future QOTD... who would occupy these two wings? My favourite player, Greg Maddux, would certainly be admitted to the first.
[ Reply to This ]
_Daryn - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 08:59 AM EST (#3172) #
Clemens is probably worth nearly $22 million to Houston in win value + odds increase of making the playoffs (from nil to slim) + fan draw.

The way arbitration works, Clemens doesn't HAVE to be worth 22 Mil.. he only has to be worth 17.5Mil and $1. (13+22)/2.

and given what Randy just got, he probably is... Houston would have been better off to offer him 14.
[ Reply to This ]
_DeMarco - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 09:20 AM EST (#3173) #
Clemens will be regarded as one of the best pitchers in the game...period.

I don't think either Clemens or the Astro's ever expect to go to arbitration, submitting an offer is just a formality and if Clemens decideds that he wants to play another season I'm sure they will work out a contract.
[ Reply to This ]
_Mick - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 09:47 AM EST (#3174) #
Isnt' the answer to this question "people have already decided"? I mean, there's very little middle ground with Clemens -- you hate him in Boston and Toronto (for the most part), love him a little less than you did, but still love him in New York and worship him in Texas, where he began and is ending his rise to baseball prominence.

Even those fans who have to admit "yeah, he was/is one of the greatest of all time" usually fall into these two camps. I'm always going to remember the great Clemends, but my Red Sox frie ... er, colleagues, remember "that [ten letter word] who bailed on us." Myabe now that the Sox have a ring like Clemens does, that will dissipate over time.
[ Reply to This ]
_Matthew E - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 09:58 AM EST (#3175) #
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3336698
COMN for prospects 71-80 in Dayn Perry's countdown; there are a trio of Jays' farmhands in this section.
[ Reply to This ]
_Chuck Van Den C - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:01 AM EST (#3176) #
A grab bag of comments from recent news...

Unlikely comeback #1 and answer to the Tigers' 3B vacancy: Dean Palmer.

Unlikely comeback #2 and answer to the question "just how many times can a guy break his arm and keep on pitching?": Tony Saunders.

Another inexpensive reliever I wouldn't have minded seeing in Toronto (joining Chris Hammond): Antonio Osuna, who just signed with the Nationals for $800K.
[ Reply to This ]
_Chuck Van Den C - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:06 AM EST (#3177) #
... also...

Mike Venafro (a true, unabashed LOOGY) was given a minor league contract by the Dodgers. I'd sooner the Jays had given him $300K to be their LOOGY than to pay Schoeneweiss 8 times that amount to do the same job (SS might not be limited to that role right away but will likely find himself there soon enough).
[ Reply to This ]
_Chuck Van Den C - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:14 AM EST (#3178) #
From Dayn Perry's article:

Re Russ Adams: The first draft pick under the J.P Ricciardi administration, Adams, a UNC product, profiles as a roughly league average major league shortstop.

Some may see that as a disparaging remark but if Adams can perform at that level for six inexpensive seasons, the organization should be pleased. While league average players may not push a team to championship caliber, they can do so indirectly if they are inexpensive, since they will free up salary dollars for higher caliber players.
[ Reply to This ]
_Greg - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:17 AM EST (#3179) #
Maybe Clemens really doesn't want to come back

He's made up his mind to retire, and this is just him saying...I want to leave the game, spend time with my family blah blah, and 22 million is the price I'm putting on that

Calling it quits is worth 22 million to him, anything less and it wouldn't be worth it to play, so it's less about how much he feels he deserves and more about his personal economics

On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering about a lot of people calling Vlad the best bad ball hitter in the game today...Could there be a way of measuring that? Like BA/OBP/SLG when contact is made on bad pitches...I guess it would depend on how you define a "bad pitch" but it might be interesting. Would knowing that have any value at all to pitchers?
[ Reply to This ]
_Vern - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:24 AM EST (#3180) #
What's wrong with Clemens asking for this amount of money? What's wrong with him asking for $100,000,000,000 a year? Either the Astros are willing to pay it to him or not. I fail to see why people get their panties in a knot over what a player is asking for. It's his life - he can do whatever the heck he wants and quite frankly it's none of our business.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:26 AM EST (#3181) #
Getting a league-average shortstop out of a mid-1st round draft pick is a success. I now think Adams can do somewhat better than that. We'll see.
[ Reply to This ]
_Daryn - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:28 AM EST (#3182) #
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/spo/mlbpa/mlbpa_cba.pdf
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/spo/mlbpa/mlbpa_cba.pdf

Hey... this is cool..
the link above (or COMN) is a PDF of the MLB Basic Agreement..
the CBA!

the source page is the "players" offical home page, www.bigleaguers.com
[ Reply to This ]
_Donkit R.K. - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:54 AM EST (#3183) #
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/story.asp?sport=MLB&storyid=8571
Everyone here loves prospect lists, right? COMN!
[ Reply to This ]
_Cristian - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:00 AM EST (#3184) #
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/fantasybball/20mullingoffseason.html
Since this thread has progressed to link mode, COMN for McSweeney’s take on offseason player movement and what it means for your fantasy baseball team. Best line—“longtime vampire Daric Barton”
[ Reply to This ]
_Jordan - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:12 AM EST (#3185) #
http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tor/news/tor_news.jsp?ymd=20050118&content_id=932124&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp
And speaking of Russ Adams ... he and Orlando Hudson are profiled today by Dr. Prison Fence:

Adams is a left-handed hitter with speed, plate discipline and moderate amounts of power. Ricciardi compared him to Walt Weiss when he was drafted, but Mark Loretta might be a more flattering comparison.

The Jays would be thrilled if Adams ever posted Loretta's 2004 line of .335/.391/.495, or if this year he duplicated Loretta's 2003 mark of .314/.372/.441. But the comparison is an apt one: patient, line-drive-hitting middle infielders with more power than you might think.

In terms of expectations, Adams hit .288/.351/.408 in Syracuse last year, a similar line to what he's posted pretty much everywhere he's played. In the major leagues,

Rafael Furcal went .279/.344/.414
Khalil Greene went .273/.349/.446
Omar Vizquel went .291/.353/.388

"League-average shortstop" might arguably be a minimum target for Adams in 2005.
[ Reply to This ]
_Hamboy - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:16 AM EST (#3186) #
I don't know why Clemens asking for whatever he's asking for is as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be. So, he asked for $22M. Does that mean he's going to get it? likely not, even if he decide to play again, arbitrator will split the difference.
Does a player saying that he's worth this-much-dollars makes him greedy? I think not. It's same thing every one of us does when we're looking for a job, we say how much our services are worth. Just because ball player does it in public media, shouldn't make him greedy.
Clemens should not be remembered as greedy player. Do we remember Babe as a greedy player? Clemens is one of the greatest player in his position in his era, as was Babe was in his.
[ Reply to This ]
_Vern - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:21 AM EST (#3187) #
Actually, the arbiter will not split the difference, but pick either Bonds' number or McLain's number.
[ Reply to This ]
_Chuck Van Den C - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:21 AM EST (#3188) #
"League-average shortstop" might arguably be a minimum target for Adams in 2005.

Jordan, I am guessing that your and Mike's optimistic assessments of Adams are based on his offensive potential. I don't dispute your forecasts, just saying that league average would suit me fine.

Any sense of what his defense will be like? I have nothing concrete to go on, but based on blah blah blah I have heard, he'll have to work hard to max out as a middle of the road defender. I have heard comps with Eckstein (stretched at SS, better suited to 2B). Not sure how accurate those are.
[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:24 AM EST (#3189) #
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050120/DELGADO20/TPSports/Baseball
A nugget from Blair in the Globe today, maybe it's only new information to me:

"Everybody thinks our timetable was determined by waiting for Carlos Beltran to sign some place, but the truth is, Carlos [Delgado's] primary interest at the start of this was in the New York Yankees. They're the ones who moved the agenda. We were waiting to see whether they could get out from Jason Giambi's contract, and we didn't know they couldn't until Dec. 27 or 28."
[ Reply to This ]
_Chuck Van Den C - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:26 AM EST (#3190) #
Clemens should not be remembered as greedy player.

I think Clemens' greed is not so much money-based as attention-based.

This is two years in a row now that he's dicked around Houston management not committing to playing or retiring. Should he not play, the Astros have to fill his spot in the rotation. Had he announced his retirement back in December, Houston could have participated in the mediocre-SP sweepstakes.

He is treating his hometown team with contempt. Shit or get off the pot, Roger. What's going to change your mind between now and February? How much more fawning do you need?
[ Reply to This ]
_Jordan - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:31 AM EST (#3191) #
Chuck, I think your assessment of his defence is accurate. He'll have to work hard on his mechanics, footwork and throws from deep in the hole, but he appears to have very good natural range and he moves to his left extremely well. Brian Butterfield did wonders with him last September, and I'm looking forward to what a full year of teaching can accomplish.
[ Reply to This ]
_Jordan - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:43 AM EST (#3192) #
Sloane has offers from all four in hand, with the Marlins reportedly proposing a three-year, $35-million (all figures U.S.) package and the Mets four years and $42-million. Both offers have an annual value that is almost twice that of the final offer extended to Delgado by the Blue Jays.

True enough. But the Marlins' offer works out to $11.6M a year, and the Mets' to $10.5M. Had the Jays extended Delgado arbitration, the minimum the arbitrator could've awarded Delgado was $14.8M (a 20% cut from his 2004 salary). If those offers end up being the best Delgado gets on the open market, he would've certainly gone to arbitration, taken the Jays' $14.8M (27% of the 2005 payroll) and returned to Toronto hoping to stay healthy and improve his numbers for a bigger payday in 2006.

If the Jays did make a lowball parting offer to Delgado, it might be because even the kinds of offers we were tossing around here -- I once suggested 4 years at $42M last summer -- would've beaten the offers he's currently receiving. Put differently, the Jays evidently were going to pay no more than $6M for their first baseman in 2005, regardless of his name.
[ Reply to This ]
_Lee - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:54 AM EST (#3193) #
When Clemens is finished, nobody will remember what his salary was in 2005. His legacy will speak for itself. Seven Cy Youngs, an AL MVP, 4000+ strikeouts, 330+ wins, two pitching Triple Crowns, 6 ERA titles

Clubbie, I agree. I certainly think Clemens' request is ridiculous and disingenuous, particularly in light of the other "perks" he will no doubt continue to expect, but to suggest that it will somehow taint the tremendous accomplishments of his career are ridiculous. The MLB Hall of Fame is full of characters far more unsavory than Roger Clemens.
[ Reply to This ]
_Tyler - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:59 AM EST (#3194) #
I've been an advocate of ditching Delgado all along, because I don't think that the Jays can win paying one guy that much, without having an amazing crop of young, minimum wage talent around him. I don't think that they're there yet.

That being said, is it fair to wonder if JP should have had a better feel for the market by Dec. 7, and perhaps thought more seriously about extending the arbitration offer to Delgado? I wouldn't have said this, but for the fact that he's apparently decided he's going to spend his money. If he was willing to do the smart thing, and sit on a chunk of payroll, I'd feel differently on the matter. Koskie gets what, 5.7 this year, Hillenbrand gets 4, SS gets 2.25. That's $12 mil right there, and I believe that there is a couple mil left in the budget. Do JP's acquisitions outweigh the value of Delgado, a random minor league free agent lefty for the pen and some cheap bat (Gross?)? I'd be inclined to suspect that they would, given that at least one of Cat, Hinske, Hillenbrand and Koskie will be on the bench in any given game.

I still suspect Delgado wouldn't have taken the arbitration offer, but by extending it, JP would have lost only the opportunity to sign Koskie.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:12 PM EST (#3195) #
Apropos of Adams' defence, Jonny German and I are working on a piece on Barry Larkin's defence at short using play-by-play data. One thing I have learned is that shortstops have over double the number of fielding opportunities up the middle, compared with opportunities in the hole. If Adams can be 5% better than average to his left and 10% worse than average to his right, he'll be a perfectly acceptable defender at short especially if he is adept around on the bag on the DP and tracking liners and flares.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:17 PM EST (#3196) #
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/A_NewYorkPennfuth.html
According to BP's Runs Above Replacement stat, Adam Lind projects as one of the top two or three hitters in the NYPL. COMN.
[ Reply to This ]
_Ducey - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:21 PM EST (#3197) #
I don't mind Clemen's "demand". You can bet he has dropped the hint that if the arbitrator takes Houston's number he will retire. Its basically: "pay me $22 million or I retire". Its a great negotiating strategy. Its also a measure of how great a pitcher he is. How many 40 year olds could make that demand and have it seem credible?

He seems like he does not really want to come back but heck, if you want to pay him enough he will go another year. This is not uncommon even in the real world.

I agree that Toronto could not have taken a chance on offering Delgado artibtration. Right about now they would have been looking at almost certainly paying him $14 million minimum - which is apparently about $3 million above what his market value is. You can criticise JP for what he did once Delgado was off the books, but you have to give him credit for not offering Delgado arbitration. Wise move.
[ Reply to This ]
Gitz - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:28 PM EST (#3198) #
The MLB Hall of Fame is full of characters far more unsavory than Roger Clemens.

Unsavory, yes. Unpleasant? Clemens can hold his own with the best of 'em, just like Bonds. What is the problem with both hating Clemens the person but admiring Clemens the player? Watching Bonds and Clemens is pure joy, and I'm lucky to have seen them both. But they make it very difficult to like them. Ask me their place in history? Fine. I can do that objectively. But don't expect me to like them. Those are completely different things.
[ Reply to This ]
_Paul S - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:32 PM EST (#3199) #
I think he picked 22 as a symbolic gesture. It's his jersey number, and it also should be ludicrous to any arbitrator who's not smoking the crazy lettuce. He should have zero chance of winning. He's basically saying to Houston, "Make a fair counter offer and if I don't like it I'll retire." And if he gets really lucky he becomes ridiculously overpaid and goes 4-4 on pissing off fanbases. NO pitcher is worth that. To clear 20 million you had better be great all around and play every day at a premium position. And even that's a stretch seeing as how A-Rod is and has been overpaid for the duration of his deal.
[ Reply to This ]
_Jonny German - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:35 PM EST (#3200) #
the truth is, Carlos [Delgado's] primary interest at the start of this was in the New York Yankees.

Ouch. I just lost some respect for the greatest Blue Jay. Not just the usual "Let's all go play for the Yankees!" sentiment, but that he apparently was hoping a fellow player would get skewered. Weak.
[ Reply to This ]
_Wildrose - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:39 PM EST (#3201) #
Mike Venafro (a true, unabashed LOOGY) was given a minor league contract by the Dodgers. I'd sooner the Jays had given him $300K to be their LOOGY than to pay Schoeneweis 8 times that amount to do the same job (SS might not be limited to that role right away but will likely find himself there soon enough).

I think the problem we have in analyzing Schoeneweiss is we don't have access to all the data, although you'd think the Jays do and perhaps that is what drove them to sign this fellow.

A truly valuable loogy must still face about 40% righthanded batters since most batting orders tend to have the R/L hitters split up. Schoeneweis splits over the last 3 years:

Vs. Righties .836 OPS with 809 batters
VS. lefties .589 OPS with 334 batters

We learn that he's great against lefties, very poor against righties, and that he was used sub-optimally ,facing far too many right handed hitters. Why did he face so many righties, because he was used primarily as a starter in 2002 and 2004.

Here however is my supposition, as a starter his numbers are skewed against right handed batters. He simply lacks the stuff being exposed to them the second and third time through the order. If however, used in relief, facing primarily lefthanded hitters and seeing the same right handed hitter only once per game what happens? Unfortunately we don't have the L/R splits as a reliever vs. that as being a starter. While we may not have this info ,I imagine Keith Law and the Jay's do.

What we do have is his 2003 splits , where he was used exclusively as a reliever. What happens?

Vs. lefties .571 OPS against 119 batters
Vs. righties .703 OPS against 131 batters

Essentially in 2003 he was a high leverage Loogy, who could crush lefties and still be above average against right handed hitters. This is what is driving his signing, the Jay's are banking if used correctly, he can be valuable.

You can argue that this is a gamble, that paying this amount for a reliever is too much,( although thses are Steve Kline like numbers and his value has been established), but unless we have access to all the data about his L/R reliever splits, we may not be getting all the story.

Is this not what we want from a "money ball" G.M., to look beyond the superficial numbers and try to find hidden value?
[ Reply to This ]
_Four Seamer - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:40 PM EST (#3202) #
Ouch. I just lost some respect for the greatest Blue Jay. Not just the usual "Let's all go play for the Yankees!" sentiment, but that he apparently was hoping a fellow player would get skewered. Weak.

I thought the same thing, Jonny. Very distasteful.
[ Reply to This ]
_John Northey - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:41 PM EST (#3203) #
This offseason has not done much for Delgado's image. First telling the Jays not to offer arbitration or he'd take it (minor issue), followed by saying he'd stand for the 7th inning patriotic song of the day if asked (as long as big bucks came with it), now having his agent say he was hoping another player would have his contract declared null and void. None of these are good things to have next to your name. Still, in the end, no one will care long term outside of Toronto and even here we'll generally look at it as a case of seeing a great ballplayer leave in a negative way... again. Thus leaving Delgado in the same boat as Tony Fernandez (93 wasn't the nicest way of going), Roberto Alomar (boy was he hated as he left), George Bell (lots of nasty words said as he exited), and many others I'm sure.
[ Reply to This ]
_Grand Funk Rail - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:43 PM EST (#3204) #
Has anyone else read the new mailbag on the official site yet?
The picture of Hillenbrand is GOLD.
He looks like the Great Gazoo.
Methinks the clubhouse staff needs to find him a helmet that actually fits for this season.

Grand Funk out.
[ Reply to This ]
_Tyler - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:52 PM EST (#3205) #
This offseason has not done much for Delgado's image. First telling the Jays not to offer arbitration or he'd take it (minor issue), followed by saying he'd stand for the 7th inning patriotic song of the day if asked (as long as big bucks came with it), now having his agent say he was hoping another player would have his contract declared null and void. None of these are good things to have next to your name.

Please. The arbitration thing, he said he was going to exercise his rights? This is an issue now? With all due respect, the anthem thing is an issue for those with axes to grind about America. Those of us who are ambivalent about the US don't really care. If he were to say he'd violate a team policy requiring him to stand, he'd be putting himself ahead of the team. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Even the Giambi thing...the Yankees were pursuing it. There a team with huge dollars to spend. Everyone looks great in pinstripes. What's so problematic?
[ Reply to This ]
_Fawaz K - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:52 PM EST (#3206) #
I can't imagine the parties are going to make it to arbitration. As others have noted, I think the number was picked based on their estimation of what Houston would submit in order to have the midpoint sit around what RJ's making. I don't think Jeter made it to arbitration that year - IIRC they reached a deal that paid him MORE than 18.5/year over 10 years.
[ Reply to This ]
_Lee - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:58 PM EST (#3207) #
What is the problem with both hating Clemens the person but admiring Clemens the player?

No problem with that at all. Let me clarify: I certainly am NOT saying that Clemens is a great guy, nor am I particularly a fan of his. I'm just saying that 5-10 years or more from now, no one is going to remember Roger Clemens as "that guy who asked for $22 million in arbitration before his (last season/retirement)". Clemens will be remembered for what he accomplished. Sure, he'll be thought of as more than a little bit of a "prick" by many fans, to use an apt characterization mentioned above, but he will be remembered for his play. This ties in to my point about the Hall of Fame; in a sport where Ty Cobb is for the most part remembered as a great hitter with a bit of an attitude problem rather than racist piece of trash who beat up more than a few African Americans without provocation, I doubt this incident will severely tarnish Roger's legacy. As for Bonds, I for one have no trouble liking him...
[ Reply to This ]
_John Northey - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 12:59 PM EST (#3208) #
Tyler, the problem with what Delgado has been doing is that it all is stuff that says 'I put myself first'. Nothing wrong with that, heck I'm 100% for free enterprise (full free agency for all once their contracts end is what I think should be the case). However, when you are in the public eye and want to be viewed as a 'nice guy' you try to do 'the right things'. Such as saying 'I loved my time in Toronto and want to give them as much time to make a deal as possible, so I've told them I'm not going to go to arbitration to give them an extra few weeks to negotiate'. Or 'I made a principled stand about not standing for the 7th inning and will continue to do so until xxx happens - money will not change my mind'. If he chooses to let money make his mind up in these issues, so be it. However, don't expect anyone to say that you put the team or loyalty ahead of money.

Btw, to me all the guys who left badly (even Clemens) were great players who I'd have loved to see stay here longer despite the fact money was the top item on their negotiating list.
[ Reply to This ]
_Lee - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:06 PM EST (#3209) #
With all due respect, the anthem thing is an issue for those with axes to grind about America

Tyler, the point is that clearly, from his refusal to stand for the anthem, DELGADO himself has an "axe to grind" about America. This is an issue to me not because I dislike America (I do), but because it is rather sad to see Delgado essentially say that, if sufficiently paid, he will waive his moral objections.
[ Reply to This ]
_Tyler - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:13 PM EST (#3210) #
Such as saying 'I loved my time in Toronto and want to give them as much time to make a deal as possible, so I've told them I'm not going to go to arbitration to give them an extra few weeks to negotiate'.

With respect, this is nonsense. The Jays were offering him 6-7 million a year, and weren't going any higher. They'd had all season to discuss a legitimate extension; they chose not to. If there were any real negotiations going on, that's one thing, but it's hard to criticize him for not agreeing to damage his market value to let the Jays hang around and not make offers anywhere near market value.

'I made a principled stand about not standing for the 7th inning and will continue to do so until xxx happens - money will not change my mind'.

"I recognize that I'm not bigger than the team, and I'll follow team policy." If he really cared about the money, he never would have made this an issue last season by not standing, and then granting interviews about it. Why cause yourself problems if you're just driven by the money. That indicates to me that his motivation is genuine in explaining why he'll stand now.

But then I don't have an ax to grind with the US.
[ Reply to This ]
_Vern - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:22 PM EST (#3211) #
"Waiting to see" what would happen in the Giambi situation and "hoping" are two different things. It might be to his advantage if Giambi get's screwed, but it doesn't mean he's doing something wrong by taking the advantage. It's not like he would be at all resopnsible for Giambi getting screwed.
[ Reply to This ]
_Lee - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:25 PM EST (#3212) #
It might be to his advantage if Giambi get's screwed, but it doesn't mean he's doing something wrong by taking the advantage. It's not like he would be at all resopnsible for Giambi getting screwed.

Right. Whatever happens to Giambi and his contract from this point on is his own doing, pure and simple.
[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:28 PM EST (#3213) #
Ouch. I just lost some respect for the greatest Blue Jay. Not just the usual "Let's all go play for the Yankees!" sentiment, but that he apparently was hoping a fellow player would get skewered. Weak.

I don't think that statement meant that he was hoping Giambi would have his contract voided (although it's possible), but if Giambi had his contract voided he'd be interested in filling his spot.

The Yankees were going to try and get out of Giambi's contract whether Delgado was interested in playing for them or not.

It's very possible that the Yankees told Delgado they'd be interested in signing him if they got out of Giambi's contract (which I tend to think was the case since his agent had a specific date) so Delgado decided to wait. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was hoping Giambi would be kicked to the curb.
[ Reply to This ]
_Four Seamer - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:37 PM EST (#3214) #
"Waiting to see" what would happen in the Giambi situation and "hoping" are two different things. It might be to his advantage if Giambi get's screwed, but it doesn't mean he's doing something wrong by taking the advantage. It's not like he would be at all resopnsible for Giambi getting screwed.

Vern, I think the key is that his agent identified the Yankees as his "primary interest", which indicates a preference for an outcome injurious to Mr. Giambi.
[ Reply to This ]
_Four Seamer - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:42 PM EST (#3215) #
Right. Whatever happens to Giambi and his contract from this point on is his own doing, pure and simple.

Lee, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Giambi, either (although I certainly hope that whatever physical complications he may be suffering from pass), but it's very difficult to reconcile this position with your continuing, unabashed defence of Barry Bonds.
[ Reply to This ]
_Chuck Van Den C - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:45 PM EST (#3216) #
Without hearing the words directly from Delgado himself, and then understanding their context, I think everyone is nit picking over the semantics of a third party.
[ Reply to This ]
_Lee - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 01:53 PM EST (#3217) #
Lee, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for Giambi, either (although I certainly hope that whatever physical complications he may be suffering from pass),

I agree absolutely. I certainly hope that he able to continue on and have a healthy and productive career.

but it's very difficult to reconcile this position with your continuing, unabashed defence of Barry Bonds.

You're right. However, there are two differences:

1. According to the leaked testimony, unlike Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds denied knowingly taking steroids. Indeed, there is no direct, concrete proof that what he was given by his trainer was anything other than what he was told it was.

2. I was 6 when I first saw Barry Bonds playing for the Pirates in 1987. He was my childhood hero so to speak, and as a result, I would really like to believe that he is not a cheater.

As a result, I will continue to give Barry Bonds the benefit of the doubt until there is absolutely irrefutable evidence that he used steroids. Naive, perhaps, but that's not always a bad thing.
[ Reply to This ]
_Four Seamer - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 02:08 PM EST (#3218) #
1. According to the leaked testimony, unlike Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds denied knowingly taking steroids. Indeed, there is no direct, concrete proof that what he was given by his trainer was anything other than what he was told it was.

The only substantive difference between Giambi and Bonds is that Bonds received better legal advice (or at least acted on it).

But I understand your attachment to Bonds. When I was eleven, I passionately believed that Ben Johnson had been set up by a spiked water bottle, and I even viewed his testimony at the Dubin Inquiry with skepticism. He's just telling the man what he wants to hear so he can be reinstated!
[ Reply to This ]
Mike D - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 02:10 PM EST (#3219) #
unlike Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds denied knowingly taking steroids

This is a fair point, but...

absolutely irrefutable evidence that he used steroids

Respectfully, Lee (because I think you're a fine poster), this is getting a little bit silly. Given his sworn testimony...for Bonds to have never ingested steroids, his trainer must have given him false replicas of the BALCO Cream and the BALCO Clear. Or he never took the BALCO Cream and BALCO Clear, and he lied on the stand in a way that incriminated himself rather than exculpated himself.

You're dreamin' the impossible dream, my friend.
[ Reply to This ]
_Lee - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 02:19 PM EST (#3220) #
Respectfully, Lee (because I think you're a fine poster),

Thank you.

Given his sworn testimony...for Bonds to have never ingested steroids, his trainer must have given him false replicas of the BALCO Cream and the BALCO Clear.

Not necessarily. Flaxseed oil could certainly be taken as he described, and giving an arthritis balm to a 40+ year old athlete and telling him to rub it on after working out is not unreasonable. Because of Bonds' trainer's association with BALCO, every person following this case appears to have made the leap that the "flaxseed oil" and "arthritis balm" were indeed the Clear and Cream, respectively. While it is certainly understandable why one would be tempted to make that leap given the closeness in description of the substances he used and the BALCO products, the substances Bonds claims to have been told he was taking also fit the description. Therefore, since I give Barry the benefit of the doubt, I do not make that leap.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike D - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 02:30 PM EST (#3221) #
No, not true.

From the AP:

Bonds told a U.S. grand jury that he used undetectable steroids known as "the cream" and "the clear," which he received from personal trainer Greg Anderson during the 2003 season. According to Bonds, the trainer told him the BALCO substances were the nutritional supplement flaxseed oil and a pain-relieving balm for the player's arthritis.

The leap that you (and others) are refusing to make is that Bonds knew exactly what he was ingesting. But denying that he took BALCO's "cream" and "clear" is simply inaccurate.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike D - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 02:47 PM EST (#3222) #
Getting back to the question of the day, I don't think this affects Roger's legacy at all -- heck, he already had his farewell tour in 2003. The point is, he's accomplished all he wanted to, and he's been mentally prepared to retire for some time. If the Astros really -- and I mean really -- make it worth his while, then he'll play. He's probably exercising his leverage over the Astros a bit too zealously, but I don't think it'll affect his legacy in the game.
[ Reply to This ]
_Cristian - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 02:47 PM EST (#3223) #
http://www.yesnetwork.com/yankees/news.asp?news_id=808
Steve Goldman previews the non-Boston/New York teams in the AL East in this pinstriped bible.

COMN. Here's the money quote:

In right field, Alexis Rios is a fraud, the most over-hyped Jays prospect since Sil Campusano.

Ouch!
[ Reply to This ]
_jsoh - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 03:00 PM EST (#3224) #
http://www.yesnetwork.com/yankees/news.asp?news_id=808
Ouch. Steve Goldman seriously rips into Alex Rios

"In right field, Alexis Rios is a fraud, the most over-hyped Jays prospect since Sil Campusano."

Ordinarily, I like Goldman, but his overview of the Jays is almost Griffin-esque.
[ Reply to This ]
_Spartan - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 03:01 PM EST (#3225) #
I'm happy to ignore this "fraud" of a writer who still thinks Gabe Gross is going to play LF.
[ Reply to This ]
_jsoh - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 03:01 PM EST (#3226) #
Doh. Scooped by Christian. Teach me for not refreshing before posting.
[ Reply to This ]
_Jordan - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 03:04 PM EST (#3227) #
I like Goldman a lot, but I think he's really overstating things here. Rios is light-years away from some of the Juan Gonzalez comparisons that were getting thrown around in 2003, but he should still become at least a solid everyday big-league ballplayer. He turns 24 next month, he was rushed to the majors last year, and he posted a fine .293/.348/.385 line after the All-Star Break.

Besides, the most overhyped Jays prospect since Sil Campusano was Eddie Zosky.
[ Reply to This ]
_alsiem - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 03:22 PM EST (#3228) #
It's refreshing to see any news on the Jays even if it's completely dismissive.

Where would Alex Rios have been hyped? I don't want to seem that I'm cynical here but I generally think that most clubs have 3 or so "can't miss" prospects that receive coverage because it fills out column space. Did Alex get further hype in the American media?
[ Reply to This ]
_Rob - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 03:34 PM EST (#3229) #
I can see how Rios can be overhyped, but a fraud? Come on. He also forgets the O-Dog.

Goldman makes up for it with this line regarding the Orioles' rotation, though:
The group finished with a 5.05 ERA last year and will again, unless Bruce Chen can do in 30 starts what he did in eight. He never has before — that’s why he’s Bruce Chen.
[ Reply to This ]
_MatO - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 03:46 PM EST (#3230) #
I think Adams' range to his left is fine. I seem to recall him getting to balls on the 1B side of 2B a few times last year. His throwing arm on astroturf has always been in question since the SS would have to play deeper than on grass. The new turf should slow the ball down and allow Adams to play shallower making this less of a problem.

I hope the Walt Weiss comparisons can finally be put to rest. Weiss was truly a pop-gun hitter with 25 career HR including a stint in Colorado where one year he had 8 HR. Adams had 4 HR in one month! I expect the power projections for him to be understated. The HR's he hit in September were pretty good pokes.
[ Reply to This ]
_Vern - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 03:46 PM EST (#3231) #
"It has some names you know but aren’t too happy with and some names that you don’t know that won’t be sticking in your mind any longer than Louis Leal did."

You mean like David Bush?
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 03:47 PM EST (#3232) #
http://www.battersbox.ca/archives/00001326.shtml
John Sickels had Rios as the 14th best prospect in baseball. The other contenders for top outfield prospect last year were Jeremy Reed and Grady Sizemore, neither of whom set the world on fire either last year. COMN.

Overhyped? Well, maybe. I was a Rios optimist, and felt that he could hit .300/.350/.450. He was short of those marks, but not so far that "fraud" is a reasonable description. Mildly disappointing rookie season is what I would choose.
[ Reply to This ]
_Smirnoff - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:01 PM EST (#3233) #
I understand you wanting to delete my post. But if he is gonna say that he hates America repeatedly and that's ok, why isn't it ok for me to express my displeasure with him?
[ Reply to This ]
Gitz - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:03 PM EST (#3234) #
Telling somebody to eat bleach is personal, that's why. There are always better ways to express displeasure. If you need help, let me know: I'm pretty displeased most of the time.
[ Reply to This ]
Gitz - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:05 PM EST (#3235) #
As to Rios, Mike Green, what made you think he'd slug .450 in the majors?
[ Reply to This ]
_Jordan - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:09 PM EST (#3236) #
Opinions are attackable; the people who hold them are not.
[ Reply to This ]
_Smirnoff - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:10 PM EST (#3237) #
Gitz,
So it would be better for me to just hate all of Canada and all Canadians then? :)
I like Canada quite a bit. It troubles me that this guy continues to spout off all sorts of hate and nonsense towards an entire country. I wish it troubled you and the other mods a bit more. This isn't the first time that he has gone this route.
[ Reply to This ]
_Smirnoff - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:11 PM EST (#3238) #
Fair enough, Jordan. I wish Lee's opinions would drink some bleach.
[ Reply to This ]
_DaveInNYC - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:17 PM EST (#3239) #
OMG, SMIRNOFF IS TRULY BACK!!!!!!!

Once you start seeing the bleach references, you know that "It's On!"

Woodypaigefan saying what's up Smirnoff!
[ Reply to This ]
_Gardiner West - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:22 PM EST (#3240) #
Players who have signed for discounted contracts or minor league deals that could have helped the Jays:

Peter Bergeron OF
Jose Jimenez RHP
A.J. Pierzynski C
Ricky Botalico RHP
Aaron Sele RHP
Chris Stynes IF/OF
Scott Willamson RHP
Eric Munson 1B/3B
Chad Fox RHP
Matt Mantei RHP
Paul Bako C
Turk Wendell RHP
Chris Hammond LHP

Yet, the guys that Ricciardi wants to take a look at are:

Ken Huckaby C (been there, done that)
Pete Walker RHP (see above)
John McDonald (.204 with Indians)
Adrian Burnside (6.13 ERA @ AAA)
Jessie Carlson (5.04 ERA @ AA)
Scott Downs (5.14 ERA w/ Expos)
Spike Lundberg (104 baserunners in 56 AA/AAA apps)
Mike Nannini (5.29 ERA @ AAA)

Oh, woe is me! All this with a couple of mil still at his dosposal. Well, at least we'll have a new JumboTron to look at while admiring our new faux grass!
[ Reply to This ]
Mike Green - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:22 PM EST (#3241) #
As to Rios, Mike Green, what made you think he'd slug .450 in the majors?

Three reasons. He'd slugged .520 in an unfavorable park for right-handed hitters in the Eastern League. Subjective reports from newspapers indicated that a few of his homers were 450 foot shots over scoreboards to right-center. He then proceeded to show even more power in the Olympic trials and in the Puerto Rican Winter League.

I am still, incidentally, a Rios optimist. I was concerned by the length of his season in 03-04 (he played from April-late January basically without a break, and reported to spring training not that long after). I attribute his horrible start at Syracuse to overwork. There are, of course, other issues. He was always a ground ball hitter, but he carried this to extremes in 2004. Whether he can make slight adjustments without messing up his swing is the question.
[ Reply to This ]
_DeMarco - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:25 PM EST (#3242) #
What's going on here, I come here to read about baseball and instead I find hate mongering and suggestions to drink bleach. This place has come a long way from the traditional superiority complaints.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:25 PM EST (#3243) #
Jose Jimenez RHP

"Is this what they call your crash helmet?"

"Oh, I hope not."
[ Reply to This ]
_Jonny German - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:31 PM EST (#3244) #
Players who have signed for discounted contracts or minor league deals that could have helped the Jays:

Peter Bergeron OF - No
Jose Jimenez RHP - No
A.J. Pierzynski C - Why would he choose Toronto over Chicago?
Ricky Botalico RHP - No
Aaron Sele RHP - No
Chris Stynes IF/OF - No
Scott Willamson RHP - No
Eric Munson 1B/3B - Uh... not enough 3rd basemen on the team already?
Chad Fox RHP - What's the difference from Fox to Koch?
Matt Mantei RHP - Why would he choose Toronto over Boston?
Paul Bako C - No
Turk Wendell RHP - No
Chris Hammond LHP - Maybe. If I'm an aging American baseball player, my price to go to San Diego is a lot lower than my price to go to Canada.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:31 PM EST (#3245) #
http://laugh-svca.www.conxion.com/media/mp3/Dana/bill_dana_spacesuit.mp3
COMN if you don't get it.
[ Reply to This ]
_Marc - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:33 PM EST (#3246) #
Players who have signed for discounted contracts or minor league deals that could have helped the Jays:

Peter Bergeron OF
Jose Jimenez RHP
A.J. Pierzynski C
Ricky Botalico RHP
Aaron Sele RHP
Chris Stynes IF/OF
Scott Willamson RHP
Eric Munson 1B/3B
Chad Fox RHP
Matt Mantei RHP
Paul Bako C
Turk Wendell RHP
Chris Hammond LHP

You actually think Bergeron, Jimenez, Sele, Stynes, Williamson (who may not pitch until 2006), Mantei, Bako and Wendell could HELP the Jays? Uh, OK... Have you looked at their career numbers and/or scouting report. Huckaby and Walker are simply roster fillers for triple-A or insurance in case of injury... I'm sure JP had no illusions that they might be major players when he signed them.

I would have to say that Jesse Carlson and Mike Nannini have to be some of the more astute minor league free agent pickups of the season by any general manager. Look back at both of their stats and you will see that they have had some impressive numbers in the not-so-long-ago past. Nannini has a history of struggling at a level and then doing very well. I think he (a former first round pick out of high school) could turn into a solid middle reliever and I have wanted the Jays to pick him up for a couple years now. Downs is a lefty who led triple in ERA last year and didn't embarrass himself in a major league stint.
[ Reply to This ]
_Mick - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:33 PM EST (#3247) #
Chad Fox RHP - What's the difference from Fox to Koch?

Ooh! Ooh! Riddles are fun, and I know this one!

Koch is a Proven Closer (tm).
[ Reply to This ]
_Gardiner West - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:38 PM EST (#3248) #
What's the difference between looking for lost golf balls and Lady Godiva?

One's a hunt on a course, and the other...
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:42 PM EST (#3249) #
As to Rios, Mike Green, what made you think he'd slug .450 in the majors?

I still think Rios will slug .450 in the majors, and he'll start soon, possibly this year but certainly next. He has power; I think his approach to adjusting to the majors was to consciously work on hitting for average and not worrying about power. You see it in his swings, which are very different in BP where he flashes great power to RCF, and in the game where he's been looking to make contact and hit the ball through the infield.

I think that the key will turn for him soon, probably early this season, and he'll start hitting shots.
[ Reply to This ]
_Tyler - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:50 PM EST (#3250) #
What's going on here, I come here to read about baseball and instead I find hate mongering and suggestions to drink bleach. This place has come a long way from the traditional superiority complaints.

Drink bleach DeMarco.
[ Reply to This ]
Gitz - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:53 PM EST (#3251) #
Craig, I meant that what gave anyone the impression Rios would slug .450 in 2004. I thought that was obvious, because equally obvious is that the jury is still very much out on Rios.
[ Reply to This ]
_Tyler - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:53 PM EST (#3252) #
The above was a joke, in case it's not clear. I just think it's a funny line.
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 04:54 PM EST (#3253) #
in a sport where Ty Cobb is for the most part remembered as a great hitter with a bit of an attitude problem rather than racist piece of trash who beat up more than a few African Americans without provocation

Lee, I'd dispute both your hold on the facts, and your assessment of Cobb's memory which is thoroughly trashed on a regular basis.

Cobb was both better and worse than is generally believed; his racism, which is the one unforgivable sin in our age, has been magnified out of proportion, as has his violent behaviour (including the ridiculous and completely unproven claims that Cobb killed a mugger in 1912).

On the other hand, his respect for baseball and its rules was far, far worse than what people seem to generally believe. But the assertion that Cobb was a "piece of trash" is going way, way too far. Cobb was an unpleasant man with psychological problems, but a great player (certainly) and an admirable man in many respects. (And not in others).
[ Reply to This ]
_DaveInNYC - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:07 PM EST (#3254) #
And if only Frankie Boy were here to see it...

He'd love it... Battersbox of all places, being littered with suggestions to Drink Bleach!

He'd be proud...
[ Reply to This ]
_Grand Funk Rail - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:10 PM EST (#3255) #
Drink bleach DeMarco.

Tee-hee....am I the only one who finds this whole bleach thing HILARIOUS?!?!
Oh, wait...no...I think it's the reactions from some of you grandmothers in here that I find hilarious.

Lighten up folks.
And drink some antifreeze while you're at it...

Grand Funk out.
[ Reply to This ]
_DaveInNYC - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:12 PM EST (#3256) #
And drink some antifreeze while you're at it...

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This whole thing is hilarious!
[ Reply to This ]
_mr predictor - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:17 PM EST (#3257) #
I would have offered Osuna, Halama and Hammond all 50% more than they signed for. If 2 said yes then I would not have signed Schoe or Koch.

I would have claimed Billy Traber off waivers and not Seung Song.

I would have signed Grieve instead of Cat and offered Cordova and Jordan 50% more than they signed for - though Jordan's playing in his hometown - instead of trading for Hillenbrand.

I would have taken the Cat and Shea savings and signed Kevin Millwood for 10-15% more than he signed for.

Other than that I would have done pretty much what JP did.

I'd still be one power bat short but my pitching would be set for this and next year and I'd take the Millwood money of 06 (by not re-signing him in 06) and get that big bat.

I like what Shapiro and Theo have done this off-season, everyone else pretty much lost it.
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan Seacrest F - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:17 PM EST (#3258) #
Grand Funk out.

It's really sad that you have to steal the great Ryan Seacrest's signature tagline and beat the living hell out of it over and over and over and ... Nothing remotely original in there?

I guess coming from someone who finds drinking poison hilarious, that shouldn't surprise.
[ Reply to This ]
Mike D - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:18 PM EST (#3259) #
No, this is hilarious. Don't cheapen the word "hilarious."
[ Reply to This ]
Mike D - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:19 PM EST (#3260) #
Though not hilarious, RSFC's handle is pretty funny.
[ Reply to This ]
_DaveInNYC - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:21 PM EST (#3261) #
Oh man, Mike, I saw that on TV the other day! I think it was on Real TV or something like that but your right... HILARIOUS!!

I love how the woman throws her arms up in shock!

Good stuff!
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:38 PM EST (#3262) #
Grand Funk, we spend a lot of time trying to make sure that Batter's Box stays readable. We try to keep a lid on name-calling and insults because we want the site to be about baseball, not name-calling. I'm sorry that you find that to be grandmotherly, but I'd bet that if we let the place just run free, you wouldn't come back because it wouldn't be worth reading anymore.
[ Reply to This ]
_DaveInNYC - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:42 PM EST (#3263) #
You know what happens when you ASSuME, don't you NFH? Just because you like things a certain way doesn't mean everyone thinks that way.
[ Reply to This ]
_Rob - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:46 PM EST (#3264) #
NFH is exactly right. Nobody wants this place to turn into, well, what it was about to turn into.

Bleach does more than whiten socks, you know.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 05:47 PM EST (#3265) #
Dave, I'm not assuming anything, I'm telling you what we'd like the site to be like.
[ Reply to This ]
_sweat - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 06:07 PM EST (#3266) #
Pre-treat your underwear by drinking bleach.
In other news, go blue jays.
[ Reply to This ]
Joe - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 06:25 PM EST (#3267) #
http://me.woot.net
NFH's right. There's no assumption in what he's saying; we want the site to be a place for discussion, and we're going to steer it that way any way we can, no matter what it takes. End of story.
[ Reply to This ]
_DaveInNYC - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 06:42 PM EST (#3268) #
I get the general point, and I guess I agree with it from your guys point of view. I was referring to this though:

I'm sorry that you find that to be grandmotherly, but I'd bet that if we let the place just run free, you wouldn't come back because it wouldn't be worth reading anymore.

You'd be surprised because quite a few people around here probably wouldn't mind any "extracuricular" stuff that goes on.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 06:51 PM EST (#3269) #
You'd be surprised because quite a few people around here probably wouldn't mind any "extracuricular" stuff that goes on.

And quite a few people would be alienated by it. And then you have a site that's all extracurricular and nothing else. There are a lot of sites like that out there already.
[ Reply to This ]
_Dean - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:02 PM EST (#3270) #
I'd like to see the site stay the course with baseball topics. I have gotten involved with political bickering in the past and looking back can see how this was not the place to bring up my biases and dislikes regarding political issues.

Back to baseball, how many other people feel that Vito has no place in a Jays Top 10 prospect list?
[ Reply to This ]
_Lefty - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:07 PM EST (#3271) #
Count me as one of the regular readers and occasional posters who would indeed be driven away.

I have been one of many who has highlighted the elitest holier than thou attitude that comes across from some roster members and their o closest allies. But you know what. I think those valid critisims have been analysed by the roster folks. The evidence is that they took the critisim and acted on it. No big announcement, but the evidence is plain to all who regularly read this site. The behavior from those folks is way, way better.

When GFR had his fit about his sign off a week or so ago, many jumped to his defense. A sign off even if it is deemed a nuisance by some is pretty harmless.

However, neither myself many other average readers are going to put up with the kind of punk stuff he has been spewing since his little dust up. GFR ought to grow up a little.

I want to thank the Cabal (there is a cabal) for their efforts in maintaining a forum of decent comment on our favorite sport and team. Your patience is noted, needed and appreaciated.

Pete
[ Reply to This ]
Gitz - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:31 PM EST (#3272) #
Ah, speaking of pick-pockets ... Bobby Kielty signed a one-year deal, worth $847,000, with the A's, avoiding arbitration, I presume. Hmmmm. Kielty had a pretty bad (I'm being polite) year in 2004, but he more than doubles his salary (from $347,000)? That's some good representation Mr. Kielty has.

There's also a reported Mike Cameron for Eric Byrnes deal, supposedly offered by the A's, in the works. For as much as I'd love to see Cameron patrolling CF, I would miss Byrnsie. They're actually comparable players, offensively; I think their respective OPS+ were in line with each other, but I would have thought Cameron to be the superior offensive player.

[/Unofficial Oakland A's report.]
[ Reply to This ]
_Mick - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:35 PM EST (#3273) #
And yet Cameron is a Proven All-Star while most casual baseball fans outside of NoCal have no clue think Byrnes is that Todd guy who pitched for the A's a while back.

And I assume, having not bothered to look it up, that Cameron makes quite a bit more. So if they're similar players, isn't dealing the highly-paid All-Star for the nameless grunt exactly the kind of move Billy Beane would normally make, rather than the exact opposite?
[ Reply to This ]
Gerry - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:38 PM EST (#3274) #
Gitz, do you mean Cameron is superior defensively? Some reports I have read put Byrnes in the Jeter club, i.e. makes some flashy plays but overall is not above average.

I could see Vito just making it in to the top ten. His numbers were average in the FSL this year but I give him some slack for starting the year with an injury, for ending in a horrific slump for August, and for putting up decent numbers for the pitcher friendly FSL.

Vito played well in the AFL against largely AA opposition, so he does have a shot.
[ Reply to This ]
_Smirnoff - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:39 PM EST (#3275) #
I understand the rationale behind deleting the original post. At the same time, I thought it was worth telling Lee that I don't like his constant anti-America jabs, rants, etc. I tried doing it more politely in another thread, but apparently that did nothing. So at this point, Gitz, I'll take you up on your offer. How would you like me to voice my displeasure about something like this in the future?
[ Reply to This ]
_CaramonLS - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:40 PM EST (#3276) #
You guys are way too critical of GFR. Honestly lighten up a little bit and let him do his thing.

It is pretty clear that some people (wont mention any names) have problems with the fact he has a Signature, and try to grief him whenever he posts.
[ Reply to This ]
_Lefty - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:46 PM EST (#3277) #
The sinature is harmless, the obnoxious venmon on the other hand, no matter who its from should not be condoned.
[ Reply to This ]
Gitz - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:53 PM EST (#3278) #
Gerry, I was saying that I assumed Cameron was the superior offensive player because of his walks and relative power, but I was surprised when I saw his OPS+ numbers the last three years (114, 106, 104) compared to Byrnes (113, 109).

Without question, Cameron is superior defensive player. I may be daft about fancy defensive metrics and such, but Byrnes isn't even close to Cameron.
[ Reply to This ]
_Smirnoff - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 07:59 PM EST (#3279) #
Cameron's numbers have taken a bit of a hit due to injuries. Looking just at last year, he had a bone spur on his left foot, sore right hamstring, ligament tear in his right pinkie, right knee injury, and cartilage damage in his left wrist that led to surgery. That should make you feel better about the deal. :)
[ Reply to This ]
Gitz - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 08:04 PM EST (#3280) #
I don't quite understand the need to trade Byrnes for Cameron, unless Beane is going with the Baltimore Ravens strategy of a few years ago: Defense, defense, some offense, defense, defense, special teams (a kick-ass bullpen with live arms), occasional offense, and some defense. Hmmm. If it worked for the Ravens with TRENT DILFER at QB, maybe the A's can with the pennant with their revamped no-name rotation. (The back end of the rotation, that is; Zito and Harden are names, obviously.)
[ Reply to This ]
_DaveInNYC - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 09:09 PM EST (#3281) #
Hey man, I'm a Seahawks fan... LAY OFF THE DILFER SHOTS!!

Trent Dilfer is the man! One of the rare "role model" athletes left in all of sports, so let's not trash him (please!) :)
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:03 PM EST (#3282) #
what gave anyone the impression Rios would slug .450 in 2004

Three things, I think.

First, was that he was in the middle of the typical early-20s power spike that most players experience... many, many prospects experience a power surge in their early 20s where they start to hit for power. It's usually spread over a period of a couple of years or so.

Second, was Rios's obvious power to the observer. He hits the ball a long way in BP; and he also makes solid contact. He's got a short swing that generates a lot of bat speed; the ball jumps off his bat. In a typical player, that would generate a lot of long hits. That didn't happen with Rios because of the exaggerated downward swing plane that he adopted, which he had not had during the previous season - at least, no one reported it.

Third, was his winter league season. Rios led the Puerto Rican Winter League in home runs, stepping up his solid AA performance. I think a lot of people saw the PRWL numbers as confirming that Rios was in the midst of a power surge.

The power surge didn't happen. I think most people would have thought 12-15 home runs as a pretty expected performance for Rios, but since he was consciously eschewing the home run, it never had a chance and he didn't come close. Mind you, 11 homers would have been a reasonable expectation, perhaps a touch optimistic; if he'd turned 10 singles into home runs he'd have hit 11 homers and beat that .450 mark.
[ Reply to This ]
_actionjackson - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:23 PM EST (#3283) #
Gardiner West,

Bergeron-No
Jimenez-No, have you ever seen what kerosene does to a fire?
Pierzynski-Yes, but only a 1 year contract like he got from Kenny Williams, and only with the stipulation that when GQ is ready, GQ is the man.
Bottalico-Yes, I'd take a look.
Sele-No, SkyDome, can you say 50 HR season?
Stynes-Maybe, for AAA, major league injury insurance, depth.
Williamson-No, he won't throw a pitch in 2005.
Munson-No, no more third basemen.
Fox-Yes, minor league contract only (very injury prone).
Mantei-No
Bako-No
Wendell-No
Hammond-Yes, and I'd double his San Diego salary and save JP a million+ instead of using on SS.
[ Reply to This ]
_Keith Talent - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:29 PM EST (#3284) #
Weighing in:

1. Bobby Kielty makes fun of handicapped kids who come to baseball games, I've read.

2. Byrnes for Cameron would be a sweetheart of a deal for Oakland: Remembering the 2003 post-season, Byrnes didn't touch the plate... moments after Tejada was too busy pointing at an umpire to touch the plate... in a one-run would-be series-decided game that the A's lost, in a series that the A's lost. Everyone knows Byrnes is really Kelly Gruber's reject cousin.

3. Who cares about Giambi? Why is his contract still valid? And why isn't there more heat on McGwire, he was the one who made all this juicing seem acceptable? And if you think Bonds didn't knowingly take steroids, come on! It's like Sammy Sosa corks his bat to "put on a show for the fans" in batting practice: C'mon! To me: Sosa is the biggest cheat in the game and I would hate to see him in any hall of fame or in any baseball uniform of a team I was ever cheering for. But I hate the Cubs, so he can stay there.

4. $22 Million is a beauty of an arbitrary figure for Clemens. Whoever pointed out that it matches his number is a genius. That's definately part of it. If you don't think so, go as Kory, Kasey, Kougar, Kouty...

5. "Russ Adams is the next Walt Weiss" doesn't exactly stir my heart.
[ Reply to This ]
_actionjackson - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 10:42 PM EST (#3285) #
Oops, my comment about Sele giving up 50 HR is way out of line, since he's never given up more than 25. As a true Canadian I must say: "I'm sorry." I still don't have to like him and I don't think he's as good as say... Lidle. Maybe, he's a little better than Sturtze.

Keith Talent, right on with the kids' names comments. I believe it's Kasey, Koby, Kody, and Kory, but whatever, it's egotistical nonsense. Maybe one day the kids will tell their father to "go drink some bleach"... and then legally change their names.
[ Reply to This ]
_actionjackson - Thursday, January 20 2005 @ 11:13 PM EST (#3286) #
This is not a shot at you Gardiner West. This is just me bumbling along, trying to justify my dislike of Mr Sele with objective numbers. 2003-2004: 253 2/3 IP, 298 H, 109 BB, 104 K, 33 HR. Yeccchhh!
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan C - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 12:17 AM EST (#3287) #
Quick question: Anyone know what date Spring Training begins? And when do pitchers have to report? Basically what is the timeline of events from now until March?
[ Reply to This ]
Lucas - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 12:27 AM EST (#3288) #
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/schedule/important_dates_05.jsp
COMN, Ryan.
[ Reply to This ]
_Paul S - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 12:31 AM EST (#3289) #
I think people who say they'd lose respect for Delgado for hoping Giambi's deal would be voided are mistaken. Even if that was his thought and not some rationale for waiting this long from his agent, it's perfectly reasonable. Fellow union member or not, Giambi is an admitted doper. He tarnishes the accomplishments and has an unfair advantage over non-dopers like himself.

Although, if that his his actual rationale, Sloane was foolish to assume it was possible to void a contract.
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan C - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 12:55 AM EST (#3290) #
Thanks, much obliged Lucas.
[ Reply to This ]
_Lefty - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 01:12 AM EST (#3291) #
I think people who say they'd lose respect for Delgado for hoping Giambi's deal would be voided are mistaken.

In fact there are always those who relish in beating up departing stars and look for reasons to do just that. Thats life in the big leagues.
[ Reply to This ]
Pistol - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 09:01 AM EST (#3292) #
Back to baseball, how many other people feel that Vito has no place in a Jays Top 10 prospect list?

I wouldn't have him in my top 10, but I think it's a reasonable opinion, especially after his AFL stint.

The upcoming season should reveal a lot more about Big Vito.
[ Reply to This ]
_Grand Funk Rail - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 09:46 AM EST (#3293) #
The sinature is harmless, the obnoxious venmon on the other hand, no matter who its from should not be condoned.

99% of the posts I put on the board are written with my tongue SO firly in my cheek, it's virtually on the outside of my face.

The BIG problem here is the lack of any sense of humour from about 90% of the audience. Does anyone ACTUALLY think I was suggesting someone drink antifreeze in response to the bleach fiasco yesterday? OBVIOUSLY not. Everyone needs to calm down a notch or two in here - all you Politically Correct tree huggers ARE getting too worked up about some of the harmless comments thrown around in here. Here's an idea - if something bothers you, IGNORE IT. You think it's offensive that someone suggested someone else drink bleach? IGNORE IT. Stop whining like spoonfed toddlers who have leaky diapers and need mommy to run over and coddle you. The rest of us, those of us with a normally developed, socially accepted sense of humour get a chuckle out of it. If you don't like it, bitch and moan about it to yourself, and IGNORE IT. Then, theoretically, we won't have any more of these huge blowups in the room. I don't see the problem in here being with the posters of 'offensive' comments, I see the problem being with the complianers. Plain and simple.

Obviously most of the things I post are written in jest, to try and spice up the room a little. If all we had to talk about was the statistical merits of Bobby Kielty on a day-in, day-out basis, methinks the visitor count in here would substantially drop. The truth is, NFH, a lot of people DO come here to be entertained. They do come here to bicker and argue and blow off some steam during their workday. If it weren't for the side arguments, this site (during the offseason) would have all the charm and atmosphere of a mausoleum.

Yes - I'm here to stir the pot, because someone has to, or we all run the risk of falling asleep and driving off the road.

I sell the sizzle when there ain't no steak.

Now, if any of you need me, I'll be outside with a plastic shopping bag over my head huffing aerosol fumes and clubbing baby seals to death.

Grand Funk out.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 10:15 AM EST (#3294) #
The truth is, NFH, a lot of people DO come here to be entertained. They do come here to bicker and argue and blow off some steam during their workday. If it weren't for the side arguments, this site (during the offseason) would have all the charm and atmosphere of a mausoleum.

Blowing off steam is fine. Arguments are fine. No one has said that there can be no arguing or bickering or bitching. We just ask for respect for other people, yes, even people you don't personally know. Arguments are fine, great, fun. But namecalling is just pointless and leads only to more namecalling. I know, you quite vigorously defended the rights of a poster to refer to a player as a human piece of shit. I still think that is inappropriate and does nothing to foster conversation about baseball. Can you say that he's a bad player? Hell yes. But to refer to him as a piece of shit based on nothing but some minor league numbers is mean-spirited and low. Perhaps you don't mind being called a piece of shit, but a good number of us do mind.

You seem to continually mistake "Don't call another person a piece of shit" for "Don't say anything critical." These two things are not the same. You can be critical without being personally insulting.

Anyways, judging by my current hate-mail-to-praise-mail ratio, we're going in the direction that the vast majority of our readers would like. But regardless of that, we're going in the direction that we'd like. And before people get all up in a huff about elitism and respecting the audience and so on, I'd like to point out that as a minor Roster member, my investment in Batter's Box this year was about $600, not counting the Tom Cheek book or the Cheer Club, which together would add over $700 to my total investment. I don't get paid anything. No one asked me to spend what I did. I volunteered every last dime and every last bit of effort, as does everyone else running this place. My contribution is small when compared to that of others. But in light of this, can you perhaps see why we want to keep Batter's Box to a high standard, a standard that we would like to see in a website?
[ Reply to This ]
_Poster - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 10:34 AM EST (#3295) #
I don't see the problem in here being with the posters of 'offensive' comments, I see the problem being with the complianers.

As yes, the classic "what did I do wrong?" argument, refuge of scoundrels for eons. The list of people making this claim is long, and not a good club to be in.

Seacrest wannabe Out!
[ Reply to This ]
_Grand Funk Rail - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 10:35 AM EST (#3296) #
But in light of this, can you perhaps see why we want to keep Batter's Box to a high standard, a standard that we would like to see in a website?

Am I the only one who sees the continual use of 'WE', and the attepmt to keep the site happy and cheery and what YOU want it to be, as tantamount to Cyber-Genocide? You might thing that's pure hyperbole, but think about it for a second. You're EAGERLY trying to establish an environment where the citizens (posters on this site) agree with everything the state (the Cabal) dictates, or they (more accurately their comments) will be eliminated. It's censorship, it's dictatorship, and it's uncalled for.

As I see it, you have one of two choices:
Either (a) let people exercise their right to free speech, or (b) charge a membership fee so you and your like-minded friends can all smile and nod in agreement with everything each other says, give each other handjobs, and live in a perfect world.

It all goes back to my main point.
If you don't like something somebody says, IGNORE IT.
Don't try to censor, or you're just digging your own proverbial grave deeper.

Grand Funk out.

PS - And for the record, I wasn't involved in the 'shit' defence...I have no clude what you're referring to.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 10:53 AM EST (#3297) #
When I say "we", I am referring to other members of the roster and myself.

I said

No one has said that there can be no arguing or bickering or bitching.
...
You seem to continually mistake "Don't call another person a piece of shit" for "Don't say anything critical." These two things are not the same. You can be critical without being personally insulting.

To which you replied

You're EAGERLY trying to establish an environment where the citizens (posters on this site) agree with everything the state (the Cabal) dictates, or they (more accurately their comments) will be eliminated. It's censorship, it's dictatorship, and it's uncalled for.

You're either not understanding or deliberately misunderstanding my post in order to keep arguing.
[ Reply to This ]
_Willy - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 11:19 AM EST (#3298) #
Whooo...doncha just love it when Big Snit-–er, Big Funk-–struts out, huffing and puffing, and being nasty? Spraying attitude all about? (I always look around to see if Count Floyd is still in the vicinity, warning the kids that what’s about to follow is REEELLY scary.) And poor old Big Funk...all he’s got is attitude. There’s nothing else there, except his punky pose. He’s absolutely full of it. What's worse, he thinks he's funny. As people down in Mike Doh’s parts say, “He’s all hat and no ranch.”

Don’t mess with the grannies, Mr. Funk, or the members of knitting circles. We have needles. So why don’t you just funk off?
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan C - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 11:48 AM EST (#3299) #
the attepmt to keep the site happy and cheery and what YOU want it to be...You're EAGERLY trying to establish an environment where the citizens (posters on this site) agree with everything the state (the Cabal) dictates

That's not what he said at all:

You can be critical without being personally insulting.

As I see it, you have one of two choices:
Either (a) Stop being personally insulting to other people, or (b) Find another place to go.
[ Reply to This ]
_Grand Funk Rail - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 02:05 PM EST (#3300) #
It's sad that in my attepmt to do nothing except stick up for the free speech right of OTHER Bauxites, I get attacked.
[ Reply to This ]
_Nolan - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 03:02 PM EST (#3301) #
I, for one, love the atmosphere and attitude of the Box and am in agreement with NFH.

I have no problem with people being held to a higher standard, in fact I think it is considerably better than having no standard at all. Yes, we all realize that "drink bleach" was not a literal statement and I probably would have no problem with it in a regular coversation where tone and intention are easier to distinguish. The thing is that on the internet it is easy to be taken literally or in a different spirit than was intended and it can lead to a garbage site where personal attack is common ["drink bleach" = "gateway drug" :)]
[ Reply to This ]
_Smirnoff - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 03:14 PM EST (#3302) #
Actually, I felt like the continuous "I dislike America" and "Americans are arrogant" type statements were the gateway drug. Sad to me that more people don't see it that way. It's supposed to be a baseball board. I don't see how those types of statements aren't frowned upon the same way by the moderators. Again, I tried to make my point politely on other occasions and the moderators still let the comments go by ignored. I'm hoping it's not a silent agreement with Lee at this point.

The drink bleach line was what I thought was a humourous way of letting Lee know that I didn't like what he was saying (I pasted his comment) without leading to 200 posts about it. Guess that didn't work.
[ Reply to This ]
_Mick - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 03:26 PM EST (#3303) #
It's sad that in my attepmt to do nothing except stick up for the free speech right of OTHER Bauxites, I get attacked.

Wow, to borrow a line used earlier, talk about the "refuge of scoundrels." Time to play the "I was just looking out for the rights of others" card, having already played the "censorship" card and the "free speech" card unsuccessfully several times earlier. Notwithstanding the fact that this online and therefore is an international community with no inherent legal "right of free speech" which differs nation-by-nation, Batter's Box is remarkably civil and high-toned in content and presentation.

But I know the argument; I've heard the argument countless times. "If I happen to offend people, it's OK because I am free to say whatever I want wherever and whenever I want." Without resorting to the tired old "yelling fire in a movie theatre" cliche, this is the same argument heard all over Texas every New Year's when Hank and Boomhauer go in their backyard and fire their guns up into the sky to "celebrate," (shouting all along "I'm protecting the rights of gun owners everywhere!) not mindful of the fact that every year a dog or a kid gets plugged by a downward-falling random bullet.

Words on a blog don't pack the emotional punch or impact of a bullet in the sky over Fort Worth, but those words do land somewhere. And being cognizant of that is part of being a good citizen of the world, regardless of county of origin.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 03:30 PM EST (#3304) #
When we ignore it, it doesn't go away.
When we delete it, it doesn't go away.
When we make fun of it, it doesn't go away.

You see this rock? And over here, this hard place?

Anyways, it's not a silent agreement. Myself, my built-in brain filter actually disregarded it completely, and I didn't realize it was there until the bleach was ingested.
[ Reply to This ]
_Tom L - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 03:52 PM EST (#3305) #
Lets all just take a step back here. First of all, I very much respect what Grand Funk brings to this board. His arguments are well thought out, and his posts are a change from the ordinary. I believe he is a valued member to this board, and he should not be reemed on for expressing his thoughts. I thought it was a complete joke when people in here were bashing him for using a signage at the end of his posts. Perphaps it was simply an indication of a little bit of jelaousy on the part of those complainers.
Like he said some people just need to lighten up a little bit. The work of those running this board is very appreciated, but come on, Grand Funk means no harm. Like he said, if you dont like what he says, IGNORE HIS POST. It is a very simple concept.
[ Reply to This ]
_Grand Funk Rail - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 04:15 PM EST (#3306) #
Thanks, Tom.
This is the last I'll say about this subject - I think my comments would come across quite differently in conversation. For some reason people are reading the wrong tone into my words.

C'est la vie.

Grand Funk out.
[ Reply to This ]
_Grand Funk Rail - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 04:27 PM EST (#3307) #
Oh, one more comment in response to the above postings by Mick, Ryan C, NFH, and Willy:

I'd love it if any one of you could demonstrate where I was personally insulting anyone. Seriously. Go throught the archives. Do your damndest. Grand your magnifying glass and a fine-toothed comb, and go nuts. You won't find one single shred of evidence that I have attacked anyone, unless in jest.

Today, and most other days, I come in here and stick up for other people who I think are being wronged by the Cabal and it's Affiliates. I point out the inequities I see, the mistreatment and censorship other bauxites have to swallow, and accept the fact that I get hammered in post after post after post for it. Am I a loudmouth? Sure, of course I am. Do my opinions rankle and upset? Of course they do. But don't accuse me of doing something I haven't.

Try to find a single instance where I've started something, where I've been the instigator. Go ahead. Do your worst.

To quote Billy Madison, "Do you double-dare me?"

Grand Funk out.
[ Reply to This ]
_RSFC - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 04:35 PM EST (#3308) #
I come in here and stick up for other people who I think are being wronged by the Cabal and it's [sic] Affiliates. I point out the inequities I see, the mistreatment and censorship other bauxites have to swallow."

My God, guys, I didn't realize we were dealing with an honest-to-goodness SUPER-EERO, out only to right wrongs and prevent further mistreatment of the great unwashed masses unable to protect themselves! It's SUPER-FUNK! Or maye SpiderFunk or AquaFunk or BatFunk.
[ Reply to This ]
_Smirnoff - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 04:37 PM EST (#3309) #
When we ignore it, it doesn't go away.
When we delete it, it doesn't go away.
When we make fun of it, it doesn't go away.

You see this rock? And over here, this hard place?

Anyways, it's not a silent agreement. Myself, my built-in brain filter actually disregarded it completely, and I didn't realize it was there until the bleach was ingested.

I hear ya, NFH. The problem is that when it's ignored, it continues. If a moderator had told Lee to pipe down when he made the original stupid remarks, perhaps he would have realized that this wasn't the place for that type of thing. Instead, it was ignored. I did my best to politely point it out, but it didn't seem to do any good. Would you guys be happy if a bunch of American players read the site and that crap was around? I would think it would bother them more than me telling Lee to drink bleach. Anyway, I understand you not wanting things to get personal between posters. At the same time, I think you guys are missing the big picture here.
[ Reply to This ]
Gerry - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 04:39 PM EST (#3310) #
GFR, I am normally quiet member of the "Friends of NFH". So when you suggested today that NFH and his friends, namely me, "go back to giving hand jobs to each other" I don't need a magnifying glass to figure out that you were insulting me, and I am offended.

Your posts today have me convinced that you are living in a delusional world and need psychiatric help.

Now was that in jest or did I mean it........
[ Reply to This ]
_RSFC - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 04:43 PM EST (#3311) #
Don't worry, Gerry, if you meant it, Funk can just ignore it.

Seacrest out.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 04:44 PM EST (#3312) #
Tom L, GFR, I have a solution for you:

If you don't like how we're running Batter's Box, take your own advice and ignore Batter's Box.
[ Reply to This ]
_Grand Funk Rail - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 04:49 PM EST (#3313) #
"go back to giving hand jobs to each other"

That's a movie quote - from Rushmore.
It was meant to be funny. So, therefore, it was in jest.

Keep trying guys.
Keep trying.

Grand Funk out.
[ Reply to This ]
_Grand Funk Rail - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 04:54 PM EST (#3314) #
Here's an except from an email a friend (a regular BBox poster who will remain anonymous) that he just sent me after reading this thread:

I tend to agree - I don't like the way they're running the site. It's a little too snooty for me.

Hmmm....interesting, no?
I'd love to get some sort of actual survey on this site.
For the Cabal, and against.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the silent majority who lurk on this site would side more with the peasants (me and Tom L and our ilk) than the aristocracy (the cabal).

Grand Funk out.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 04:58 PM EST (#3315) #
Then why don't you and that silent majority spend your own time and money running your own site? I can point you towards some inexpensive hosts and the software you'll need.
[ Reply to This ]
_Grand Funk Rail - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 05:03 PM EST (#3316) #
Then why don't you and that silent majority spend your own time and money running your own site? I can point you towards some inexpensive hosts and the software you'll need.

Because I have more important pursuits.
This is just a nice little diversion on slow work days.
Devoting my life to a website would be a sad, sad state of affairs.

Grand Funk out.
[ Reply to This ]
Named For Hank - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 05:05 PM EST (#3317) #
Then, there you have it. If you don't want to spend the time running it, you don't get to dictate how it'll be run.
[ Reply to This ]
_Rob - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 05:16 PM EST (#3318) #
I just noticed this now: the title of this thread has "Thursdsay" instead of "Thursday." Does that remind anyone else of this line from Seinfeld?

STEINBRENNER: Just let me ask you something. Is it "February" or "Febuary?" Because I prefer "Febuary."
And what is this "ru"?
[ Reply to This ]
_Mick - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 05:33 PM EST (#3319) #
Thanks Rob. Fixed it. Good job tying it back to Seinfeld ... I should've claimed that was intentional and just awarded you a No-Prize.
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan C - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 05:40 PM EST (#3320) #
Well said Gerry. GFR, I just wish you'd stop with the persecution complex. I dont care about your sig. I think it's rather neat actually. But just try to show some respect for the people who do give their time and money freely so that you can have a "nice little diversion on slow workdays".
[ Reply to This ]
_Matthew E - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 05:49 PM EST (#3321) #
My opinion is that the best message boards/forums/chatrooms/blogs-with-comments are the ones that are moderated the most conscientiously. I think Monica Geller said it best when she said, "Rules help control the fun."

My other opinion is that I'm sick of this discussion coming up every time someone shoots his mouth off inappropriately and doesn't like getting called on it. Even if you don't like the rules at this site, you must know what they are by now, and you must know they aren't going to change.
[ Reply to This ]
_garth - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 08:32 PM EST (#3322) #
As one of this sites dedicated silent readers, I would agree with keeping the site on baseball. Levity is one thing, but jokes about drinking bleach is another.

However, I have no issue at all with GFR's signoff.

Overall great site guys, I appreciate the people who invest the time to run it and you have made me an addict.
[ Reply to This ]
_Ryan Lind - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 08:59 PM EST (#3323) #
Has this site stooped so low that someone has just used a Friends quote? Bleach. I mean, blech.

luv u guyz.
[ Reply to This ]
_Wayne H - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 10:51 PM EST (#3324) #
When the lyrics to the horrifying and utterly unsafe for human ears Friends theme "song", become the "Lyrics de jour", then it will be time to head for the dugout.

Fast!
[ Reply to This ]
_Grimlock - Friday, January 21 2005 @ 11:17 PM EST (#3325) #
Wow, ruckus at Batters Box!

GFR is harmless. Is this whole debate really that much different, than say, the Cheer Club getting accosted by Blue Jay security for their drum?

That said, me Grimlock loves this site, and appreciates all the time and effort that everyone puts into this site. Even if me Grimlock does sound like a nine-year old! :)
[ Reply to This ]
Craig B - Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 12:03 AM EST (#3326) #
Only occasionally, Grimlock.
[ Reply to This ]
_Magpie - Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 01:59 AM EST (#3327) #
I'd love it if any one of you could demonstrate where I was personally insulting anyone.

OK. Gosh, where to begin... well, how about here?

Posted 12/30/2004 01:48 PM by Grand Funk Railroad:

No one using "Grand Funk Railroad" as a handle should risk any kind of musical commentary whatsoever... :-)

Magpie,

Here's a fun game to play on a Thursday afternoon.
First, hit pause on 'Star Wars', brush the Cheetos crumbs out of your beard, get off you Mom's couch.
Go find your dictionary.
Look up the word 'SATIRE'.

*Note to self: Add Magpie to the ever-growing list of Bauxites with NO sense of humour.*

END QUOTE

This I believe is also known as "the pot calling the kettle black."

...just try to show some respect for the people who do give their time and money freely so that you can have a "nice little diversion on slow workdays".

Well, clearly that's way too much to ask.
[ Reply to This ]
Thursday Pinch-Hit QOTD: Rocket or Pickpocket? | 163 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.