Bubble Screen Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Marlins fans would trash Fredi Gonzalez and claim he is not a good "X and O manager" and say it was good he was gone from the Marlins, but then their replacement resigned after a long losing streak Them losing Girardi was the worst thing that could happen. Gonzalez wasn't bad either. And he hasn't done too bad of a job with the Braves, with all the injuries and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick86L Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Pujols out 4-6 weeks with a broken forearm. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6680924 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Pujols out 4-6 weeks with a broken forearm.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6680924 Huge blow for the Cards and even bigger blow for Pujols himself. If he wanted a big contract he was going to have to put up huge numbers. Sucks because I was looking forward to seeing him next week against the O's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEavyJumbo85 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 If he wanted a big contract he was going to have to put up huge numbers. Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Seriously? Probably would have gotten a fine contract injury or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Seriously? Maybe huge wasn't the right word. But he was going to have to at least put up numbers that go along with his career averages. He's 31y/o and is looking for a 10 year contract. If a team is going to give him something like that, they don't want to see decline as you get older. So he was going to have to have his typical year or something a little better to get the money he wanted. Getting off to a slow start like he has and now the injury, are not helping his cause at all. He'll probably still get a nice size contract, but probably not what he originally wanted. I'm as big a Pujols fan as anyone, so it sucks to see him go down. I wanted to see him get his 10yr/$300mil, but I don't think its going to happen anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tris Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 He's probably not getting the $300 MM figure that was rumored to be going around. But he'll still get $250 MM +. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Huge blow for the Cards and even bigger blow for Pujols himself. If he wanted a big contract he was going to have to put up huge numbers. Sucks because I was looking forward to seeing him next week against the O's. It might suck for the Cards. I say this, because they've managed to be tied for first without having Wainwright all season. Plus Holliday has been out most of the year. And as far as him getting a big contract: He still will. Make no mistake about it. If the Cards don't give it to him, someone like the Cubs would..in a heartbeat. He isn't losing any money over this injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 It might suck for the Cards. I say this, because they've managed to be tied for first without having Wainwright all season. Plus Holliday has been out most of the year. And as far as him getting a big contract: He still will. Make no mistake about it. If the Cards don't give it to him, someone like the Cubs would..in a heartbeat. He isn't losing any money over this injury. Starting to change my mind about the NL and the DH, all it took was managing a NL team to a .500 record Have to always use managerial thought and think about subbing in Jason Michaels as a pinch hitter, I understand the NL game now In late innings, as a NL manager, you always have to decide who pinch hits for the pitcher when you need a run late, it's really logical, so I take all my NL hate back. Good league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEavyJumbo85 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 In late innings, as a NL manager, you always have to decide who pinch hits for the pitcher when you need a run late... Not really. It's Simpson for Strawberry. Lefty on the mound you're putting in the best righty you have left; you do the opposite if a right hander is on the mound. You can never let a reliever hit unless it's a blowout so you're taking out a pitcher regardless of how well he's pitching, because he can't do something he never practices...logic? what logic? where's my logic at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Well, the fun part is taking the pitcher out late and pinch hitting someone to get a run or tie the game up That's the beauty I failed to realize before about the NL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I like how Hanley Ramirez got benched for showing up late. McKeon doesn't take **** from nobody. Again, this 80 year old manager is going to run ****. No more NOT GIVING A DAMN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEavyJumbo85 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Well, the fun part is taking the pitcher out late and pinch hitting someone to get a run or tie the game upThat's the beauty I failed to realize before about the NL If you like forced decisions... Pinch hitting is a neccessity in the NL. Neccessity /= strategy. In the NFL it's like having to decide to either: Go for it on 4th down, or kick a field goal, only with the added stipulation that, if you want to kick the field goal, you have to take your starting QB out for the rest of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins_Fan82 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Hit Coors Field for the first time last week, pretty nice ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'm not saying this settles the debate, but at least it gives numbers into why the AL is a better lg... http://espn.go.com/blog/SweetSpot/post/_/id/12644/the-al-is-definitely-the-better-league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Schoenfield's reasoning for dismissing the DH as a cause is unconvincing. I think it's a fundamental cause behind a lot of the discrepancy in roster type that you see today. He also uses contract number and WAR to determine the quality of FA signings which is also unconvincing. I think it's a simple and widely accepted truth that the AL clubs, specifically the Red Sox and Yankees, take their pick of the choicest free agents and last year soon to be free agents each year. Jayson Werth does not equal Carl Crawford, Mark Texeira or Adrian Gonzalez in quality even if the contracts are in the same strata. Cliff Lee isn't equal in quality either. I also think Schoenfield cherry picked on the payroll point. Look at the opening day payroll for each season and the top half is filled with AL teams and the bottom half majority NL teams. The AL simply spends more per capita than the NL. But I do think his point about most of the big money teams in the NL being terrible is important. The Dodgers and Mets have fallen so hard since they 80s and 90s. The Cubs are the Cubs. Aside from the Phillies and now the Giants, the NL's best teams come from the middle to lower revenue markets--teams that have a hard time keeping their core together. For instance, in a year or two, you get the sense that this Brewers team could really be special. But everyone also understands that in a year or two, this Brewers team will probably be missing half its stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEavyJumbo85 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Cliff Lee isn't equal in quality either. Of course he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Of course he is. No he isn't. Cliff Lee was 32 when he signed his deal with the Phillies. When Adrian Gonzalez was traded and signed his extension he was 28. When Carl Crawford signed his deal he was 29. When Mark Teixiera signed his he was 27. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew_Fl Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 No he isn't. Cliff Lee was 32 when he signed his deal with the Phillies.When Adrian Gonzalez was traded and signed his extension he was 28. When Carl Crawford signed his deal he was 29. When Mark Teixiera signed his he was 27. to be fair, you didn't mention you were talking about age. and secondly, i don't think age is as important in baseball and it's certainly doesn't matter in terms of production, which we are talking about anyways. i would argue that Cliff Lee has produced far more for the Phillies, than say Carl Crawford for the Red Sox. So i guess you're right, Cliff Lee isn't an equal signing, he was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEavyJumbo85 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 No he isn't. Cliff Lee was 32 when he signed his deal with the Phillies.When Adrian Gonzalez was traded and signed his extension he was 28. When Carl Crawford signed his deal he was 29. When Mark Teixiera signed his he was 27. Your argument is age?...you. can't. be. serious. The best pitcher in baseball last year according to the numbers; unquestioned #1 available Ace pitcher with postseason history< various above replacement hitters? I laughed when you said Teixiera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Your argument is age?...you. can't. be. serious.The best pitcher in baseball last year according to the numbers; unquestioned #1 available Ace pitcher with postseason history< various above replacement hitters? I laughed when you said Teixiera. What?? Teixiera has been a beast now three straight years for the Yankees and he, like Gonzalez and Crawford, aren't just hitters, they're gold gloves too. Crawford has had a slow start, but so did Adrian Gonzalez. Coming into May, would you have been panning that signing too? Also, age is very important for baseball FAs when you're talking about guys 32 years old versus guys still in their 20s. Especially when he's a pitcher. That's a huge discrepancy. I'm not breaking any new ground with that statement, virtually everyone acknowledges and agrees on that. Cliff Lee still commands a long contract despite his age which means years 3, 4, and 5, will provide far less return than a similar deal for a power hitting 1B just entering their prime like Gonzalez or Teixiera. Also Cliff Lee wasn't the best pitcher in baseball last year. And he's been hardly unhittable this season. He's not even, and wouldn't have been last year, the best pitcher on the Phillies. And if you're determining his value this year based on what he did last year than you should be giving Crawford a pass too--he really was the best corner outfielder in baseball last year and a legit MVP candidate. He'll deviate back towards his norm and hold steady as his career progresses in Boston and he gets deeper into his contract. The smart money is that Lee will decline well before his contract is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEavyJumbo85 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 What?? Teixiera has been a beast now three straight years for the Yankees and he, like Gonzalez and Crawford, aren't just hitters, they're gold gloves too. Crawford has had a slow start, but so did Adrian Gonzalez. Coming into May, would you have been panning that signing too?Also, age is very important for baseball FAs when you're talking about guys 32 years old versus guys still in their 20s. Especially when he's a pitcher. That's a huge discrepancy. I'm not breaking any new ground with that statement, virtually everyone acknowledges and agrees on that. Cliff Lee still commands a long contract despite his age which means years 3, 4, and 5, will provide far less return than a similar deal for a power hitting 1B just entering their prime like Gonzalez or Teixiera. Well, Teixeira has declined ever since signing that contract, to the point where he wasn't even a top 10 first baseman last year and was barely above replacement. The drop off between Teixeira pre Yankees to now is substantial. The Crawford talk is legit, but you said Lee wasn't in his category, which is ridiculous. For all the talk of age, you're doing a lot of assuming that Lee will decline but the others will improve, which as we've seen with the Texeira situation, that's not a forgone conclusion. Also Cliff Lee wasn't the best pitcher in baseball last year. I'd like you to prove this, because the metrics say he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Well, Teixeira has declined ever since signing that contract, to the point where he wasn't even a top 10 first baseman last year and was barely above replacement. The drop off between Teixeira pre Yankees to now is substantial. The Crawford talk is legit, but you said Lee wasn't in his category, which is ridiculous. For all the talk of age, you're doing a lot of assuming that Lee will decline but the others will improve, which as we've seen with the Texeira situation, that's not a forgone conclusion. How has Teixiera substantially declined since he signed with the Yankees? He's coming off back to back gold glove seasons for them and won a silver slugger in 2009. His average might have dropped a bit since Texas but he was never consistently a high average hitter anyway and his power numbers are all just as good as ever. They signed him to drive in tons of runs and that's exactly what he's done. He's also currently on pace for one of the better offensive seasons of his career, tied for first in the Majors in HRs and is 5th in the Majors in RBIs. I'd like you to prove this, because the metrics say he was. Really the onus of proof should be on you, since no metric I can think of indicates he was the best pitcher in baseball last season. If you use sabremetrics then Felix Hernandez was better. If you go by wins, complete games, benchmark performances, etc. it was Roy Halladay. If you go by awards, both of them got the Cy Young and he didn't. If you go by post season performance it was Lincecum. What are you basing your claim on that he was the best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royallypwned Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 @ Cliff Lee being the "best pitcher last year." Cliff Lee wasn't even the best pitcher on EITHER of the two teams he played for in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 @ Cliff Lee being the "best pitcher last year."Cliff Lee wasn't even the best pitcher on EITHER of the two teams he played for in 2010. I agree with that. Yes he was great in the playoffs, but during the regular season, he really wasn't anything special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.