Baseball 2009 - June Edition

[Laughing Lagomorph]

I love it when the Sox get an early 5-0 lead against the Yanks and then slowly pull away.

Yes, because the Red Sox are the complete opposite of the Yankees and embody all that is good an pure about baseball.

No overbearing obnoxious fans. Oh, wait.

Well, a long history of romantic defeats without any recent World Series titles. Oh , wait .

No huge payroll of free agent hired guns. Oh, wait .

No taint of steroid use. Oh, wait .

Yep, you're right. These two teams are like night and day.

[Winston Smith]

I love it when the Sox get an early 5-0 lead against the Yanks and then slowly pull away.

Yes, because the Red Sox are the complete opposite of the Yankees and embody all that is good an pure about baseball.

No overbearing obnoxious fans. Oh, wait.

Well, a long history of romantic defeats without any recent World Series titles. Oh , wait .

No huge payroll of free agent hired guns. Oh, wait .

No taint of steroid use. Oh, wait .

Yep, you're right. These two teams are like night and day.

Deja vu...

[silenus]

What does it tell you when a team can win 6 straight and still be 13 games back in their division? Colorado is hurting this year.

On the draft front....we'll see. I take some small consolation in the fact that almost half the Dodgers active roster were chosen after #111.

[Cluricaun]

Now last night was exactly the kind of baseball that the Cubs were playing last year that made them so great. Except for that useless pile of Milton Bradley going 0-6 last night. What's with this guy? Was he a 'roids bolstered player who's off the needle and sucks now or was he really just that overhyped?

[silenus]

Bradley is notoriously streaky. He was that way with the Dodgers. On fire and playing like an All-Star one week, assaulting fans and playing like a T-baller the next.

[dread pirate jimbo]

No huge payroll of free agent hired guns. Oh, wait .

That payroll chart makes me sick to my stomach. The Yankees payroll is at least double that of 22 teams out of 30. You can combine the payrolls of the bottom four and still not have the Yankees payroll. The gap between them and the next insanely high spending team, the Mets, is roughly equivalent to the entire Washington Natinals payroll. It is beyond ridiculous and makes a mockery out of the notion of fair play and competition. The luxury tax is an unequivocal failure and I think it's high time MLB got their shit together and adopted a salary cap system, just like every other credible professional sport out there, to keep discrepancies like this in check. I mean, if they set the cap at a lofty $100 million, that would force the dispersal of a shit load of talent from the super rich top ten spenders to smaller market teams and instantly make things much more interesting. And I'd love to see Cashman try to manage an actual budget, instead of just opening the bottomles vault every time a top-flight free agent shows up on the market. I don't think the Yankees would be such a lock for the playoffs every year if they had even a slight measure of budgetary constraints placed on them -- at a $100 million cap, they'd have to cut their budget by more than half while only a handful of other teams would have any fat to trim, leaving 2/3 of the league to either stand pat or improve using some of that now-available star power. That would kill the Yankees, which really is the dream of anyone who believes in honesty, integrity, fair competition, democracy and freedom.

[/rant]

[hawkeyeop]

A salary cap of $100 million would transfer hundreeds of millions of dollars from the players to the owners yearly. The union would never agree to it.

Besides I don't really see a major problem. After all the Rays and there tiny payroll still beat out the Yankees and Red Sox last year.

[silenus]

Rowr-bazzle!

[Rube E. Tewesday]

The Jays are showing signs of getting their mojo back. Let's see if it lasts.

[Julie]

What I don't like about salary caps is the lack of continuity there seems to be for the teams. While the Yankees are annoying, I like at least having an idea who is on the team. It seems, and I say seems because this is an impression not necessarily a fact, that the sports with salary caps have a lot more moving around amongst players from team to team to team. Is that true?


In Cleveland news: Out of the basement! Whee! Now they're in 4th place in a lousy division instead of 5th! Cause for celebration.

[dread pirate jimbo]

What I don't like about salary caps is the lack of continuity there seems to be for the teams. While the Yankees are annoying, I like at least having an idea who is on the team. It seems, and I say seems because this is an impression not necessarily a fact, that the sports with salary caps have a lot more moving around amongst players from team to team to team. Is that true?


In Cleveland news: Out of the basement! Whee! Now they're in 4th place in a lousy division instead of 5th! Cause for celebration.

I haven't done I bunch of research on how much more (or less) movement there is in leagues with salary caps, but I suspect the difference is not nearly as dramatic as you might think. Historically, few players have gone their entire careers with a single organization, no matter what the era. In baseball, HoFers Babe Ruth, Nolan Ryan, Rickey Henderson, Ozzie Smith, Reggie Jackson, Rod Carew, Wade Boggs and many, many others, all played for more than one team. Same goes for any other pro sport; Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe, Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Joe Namath, Larry Csonka, etc. all played for more than one team.

haweyeop, I'm not convinced that would necessarily be the case. By my arbitrary $100 million standard, only nine teams out of 30 would be forced to reduce payroll (the Dodgers only by $8,500). With better players available to softer markets, as has been the case in every other league with a cap, teams will scoop up the newly available talent and up their own payrolls with a reasonable expectation that a more competitive team will mean more fans in the seats. Some money will be lost to the owners, but not the hundreds of millions you suggest, IMO. As to the Rays, they caught lightning in a bottle last year and rode it to the World Series, but they eventually lost to a team with a significantly larger payroll. And they are not repeating this season, not by a long shot. Further, they are not in a position financially to compete for their young talent in the current MLB market when those players all become free agents in the next couple of years. The Rays are a case where a cap might actually stabilize the team and allow them to hang on to their top guys, rather than simply have then siphoned off by the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox after they've played out their six-year term with the team that drafted and developed them.

[hawkeyeop]

haweyeop, I'm not convinced that would necessarily be the case. By my arbitrary $100 million standard, only nine teams out of 30 would be forced to reduce payroll (the Dodgers only by $8,500). With better players available to softer markets, as has been the case in every other league with a cap, teams will scoop up the newly available talent and up their own payrolls with a reasonable expectation that a more competitive team will mean more fans in the seats. Some money will be lost to the owners, but not the hundreds of millions you suggest, IMO. As to the Rays, they caught lightning in a bottle last year and rode it to the World Series, but they eventually lost to a team with a significantly larger payroll. And they are not repeating this season, not by a long shot. Further, they are not in a position financially to compete for their young talent in the current MLB market when those players all become free agents in the next couple of years. The Rays are a case where a cap might actually stabilize the team and allow them to hang on to their top guys, rather than simply have then siphoned off by the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox after they've played out their six-year term with the team that drafted and developed them.

It wouldn't lower the payroll of just nine teams (and even if it did that still is a huge number), it would lower the payrolls of every team. The Royals would no longer need to spend 11 million a year to get Meche in order to outpay the big boys, they could perhaps get him for 7. The Nats could get Dunn for less or maybe get Teixeria instead since the Yankees couldn't afford him. Then, Dunn would have to settle for somewhere else for less money as well, who in turn would make someone else available in a complete downward spiral. Nearly every free agent would take a significant paycut. Lower payroll teams might get more talent, but it won't cost them any extra money to do so. They also may very well choose to keep the same level of talent and just pocket the extra money.

The Rays got a little lucky last year, but they were also loaded with talent. They also beat the Red Sox over 162 and over 7, so saying they lost to the Phillies because of payroll is disengenous. They have been unlucky this year, but they still have one of the top run differentials in the league (a better predictor of future runs than record) even with numerous injuries. I still think they have a run in them. Also, the Rays are very well positioned to compete for at least the next half decade. The Twins and A's have proven you don't need big payrolls to compete on a regular basis. Yeah it is harder, but it isn't undoable. The Pirates and Royals aren't where they are because of payroll, but rather years of poor management.

[dread pirate jimbo]

haweyeop, I'm not convinced that would necessarily be the case. By my arbitrary $100 million standard, only nine teams out of 30 would be forced to reduce payroll (the Dodgers only by $8,500). With better players available to softer markets, as has been the case in every other league with a cap, teams will scoop up the newly available talent and up their own payrolls with a reasonable expectation that a more competitive team will mean more fans in the seats. Some money will be lost to the owners, but not the hundreds of millions you suggest, IMO. As to the Rays, they caught lightning in a bottle last year and rode it to the World Series, but they eventually lost to a team with a significantly larger payroll. And they are not repeating this season, not by a long shot. Further, they are not in a position financially to compete for their young talent in the current MLB market when those players all become free agents in the next couple of years. The Rays are a case where a cap might actually stabilize the team and allow them to hang on to their top guys, rather than simply have then siphoned off by the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox after they've played out their six-year term with the team that drafted and developed them.

It wouldn't lower the payroll of just nine teams (and even if it did that still is a huge number), it would lower the payrolls of every team. The Royals would no longer need to spend 11 million a year to get Meche in order to outpay the big boys, they could perhaps get him for 7. The Nats could get Dunn for less or maybe get Teixeria instead since the Yankees couldn't afford him. Then, Dunn would have to settle for somewhere else for less money as well, who in turn would make someone else available in a complete downward spiral. Nearly every free agent would take a significant paycut. Lower payroll teams might get more talent, but it won't cost them any extra money to do so. They also may very well choose to keep the same level of talent and just pocket the extra money.

The Rays got a little lucky last year, but they were also loaded with talent. They also beat the Red Sox over 162 and over 7, so saying they lost to the Phillies because of payroll is disengenous. They have been unlucky this year, but they still have one of the top run differentials in the league (a better predictor of future runs than record) even with numerous injuries. I still think they have a run in them. Also, the Rays are very well positioned to compete for at least the next half decade. The Twins and A's have proven you don't need big payrolls to compete on a regular basis. Yeah it is harder, but it isn't undoable. The Pirates and Royals aren't where they are because of payroll, but rather years of poor management.

Let's look at a couple leagues that have caps, the NFL and NHL. Over in the NFL, there is still a range of payrolls, from a low of $82.6 million for the Chiefs and a high of $152.4 million for the Raiders. In the NHL we have a high of $61.3 million for the Avalanche and a low of $28 million for the Blue Jackets. The thing that stands out for me here is that having the highest payroll does not instantly result in having the most success -- you have a couple championship contenders near the bottom of both lists and a couple bums near the top. Ultimately, the people who will be affected by a cap are the elite players who command the top dollars, while the middle-of-the-pack guys will continue to make middle-of-the-pack money. No one is going broke because of the cap and there is more parity, which makes for better games which is good for the fans. I don't think it's a bad thing to see Teixeira playing for the Nats (they might have more than 15 wins then), and if the Royals are able to free up $4 million on their contract to Meche, they can get themselves another $4 million starter for their rotation. Cap or no cap, some teams are going to cheap out and some teams are going to be mis-managed. But at least everyone has a fighting chance with a cap.

As to the Rays example, I didn't say they lost to Philly because of them having a bigger payroll, I just pointed out that the team that spent more money won, as is typically the case in baseball, with it's insane disparity between the haves and have-nots. The Rays look to be well positioned right now, but, like any small market team, if they start to incur injuries, they have no way to retool. And if players start chasing Yankee money in the next few years (perhaps a Crawford or Kazmir, and just how long is Longoria going to live with a $550,000 contract?), the Rays wind up right back at square one, with every other small market team, constantly having to kick ass at developing talent in the minors because no one is sticking around for any length of time.

But let's bump up the hypothetical cap limit to, say $120 million. Now only four teams have to cut costs; the other 26 teams are comfortably under. But the Yankees still have to trim $80 million. That's more than the Padres and Marlins combined. I have a major problem with that. The lack of a cap has allowed teams like the Yankees (well, mostly the Yankees, let's face it) to artificially inflate salaries to the point where smaller market teams can't even hope to land blue chip talent from the free-agent pool much less hang on to their own talent for any length of time. If a cap forced teams at the top of the food chain to start being a little more careful with their dough, I am 100% behind the idea. Salary caps have worked in every league where they've been implemented; I don't see why baseball would be any different.

[silenus]

A salary cap would be worth it just to see Scott Boras' head explode.

[dread pirate jimbo]

A salary cap would be worth it just to see Scott Boras' head explode.

Oh, hell, yeah! Bring it on!

[Julie]

A salary cap would be worth it just to see Scott Boras' head explode.

That's a point I hadn't considered.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

I didn't hear it watching on TV last night but apparently Fenway Park fans were chanting "You did steroids!" to A-Rod last night.

I have to admit that's funny...I'm assuming they used the usual rhythm like when the fans chant the players name at Yankee stadium (YOU did STE-roids!)

[What Exit?]

Logically tonight's game is not that important in terms of 2/3rds of the season left, but as I come from the Phil Rizzuto, Yogi Berra school of Baseball. The Yanks need to win this game or they will have Boston in their heads all season.

[hawkeyeop]

Let's look at a couple leagues that have caps, the NFL and NHL. Over in the NFL, there is still a range of payrolls, from a low of $82.6 million for the Chiefs and a high of $152.4 million for the Raiders. In the NHL we have a high of $61.3 million for the Avalanche and a low of $28 million for the Blue Jackets. The thing that stands out for me here is that having the highest payroll does not instantly result in having the most success -- you have a couple championship contenders near the bottom of both lists and a couple bums near the top. Ultimately, the people who will be affected by a cap are the elite players who command the top dollars, while the middle-of-the-pack guys will continue to make middle-of-the-pack money. No one is going broke because of the cap and there is more parity, which makes for better games which is good for the fans. I don't think it's a bad thing to see Teixeira playing for the Nats (they might have more than 15 wins then), and if the Royals are able to free up $4 million on their contract to Meche, they can get themselves another $4 million starter for their rotation. Cap or no cap, some teams are going to cheap out and some teams are going to be mis-managed. But at least everyone has a fighting chance with a cap.

The most basic problem with your analysis is football doesn't have more parity than baseball. Since 2000 baseball has had 8 different champions while football has had 7. Since 1970 baseball had has 18 to 15. Baseball also has had a greater variety of different playoff teams and runner-ups as well, despite a long enough schedule that should eliminate the lesser teams. So, you want players to agree to a paycut for a problem that doesn't really seem to exist. Every team has a fighting chance now if they run their team competently.

As to the Rays example, I didn't say they lost to Philly because of them having a bigger payroll, I just pointed out that the team that spent more money won, as is typically the case in baseball, with it's insane disparity between the haves and have-nots. The Rays look to be well positioned right now, but, like any small market team, if they start to incur injuries, they have no way to retool. And if players start chasing Yankee money in the next few years (perhaps a Crawford or Kazmir, and just how long is Longoria going to live with a $550,000 contract?), the Rays wind up right back at square one, with every other small market team, constantly having to kick ass at developing talent in the minors because no one is sticking around for any length of time.

Except small market teams beat big market teams all the time. Sure payroll is an advantage, but it can be overcome. Further payroll isn't a stagnent number. Teams spend more money when thye think they can contend,and less when they are rebuilding. The Rays never signed a major free agents before last year, because they had no need. That doesn't mean they couldn't have. Now that they are contender they are able to add pieces such as Burrell. Yeah, it is a bit tougher for them than the Red Sox and Yankees. However, winning, as you will say, will bring more fans and added revenue. This combined with agreeing to long term contracts with their stars, they already have Longoria locked up a while, will let them maintain most of their core. They will have to pick and choose here or there, but they will be an elite team for a while. They also have a lot more talent on the way. I would say they could better deal with injuries then the Yankees and Red Sox, because they have vastly superior depth. I certainly think their future is brighter than a team like the Cubs who have a high payroll older team.

But let's bump up the hypothetical cap limit to, say $120 million. Now only four teams have to cut costs; the other 26 teams are comfortably under. But the Yankees still have to trim $80 million. That's more than the Padres and Marlins combined. I have a major problem with that. The lack of a cap has allowed teams like the Yankees (well, mostly the Yankees, let's face it) to artificially inflate salaries to the point where smaller market teams can't even hope to land blue chip talent from the free-agent pool much less hang on to their own talent for any length of time. If a cap forced teams at the top of the food chain to start being a little more careful with their dough, I am 100% behind the idea. Salary caps have worked in every league where they've been implemented; I don't see why baseball would be any different.

[/quote]

What is artificial about the salaries at the current time. Teixeria got what the market will bear. You want to artifically lower salaries with a cap and that is what I have an issue with. And I don't know what worked means or even how baseball is currently "not working". It worked as in it kept salaries down. That is good if you happen to own a baseball team, but not so much as a player.

[Winston Smith]

I was offered a ticket to last night's Sox-Yankees game, but passed on it. I wish I'd gone. It was with a vendor (Symantec), and there was only one ticket available, which would have meant a solo trip into Boston and meeting the vendor at Fenway. Been a long time since I've been to a Sox-Yankees game.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

I was offered a ticket to last night's Sox-Yankees game, but passed on it. ....

Next time give it to me!

[dread pirate jimbo]

The most basic problem with your analysis is football doesn't have more parity than baseball. Since 2000 baseball has had 8 different champions while football has had 7. Since 1970 baseball had has 18 to 15. Baseball also has had a greater variety of different playoff teams and runner-ups as well, despite a long enough schedule that should eliminate the lesser teams. So, you want players to agree to a paycut for a problem that doesn't really seem to exist. Every team has a fighting chance now if they run their team competently.

Except small market teams beat big market teams all the time. Sure payroll is an advantage, but it can be overcome. Further payroll isn't a stagnent number. Teams spend more money when thye think they can contend,and less when they are rebuilding. The Rays never signed a major free agents before last year, because they had no need. That doesn't mean they couldn't have. Now that they are contender they are able to add pieces such as Burrell. Yeah, it is a bit tougher for them than the Red Sox and Yankees. However, winning, as you will say, will bring more fans and added revenue. This combined with agreeing to long term contracts with their stars, they already have Longoria locked up a while, will let them maintain most of their core. They will have to pick and choose here or there, but they will be an elite team for a while. They also have a lot more talent on the way. I would say they could better deal with injuries then the Yankees and Red Sox, because they have vastly superior depth. I certainly think their future is brighter than a team like the Cubs who have a high payroll older team.

The problem, though is sustainability. A small market team might put together a strong team for a season or two, but the numbers indicate unequivocally that money buys consistent success and lack of money results in losses. Consider this . While there have clearly been a couple smaller budget teams that have enjoyed a measure of success, and, as the article notes, a few teams are much better at getting wins for a bargain basement price, there are a couple other things worth noting. The first is that the average number of wins per year amongst the top 15 teams in payroll is 84.78 while the bottom 15 managed only 77.18 wins. Second, there are only four teams in that three-year span to average more than 90 wins per season; the top 3 in payroll and the Angels, way down in 6th place. Meanwhile, none of the bottom six teams managed to average a winning season. Bottom line, spending buckets of money results in more wins. It's not a guarantee, of course -- management still needs to do their job -- but the results speak for themselves.

What is artificial about the salaries at the current time. Teixeria got what the market will bear. You want to artifically lower salaries with a cap and that is what I have an issue with. And I don't know what worked means or even how baseball is currently "not working". It worked as in it kept salaries down. That is good if you happen to own a baseball team, but not so much as a player.

Teixeira got what the Yankees will bear, as did CC Sabathia. Had either one of them signed with a different club, it would have been for less money. Probably a lot less. I recall JIm Rome talking about Sabathia during the off season and noting that his case was one where he, as a free agent, was basically being placed in a situation where he was not able to make a choice as to where he'd like to play -- the Yankees were essentially giving him no choice by making him an offer far and away better than what he could possibly get from the Brewers or Indians or anyone else for that matter. With that kind of buying power, the Yankees will always be in playoff contention, irrespective of any other circumstances, while a small market team has almost no margin for error or unforseen events. It's not so much about keeping salaries down as it is about fair competition.

[Winston Smith]

[quote=Laughing Lagomorph]

I was offered a ticket to last night's Sox-Yankees game, but passed on it. ....

Next time give it to me![/quote:2vhjl23c]

Next time I have a spare, I'll keep that in mind. You'd be surprised how hard it is finding someone who, at 5:00 on a Wednesday, can drop everything and be at Fenway at 7:00.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

[quote=Winston Smith][quote="Laughing Lagomorph":1bx9i9ii]

I was offered a ticket to last night's Sox-Yankees game, but passed on it. ....

Next time give it to me![/quote:1bx9i9ii]

Next time I have a spare, I'll keep that in mind. You'd be surprised how hard it is finding someone who, at 5:00 on a Wednesday, can drop everything and be at Fenway at 7:00.[/quote:1bx9i9ii]


Well, you're right...my son had a baseball (playoff) game of his own which I couldn't have missed. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep me in mind! I mean, how often is that going to happen?

(Why did you change your username back?)

[Winston Smith]

(Why did you change your username back?)

Winston Smith has been my online identity for almost 10 years, and as much as I liked Lucifer, I still found myself signing off as Winston. I may make another go of Lucifer yet. As far as I know there's no rule against monthly user name changes. :wink:

[Winston Smith]

Well, you're right...my son had a baseball (playoff) game of his own which I couldn't have missed. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep me in mind! I mean, how often is that going to happen?

(Why did you change your username back?)

Honestly, I suspect it will happen often enough that I wouldn't be adverse to inviting a random Domer. I've got two games under my belt through May 20 (game 19), and another offer last night, so I presume they'll keep coming.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

Honestly I think I like Winston Smith better because of the highbrow literary angle.

As to "how often is that going to happen" I meant my son being in a playoff game, he only has two or so more games left this year regardless of if they win or lose.

It's probably just as well you don't have a ticket to tonight's Red Sox game because it would be unpleasant for you to sit there and watch them lose...ninth time is going to be the charm for the Yankees, you'll see!

[What Exit?]

Honestly I think I like Winston Smith better because of the highbrow literary angle.

As to "how often is that going to happen" I meant my son being in a playoff game, he only has two or so more games left this year regardless of if they win or lose.

It's probably just as well you don't have a ticket to tonight's Red Sox game because it would be unpleasant for you to sit there and watch them lose...ninth time is going to be the charm for the Yankees, you'll see!

(8th)

[Winston Smith]

Honestly I think I like Winston Smith better because of the highbrow literary angle.

As to "how often is that going to happen" I meant my son being in a playoff game, he only has two or so more games left this year regardless of if they win or lose.

It's probably just as well you don't have a ticket to tonight's Red Sox game because it would be unpleasant for you to sit there and watch them lose...ninth time is going to be the charm for the Yankees, you'll see!

Yeah, I'm a little obsessed with literary Dystopias, 1984 in particular. I'm too embarrassed to tell anyone how many times I've read it, but trust me: it's a LOT.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

[quote=What Exit?]

Honestly I think I like Winston Smith better because of the highbrow literary angle.

As to "how often is that going to happen" I meant my son being in a playoff game, he only has two or so more games left this year regardless of if they win or lose.

It's probably just as well you don't have a ticket to tonight's Red Sox game because it would be unpleasant for you to sit there and watch them lose...ninth time is going to be the charm for the Yankees, you'll see!

(8th)[/quote:3cdiw0tu]

I read somewhere it'll be the ninth in a row if you include last year.

[What Exit?]

I read somewhere it'll be the ninth in a row if you include last year.

That is true, I was thinking 0 for 7 for the season.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

[quote=What Exit?]

I read somewhere it'll be the ninth in a row if you include last year.

That is true, I was thinking 0 for 7 for the season.[/quote:2l8wxfmm]

It's all academic as you and I know the Yankees will win tonight.

[Laughing Lagomorph]

Well. That certainly was disappointing.

[beebs]

Jesus Jack-frickin Keyrist!

We got Beckett, Lester, Wakefield, and Penny all holding their own. Matsuzaka isn't leaving the rotation anytime soon. Masterson is looking for work wherever we can fit him. Not to mention Bard and Okajima helping one of the best bullpens in baseball. Where the heck are we going to put Smoltz after his last minor league start today? The Sox have some big problems to try and figure out.



Jim. If you strike me down, I shall become more annoying than you could possibly imagine. [/Obi Wan]

[What Exit?]

This is not good. Brad F'ing Penny? We could not hit Brad F'ing Penny?

[Laughing Lagomorph]

Jesus Jack-frickin Keyrist!

We got Beckett, Lester, Wakefield, and Penny all holding their own. Matsuzaka isn't leaving the rotation anytime soon. Masterson is looking for work wherever we can fit him. Not to mention Bard and Okajima helping one of the best bullpens in baseball. Where the heck are we going to put Smoltz after his last minor league start today? The Sox have some big problems to try and figure out.



Jim. If you strike me down, I shall become more annoying than you could possibly imagine. [/Obi Wan]

I'm counting on Smoltz's arm falling off at some point.

I'm not so sure Matsuzaka won't be leaving the rotation...he's just been hideous this year...almost as bad as Wang.

[beebs]

I'm not so sure Matsuzaka won't be leaving the rotation...he's just been hideous this year...almost as bad as Wang.

I believe he has a no-trade clause, and is too freakin' expensive to sit. I know I don't want him anywhere near my bullpen either, not when he's giving away walks like candy.

So yes, I agree. Almost as bad a Wang, but Boston is pretty much stuck with him for better or worse right now.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

Even if you hate the Yankees, this is a really sweet story about one of the young players and a young woman who just got a heart transplant. Very sweet stuff.

[storyteller]

Even if you hate the Yankees, this is a really sweet story about one of the young players and a young woman who just got a heart transplant. Very sweet stuff.

I'm sure it's lovely, but I'm too busy dropping routine pop fly balls to read it.

Love,

Luis

[silenus]

Eleven straight. Go, Rockies! You'll make it out of AA yet.

[Julie]

Cliff Lee lost his no-hitter in the 8th. Bah.

[What Exit?]

Mets fan seem to be more upset with Luis Castillo's game losing error in the 9th on Friday then Santana being crushed Sunday.

I'm happy we pulled within two of Boston this week though I am still reeling from the sweep.

[dread pirate jimbo]

Even if you hate the Yankees, this is a really sweet story about one of the young players and a young woman who just got a heart transplant. Very sweet stuff.

Cute story.

[dread pirate jimbo]

Well, it's the middle of June and Joe Freaking Mauer is still hitting .414. Impressive! I will fearlessly predict that he drops below .400 for good by the middle of July, but he still has a pretty good look at winning the Al batting crown.

[dread pirate jimbo]

Did the Yankees fans forget to mention that they lost to the Natinals yesterday? Bwa-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha! Sucks to be you!

[dread pirate jimbo]

Well, it's the middle of June and Joe Freaking Mauer is still hitting .414. Impressive! I will fearlessly predict that he drops below .400 for good by the middle of July, but he still has a pretty good look at winning the Al batting crown.

Mauer is now up to .425. Dude is having a hell of a season so far...

[dread pirate jimbo]

Washington Natinals 3 New York Yankees 0

Sucks to be you, Yankees fan! Two losses in a row to the worst team in baseball. Wow, that has got to hurt! A-Roid is down to .212 on the season after an 0-4 performance, stranding 3 runners -- I guess that's what he looks like when he's not juiced up... The Natinals have won a whopping 8 games on the road this year, and fully one quarter of them are at new Yankee Stadium. That just makes life worth living.

And since I seem to be the only person still posting in this thread, let me also say all my opinions on baseball are 100% correct and everyone else is a bat, fat stupidhead. Everyone should therefore listen to me and ignore everyone else. I rule and everyone else drools.

[silenus]

Well, you support the Manny-less Dodgers, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder where all the Diamondback fans went?

[What Exit?]

Friggin Yankees, pathetic.

[dread pirate jimbo]

Well, you support the Manny-less Dodgers, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder where all the Diamondback fans went?

The first team I ever worshipped was the Dodgers and my primary allegiance only shifted when Steve Garvey got traded to San Diego. The ball team I coach (since 1991) is called the Dodgers -- half of the clothes I own and most of the ball caps are all Dodgers gear. So you might say I have a soft spot for them. Or you might say that I still bleed Dodger blue.