Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Beerleaguer for breakfast: Blanton gets back on track | Main | Gillies makes impression before joining minors camp »

Friday, March 12, 2010

Comments

From the last thread: "Unfortunately, Brighthouse Networks Field doesn't have pitching speed posted in the stadium. The Phillies spring training park really is the nicest facility in their area, but that is the one real improvement they could make. Even the bare-bones Blue Jays stadium in Dunedin has pitching speed on the scoreboard."


I would honestly guess that the absence is intentional. Maybe they really dont want it posted for everyone to see.

Brighthouse Field is a BYORG stadium.

Really? That's pretty cool.

BB: Really? That actually pretty awesome.

I understand there's a new Western [Division] show in the works:

"Have [Radar] Gun; Will Travel"

I understand Bob Boone is planning to change his first name and play the lead character.

Mikey Miss is a HUGE critic of the Cliff Lee trade.

I would definitely prepare yourself for the question of why the Phils made the trade - and if you support that - why was it the right move.

Just hire 3 guys with dry erase boards and a black markers. The average of the three would be the 'unofficial' pitch speed. Should get more hilarious as they drink a few beers.

Moyer fastball - 78/62/55

and FWIW, my response would be that this team is too good to go all-in for 1 year, with chances to win for years to come and not just in 2010.

Mikey Miss also downplays Joe Blanton heavily, and thinks that nontendering or trading him for a bench player(thats all the value he gives him) would have been the right move to keep payroll to hang on to Lee.

Well, if you non-tender Blanton and the Angels decide to raise the stakes with a better offer for Halladay, then the Phils are short a pitcher and would look pretty stupid.

JW: Not too shock you, but a caller has yet to make that point to him.

Just wondering, does anyone know the Phils starters' ERA so far this spring? Seems to me they're dealing pretty well to date, not that it means much yet...

Random question, wondering if anyone might be able to answer...

Savery was a 1b in college as well as a pitcher. I vaguely remember, and could be dead wrong on this, that he was a decent first basemen and hitter. If Savery doesn't work out could the Phils switch him back? or do you think it's much to late for that?

I think Mikey Miss thinks Blanton types are a dime a dozen, which is a very popular misconception. Having aces at every single spot in your rotation doesn't guarantee championships, especially if it comes to the detriment to the rest of your team--just ask the Braves.

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate the Yankees and their smug, entitled fanbase? I'm in the mood to punch someone today.

For the radar gun, when Kyle Kendrick is pitching, you need Stephenie LaGrossa to tell the operator which of his 5 pitches Baby Doc just threw.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, doubleh. It's only March 12th. You have 7 more months to hate Yankees' fans. What did the Yankees' fans do recently? Did I miss something, or is it just the usual stuff?

If you want to argue that Blanton has historically tended to wear down and post medicore/below average numbers in Sept & Oct, I will buy that but a guy like Blanton certainly isn't a 'dime a dozen either.'

Try to find a starter who can consistently give you ~30 GS with an ERA between 4-4.25 aren't easy to come by.

HH- funny but I had a Yankee fan ebtitlement outrage moment myself last night. That's spring training for fans I think

It's raining, the kid and I are both sick and cranky, my Flyers and Wildcats shat the bed yesterday, my job stinks and I wake up to read a Yankee fan response to Bill Conlin's ludicrous article on the Phillies having the best infield ever. The Yankee fan was correct that the current Yankee team's infield is better than the Phils'--and he had some back and forth with Conlin where Conlin predictably was a jerk to him and just said "steroids" as one of his responses (downplaying anything A-Rod has ever done)--but the comments by Yankees fans after his article just set me off.

They actually have the audacity to say Phillies fans live in more denial than Red Sox fans. As if! My God, if you don't think the Yankees have the "best ever" at every position, it's like you don't even deserve to be a baseball fan. Many of them even think Cano is hands-down better than Utley. Their insults aren't even the kind of banter you have with Mets fans; it's just dismissive in the "we're an exclusive club, you wouldn't understand" sort of way.

It must be so tough to be a fan of a team that can spend money to cover up their mistakes every year. And they've faced so many hardships as fans...they're so battle-tested. I wish they could go through a nice 20 year drought and see how many of them are left in the wake.

FYI: got my opening day ticket lottery response today(rejection). Assuming they're sending out the winners today as well.

thephaithful: I would think that mostly everyone will get a "rejection".

Figuring there are about 20,000 full season ticket holders. Another 15,000-20,000 partial season ticket holders and StubHub has 4,000 right now(starting at $62 for 400 level seats). That accounts for almost all the seats. The Phillies will put SRO tickets on sale later to run the final count to about 47,000 for a Opening Day sell-out.

Phillies lotteries for fans to get tickets whether it be Opening Day or Playoffs are a cruel joke, when nobody really "wins".

That's why you should jsut buy the full/partial season tickets and sell whatever games you can't or don't want to attend.

"I wish they could go through a nice 20 year drought and see how many of them are left in the wake."

Umm, DoubleH. I agree with your overall distain for Yankee fans.

But to be fair, it wasn't too long ago when the Phillies were bad (as you know) and the Vet was only 1/3 full(as I know because I was there).So to act like the fans have been there through it all is a tad misleading and delusional.

As we all know, winning breeds fans. I am sure if the Yankees ever did through a draught that their stadium sales and fan abse would get smaller.

The only team in this town that draws no matter what is the Flyers. Even the Eagles used to have blackouts all the time in the 90's.

My roomate is a Yankee fan and waves off my criticism of their never ending wallet. That team operates on a seperate set of rules than everyone else. It has zero restrictions in fielding talent. Home grown players my ass. Not even the Red Sox could afford an infield of Rodriguez, Jeter, and Texiera and a rotation with Sabathia and Burnett and a closer of Rivera and hold onto to a 37 year old Posada and 35 year old Pettite.

Joe Mauer is balking at a 20 million/year offer from the twins in part b/c he knows the Yankees can go higher. The Mets, Red Sox and Cubs have all shown fiscal restraint but not the Yankees. They want you you're in pinstripes plain and simple. A contract of that level is not a case of a small market rolling over and going cheap. That's a fantastic offer. It's just garbage.

mvptommyd: I know that the Phillies have been through droughts and have lost fans. That was not my point. My point was that they act like they are the best fans on the planet but they've never been tested, so my guess is they'd end up being like everyone else's fanbase--where many jump ship when the going gets rough.

doubleH: Absolutely. And they will deny it until they are blue in the face. But they would.

Heck, a portion of their fans only "like" the Yankees because they see Lebron and Jay-Z wearing their hats, so they think it is "cool" to be a Yankee fan.

They are no better than what happened to the Phillies or any other team that would have it's ups and downs.

Oh and the most annoying thing of it all is if the Yankees make a blounder like Pavano, Irabu, Igawa, and to an extent Giambi, it doesn't phase them in the least bit. They just keep spending till they get it right. That's what seperates them from Boston, the Mets, and the Cubs, and especially the Phillies. That's the biggest injustice. The Evil Empire has zero fear.

I saw on MLB Tonight that baseball is considering realigning the divisions again to create "competitive balance." What they really want to do is eliminate the stranglehold the Red Sox and Yankees have on baseball.

I say the only way to really do this is create both a hard ceiling cap and base cap (cough, Marlins, cough) and make the teams stick to it. I'm not a big fan of salary caps but the Yankees do operate on a separate plane from everyone else and it has created an uneven playing field to say the least.

Great Article by Murph with in depth analysis on exactly how much Polanco will help the Phillies this season offensively.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillies/A_closer_look_at_Placido_Polanco.html

mvptommmyd: Well, all these celebrities wear Yankees hats because there is zero risk in supporting that team. To come out and sport a Nationals hat would take actual marbles.

DoubleH: Yea I saw that too.

Once again Selig trying to ruin baseball. If they change the divisions every year or every other year to create "competitive balance" that will ruin rivalries and the competetive nature of the playoffs.

You could see a division one year of:

Phillies, Braves, Cardinals, Cubs, Mets

Yankees, Sox, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland

Marlins, Nats, Pittsburgh, Houston, Cinncinati, Milwaukee

etc., that would rotate each year depending on who improves.

Regarding the "hard" cap, that would never work because there isn't enough talent out there that deserve the amount of salaries that would be forced to spend to meet the cap.

If you ignored that fact and did impose the "hard" cap, the end result would be a bunch of overpaid players and a diluted product (Take the NBA for Example #1).

Rotating divisions is the dumbest suggestion I saw in that program. If you're going to realign, it's gotta be one and done. Someone else's idea was to create 2 divisions (get rid of the Central) but add another WC to each one. So 2 division winners, 2 WCs in each division. I think that's OK, but I don't mind the current divisions, really.

Personally, I think maybe correcting the schedule would be the first move to make. Stop playing your division 19 times a season and play all the teams in your league twice. This way the rest of the AL East doesn't get pummeled by having to play the Yankees and Red Sox so much and you get to see more teams come through your town. It will lessen the impact of their beloved Yanks-Sox rivalry, but fewer games will mean greater impact of the ones played.

I would also like to eliminate IL play, but that will likely never happen.

doubleh: "the only way to really do this is create both a hard ceiling cap and base cap (cough, Marlins, cough) and make the teams stick to it."

True, but it would only happen over the dead bodies of the union and about half the owners. In other words, it will never happen.

Another way to balance things a bit would be to allow two of the weaker teams (Royals and Rays) to move to the NY metro area and New England to spread the revenues more evenly. As long as there are only two teams in the NY metro area there will never be economic balance in baseball and you can expect the Yankees and Mets to have better records overall than most other teams in the decades ahead. As noted above, having limitless money can offset incompetence. There is no level playing field.

I don't know that the Phils "lose" fans in lean years. No doubt that happens, but probably not to a measurable extent.

The Phillies of the late '90s and early '00s weren't winning and fielding teams that required a lot of duct tape and bailing wire. Why spend money to support an inferior product?

Then it ends up being a vicious circle. When the fans let their wallets do the talking, revenues drop to a point to where a team can't afford to improve.

mvp - That Polanco article was filled with al of holes including:

1. The difference Polanco vs. Victorio to advance runners - None of the differences are statistically significant and it is a limited sample size. Basically Vic has been just as proficient at moving runners along.

2. Polanco's situational hitting - "though he has grounded into double plays on 14 percent of his opportunities, which is slightly below average." I would be willing to bet that largely takes away some of the value of Polanco's situational hitting especially compared to Vic also hits into DP at a much lesser rate than Polanco.

3. Lineup flexibility - Is largely a joke. If JRoll is healthy, he will be the leadoff guy on this team regardless of the results he puts up.

Polanco is a 'bad option' at No. 2 but Vic is a better offensive player who brings more to the table than Polanco especially with his speed. I would rather see Vic & Polanco as the 1/2 but that won't happen.

Just hope that "30-HR JRoll" doesn't appear because this Phils' offense won't look quite as dynamic with two guys in 1-2 holes how have sub. 330 OBPs.

One of the things that has really made this lineup go the past few years is having either the best or very close to the best production in the NL from OPS standpoint out of the 2-hole.

I do find it kind of odd that while baseball tends to attract a more conservative fanbase that leans to the right yet most fans also support the idea of a salary cap with more equal competition.

Move the league offices out of NYC for starters, baseball needs to recognize the part of the country west of the Hudson River.

there should be a 3rd team in New York, probably across the river in NJ. The city has supported 3 teams in the past (Giants, Dodgers, and Yankees) and all 3 teams were competitive/dominant. It's the best thing to do because the union is never agreeing to a cap. The other options are an increased luxury tax on salaries over a certain threshold to make more it more prohibitive to have a $200 million payroll, and to increase revenue sharing. I don't think 50% of local revenues going intro the common pot is unfair as the Yankees wouldn't get the kind of revenue they do if all they did was play intra-squad scrimmages. The Minnesota's and Kansas City's put 50% of the product on the field for a game, they should get 50% of the revenues.

I don't support a salary cap in any sport. Not even to punish the Yankees.

I don't know if I support a salary cap, but i'd be warmer to the idea of some sort of minimum number teams have to spend.

MG: MLB is not really 32 separate entities. It acts like one company, which I suppose is the reason for the Anti-Trust exemption. Coke's sales would be great without the competition Pepsi provides (no that Coke is hurting). If Pepsi disappeared tomorrow, Coke executives would be ecstatic. On the other hand MLB teams have a symbiotic relationship. If the Yankees put the competition out of business, they'd really be hurting themselves. They have no desire to crush the Pirates financially and put them out of business.

That said, I don't support a salary cap. It creates too much havoc in other sports. I do support the measures I listed above (moving teams, luxury tax, revenue sharing).

What if the cap and floor wasn't overprohibited just enough to prevent the extreme discrepancies in payrolls?

According to ESPN the top five payrolls are:
1) Yankees $208,097,414
2) Mets $145,367,987
3) Cubs $143,058,500
4) Red Sox $122,435,399
5) Detroit $119,160,145

The bottom five payrolls are:
1) Pittsburgh $25,197,000
2) Florida $35,774,000
3) San Diego $37,800,800
4) Oakland $56,089,250
5) Baltimore $61,885,566

What if the cap was set at $119 million and the floor was set at $62 million? Or just b/c the Yankees are garbage make the cap $145 million and b/c the pirates, marlins and padres are rediculous the floor $50 million

JBird - But they don't share all revenues equally like in the NFL and each team does negotiate it own separate deals. I don't think the owners want to 'crush' Pittsburgh financially and drive the team out of business but I would bet several owners who have had to pay into the luxury tax would have some interesting opinions on the 'cry wolf' owners in Pittsburgh too.

I would love to see a salary cap. However, since teams like the Royals bring in 100 million before they sell any tickets, there should also be a minimum, too. It gets under my skin to see ML baseball teams play in front of 15,000 fans and the owners don't give a rat's behind b/c they're raking in millions of dollars. This idea would definitely help limit the meaningless games b/t 2 teams that have no shot.

MLB also needs to address the draft. EVERY incoming player (from all over the world) should be part of the drafting process. AND the new draftees' salaries should be slotted. This would stop the JD Drews of the world from holding up bad teams. It would also stop the wealthy teams from busting slot to lure in better talent headed to college.

The inter-league schedule is not balanced. It hasn't happened to the Phils yet but teams from the NL East could be ousted from the playoffs b/c they have to play the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, etc. while teams in the Central play the Royals, Indians, etc.

My last fix for MLB is to get rid of the current commissioner. He's a spineless puppet who's done more to hurt the game than promote it.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Phi - Just showed you want the bigger problem was and it is teams like Pittsburgh and Florida that cry "poverty" yet they have no problems pocketing the substantial luxury tax transfers or shaking down the local taxpayers to help build them a stadium.

It is funny to read on some of the Pittsburgh blogs about how they have seen a change but let's see if they have yet another semi-annual fire sale at the trading deadline and continue to trade away their "building blocks" like Maholm and others.

People hate Selig but I am actually kind of a semi-fan. He was wrong on the steroids issue and likely did know but has done several positive things in general including achieving labor peace for 15+ years, putting lots of money in the owners/players pockets, being a general leader in the online space, realigning the divisions/Interleague play which generally have been successes.

People will always gripe about Selig and they hate his persona but the man has done more good for baseball than bad even from the fans' perspective.

MG: If the Yankees want to leave MLB and become a barnstorming team playing it's way through the midwest or join the independent leagues, let 'em then. If they want to play against other MLB teams, I don't see why 50% revenue sharing is outlandish. They'd still have the highest total revenues. Like I said, the opposing team is providing 50% of that nights entertainment, they should receive 50% of the revenue.

The anti-trust exemption allows the teams to act as one entity.

How has JRoll looked this spring? He supposedly came into camp a bit doughy and out of shape. Has he looked fairly sharp in the field & at the plate?

One guy I don't know if he is going to "bounce back" to what he was in '07-08.

What's going to happen in the World Series if the All Star game ends in a tie?

JBird - That's crazy. Why should the Yanks be penalized just for playing in a big market or being financially astute (YES network and other areas where they were clear leaders among MLB teams)?

People generally complain the lack of parity in baseball because it gives them something to whine about. If it wasn't that, it would be another issue.

Baseball is competitive enough generally with the current alignment because of the WC. Maybe a team like TB, Balt, or Toronto can grip a bit more because the Sox and Yanks are in their division but the WC enables a team generally that is able to win 90 games to make the playoffs. After that it generally is a crapshoot.

I love doubleh's posts.

As for re-alignment, why not go back to pre-1969 and have no divisions? Just the American League and National League. Each team plays the same amount of games against the other. (More travel time, but....). No inter-league play. The top four teams from each league make the playoffs.

The way I would change the league is to eliminate teams. Preferably 4-6 teams, can take a hike.

This would make the league more competitive because more teams would have multiple stars on their team, which would sell more tickets and merchandise.

The teams that would be gone don't have the fan base anyway for the most part that would even care.

I would get rid of Tampa,Oakland, Washington, Pittsburgh and San Diego.

Plus, those fans can easily be fans of a team close to them. Oakland-San Fran, Wash.- Balt., Pittsburgh- Not a baseball city, San Diego- LA teams or San Fran, Tampa- Not a baseball city

Who's penalizing them? you take 50% of the revenues from every single team and put them in a pot and hand them back out in even allotments. Like I keep saying, the Yankees are not playing themselves. The other team is paying for their players to travel and play in New York, they should receive some remuneration and not just have to rely on what they make back in Tampa or Pittsburgh. It's fair.

MVPTommy: Pittsburgh's been a baseball city for 100+ years. Not their fault they have bad ownership. And what would you do with the new ballparks in Washington, Pittsburgh, and San Diego.

By the way, the eliminating teams method would help improve the product in the NHL and NBA as well.

Entirely too many teams without the talent/interest.

JBird: Pittsburgh? Baseball City? I don't remember them ever selling out on a consistant basis. Even go back to the "Three Rivers" days.

I just looked it up.

Guess what the highest game average is for a season and what year it was in?

Answer: They averaged 25,498 a game in 1991. That is the highest EVER.

Real big baseball city there.

MG, I have to disagree with your "crap shoot" comment. It is FAR better to go into a playoff with 3 top, proven pitchers and a quality lineup than with a team of younger players who put together a 90 win season. Sure, the latter CAN happen but I'm sure you wouldn't bet your house on it.

Since the strike, there have been 15 WS played. 3 of them were won by "small market" teams. They were the '97 & '03 Fish and the '01 Arizona team (which really do play in a fairly big city). The D'Backs won mostly B/C of Shilling & Johnson...2 very highly paid pitchers.

The other 12 WS were won by teams from NY, Phi, Chicago, St. Louis, Atlanta, LA & Boston.

If you're saying the Yankees vs. the field, you have a point. But the #1 Market, the YES network, the merchandising, etc. give the Yankees a huge advantage over every other team. The Bos, Atl, St.L, Phi, Chi teams have a much better shot than teams like the Pirates & Royals b/c they too have more money.

Regarding the new stadiums I would either sell them to the NFL team or in Pittsburgh's case, hold onto it until they decide what to do.

Actually sorry I am wrong. That was their 2nd highest average.

In 2001, the Pirates averaged 30,834.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/pitatte.shtml

"Who's penalizing them? you take 50% of the revenues from every single team and put them in a pot and hand them back out in even allotments."

That's a huge disincentive to the Yanks (and to about a dozen other teams too including the Phils if they keep their payroll anywhere near its current level in coming years).

I do like that idea of a 3rd team in NYC-area.

I really don't mind the current format of MLB except that you wind up playing so many divisional games each year. I get really sick of seeing the Nats 19 times a year.

As for competitive purposes, this is generally enough room for smaller teams to compete and succeed. Maybe you could put a slightly threshold on the payroll tax but all-in-all it was worked pretty well with a number of teams having made the postseason since the strike. To win it all? That is admittedly tougher to do.

I don't want parity in baseball and find it kind of old especially among older fans who yap about it given that during the 50s/60s there was arguably even a greater competitive imbalance than there was today.

The Redskins, who have a 95,000 seat Football stadium will not be buying the Nats stadium. There's no need.

The issue isn't talent distribution. If you wanted to, you could find enough talent around the world to distribute among 40 teams and not substantially affect the level of competition.

The issue is simply bad ownership/management for the most part. The only place I can think of where baseball might just not work is Florida, with the Miami and Tampa teams which have been successful and still not drawn fans. But in Pittsburgh? If they'd been run properly for the last 20 years, they would be fine. San Diego was competitive just a few years ago and drew plenty of fans. There's no legitimate reason to contract them. The Nationals were run horribly as the Expos for a while, and need to be given more time in Washington.

As recently as 2002, the Phillies were 24th in the league in attendance, because they played in a crappy park and had gone through a long stretch of bad teams. Would you say Philadelphia is not a baseball town? If Selig put more emphasis on vetting owners who would actually invest in the teams winning and being competitive, then the idea of "contraction" would be unnecessary.

"Would you say Philadelphia is not a baseball town? "

No, we are a baseball town here.

The difference between Philadelphia and the teams I mentioned to eliminate is that here there are short time blocks where attendence weren't good. Like you mentioned from about 1998-2002 our attendence wasn't very good, but before and since 2002 it was strong.

For Pittsburgh, Tampa, Florida, San Diego it has been the opposite. Small blocks of good attendence but overall not good at all.

See the difference?

what incentives do the owners in Pittsburgh and Kansas City have to win? They obviously care more about money than winning. Since they're making money, a lot of it off the luxury tax, they're all good by their standards.

MG: I disagree about disincentive.As an example, If the Yankees have revenues of $100 and the Royals have revenues of $40 and the Rays have $30 in revenue, under 50% revenue sharing the yankees would, after distribution, have $78.33 in revenues, the Royals would have 48.33 in revenues and the Rays would have 43.33. The Yankees still have a large advantage, but the Rays and Royals get compensated for providing the Yankees with competition for their YES network and New Yankee Stadium ticket sales.

It's still a market based solution because, as I've said, the opposing team is supplying part of the product. That said, I think the 3rd team in NY idea would do more than revenue sharing.

MG touched on a great point with regard to Selig. This is how the owners judge him: How much money were we earning when he took over and how much are we earning now? And what does that translate into as an annualized return? My guess is somewhere around 15% a year, which is better than Bernie Madoff.

Folks, it's all about the money. Everything else is meaningless.

Just one look at the football team across the street and that point really gets driven home. It's always about the money. It's like my friends who naively think the blue laws are still in effect in PA because of morality issues. Money is always the driving force.

HH: I don't live nor have I ever lived in PA, but I went to Gettysburg 2 years ago for a weekend away. I went to a store looking for a bottle of wine for my wife and I and I ended up with a case of Heineken. I've never been anywhere where it's so hard to buy the type of alcohol you want (in the quantity you want).

Clout: Exactly. And it's reciprocal. Selig cares about getting owners in who have the finances and willingness to keep MLB making money, and to do what he says. He is not primarily interested in having owners who will do what it takes to field competitive teams. If he did, he would have let Mark Cuban buy the Cubs.

The issue is not "baseball cities" or talent distribution. The issue is ownership and management which run the franchises as tax write-offs and appreciation vehicles rather than as competitive teams.

Folks, it's all about the money. Everything else is meaningless.

Posted by: clout | Friday, March 12, 2010 at 02:40 PM

This is true about EVERYTHING, not just baseball.

JBird - I am far from a supply-sider but taking 50% of the revenues of a business write off the top is in no way shape or form a 'market-based solution.'

...and if it weren't for the financial incentives, you would be watching a much lower quality of baseball.

Do you think - maybe - we are all debating "how to fix baseball" because the Phillies don't have the financial wherewithall that the Yankees have? I mean, if they did, would we be having this discussion?

Personally, I'd like to think that we would, but I'm not so sure. (I still like my idea to get rid of divisions and just have the top 4 teams from each league in the playoffs. That way if Baltimore ever gets their act together, they'd still have a shot at the playoffs even if the Yanks and Red Sox make it as well.)

MG: I still say that your overlooking the fact that the Yankees are standing around playing pepper on tv and in front of 50,000 fans. They are playing other teams. why doesn't the other team have a claim to those revenues generated while they are on the field?

Uh-Oh, Mikey Miss is already worked up over Lee and trade.

He said "Coming up Jason Weitzel who helped write the Phillies Annual. And he is one of these guys that believes the Phillies and what they said regarding the Lee trade."

According to Mikey, Amaro told him that the Halladay deal was in the works prior to tendering Blanton.

He is cranky today, hope JW doesn't get undressed on the airwaves....

sorry, s/b "Yankees aren't standing around"

It's not the same as taking 50 percent of the revenue from McDonalds and pooling it with Burger King as redistribution. Burger King doesn't provide 50% of the hamburgers sold in a McDonald's.

mvptommyd: When isn't Mikey Miss cranky?

At first, I really liked him and the contrast he brought from Mr. Knowitall down the dial. Now, I think he's just as much of a blowhard as the Burger King. He started to lose me initially when he kept railing on Utley for his cursing at the parade. I mean, it went on for 2 weeks. It's not like he was Vick for sh**'s sake. Now, he just continues to tout the typical nonsense WIP does. "Should have kept Lee, bawk! The window is closing, bawk! Run McNabb out on a rail, bawk!" Whether there's a kernel of truth to any of the statements is irrelevant. When you just shout your opponents down simply for disagreeing with you, you lose credibility.

Highlights from JW interview on Mikey Miss

- Riding the fence on the Lee trade. Mikey is talking him down regarding JW's reasoning of "not wanting to get caught with their pants down"

- Thinks they are better than last year, but not positive.

That is pretty much it. JW got a nice 5 minute thing.

Jw, ended it with saying "I guess I am off"

Akward interview...

JBird - You have some other points but the "50% tax on all revenues" with no credits/offsets idea is pretty ridiculous.

anyone listening to JW on the radio? interested to hear, but stuck on the office w/o a signal.

JBird, the other teams do benefit when the Yankees go visit their ballpark.

thx for the recap. wonder if they play any highlights in the 5oclock hour.

thephaithful: Yea, see highlights above.

JW, kinda just talked for a couple minutes then Mikey Miss said well thanks for joining us. JW, then seemed to say "I guess I am off".

Then Mikey laughed at him and then went to commerical.

Weird interview. It was almost like Mike didn't have time for the interview. And BLer wasn't mentioned at all.

A-Train- exactly, that's why it's a 50% tax on everyone's revenues, not just the Yankees. Royals pay 50% into the pot too. And then everyone gets an equal share of the pot. If you use 4 teams in an example maybe it'll make more sense:

True Revenue
Yankees: 100
Red Sox: 80
Royals: 40
Rays: 30

After redistribution
Yankees: 81.25
Red Sox: 71.25
Royals: 51.25
Rays: 46.25

because of what they get back the effective tax rate is 19.75% for the Yankees and 11% for the Red Sox (in the example). Yankees already pay a huge amount into revenue sharing though.

I most certainly did not say "guess I'm off." I said "Thanks for having me on."

JW: Ohhh. Mikey said you said "Guess I'm Off"

You weren't fully audible to the listener, I guess just to the producer/host.

Regarding the actual interview,you should have bit back at him when he was talking you down on your opinion.

They seemed to have thought otherwise J... You definitely sounded muffled when you said that.

doubleh: I agree with your Mikey Miss points. I was thrilled to have an alternative to Eskin, but it seemed as soon as Mikey eclipsed Howard's ratings, he became Howard. His opinions seemed to be more ratings induced than what he really thinks.

Bed's Beard - the same thought came to me the other day. Now that he has the ratings Mikey Miss is acting like the 'Burger King'.

Maybe someoneposted this already, but si syou know Michael Taylor has diabetes:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Diabetes-presents-challenges-for-athletes

Wow, this is a long period of Beerleaguer silence... but it's worth savoring the respite from the recent deluge of know-nothings.

Wherefore Adam Eaton? From mlbtraderumors:

"Sidney Ponson, 58.2 IP - There has been no reported interest in Ponson this winter.
Adam Eaton, 49 IP - There has not been interest in Eaton, either."

As an example of comic timing, that's impeccable.

So i'm lame and can't follow threads in real time due to other things happening in real time, but here are my two cents on the last few days off posting.
1. In this thread someone said baseball draws a more conservative fanbase than other sports. I'm not so sure. I mean right now, I would say Eagles fans are much more conservative and suburban than Phillies fans. I know there is a ton of overlap, but the Phillies have done a great job reaching out to younger fans and they are by far the team followed by non traditional sports fans. You won't see Eagles gear on anyone at the Barbary or Kung Fu Necktie or indie music venues around town, but the Phillies are repped pretty hard among the younger more liberal set.

2. The consensus appears to be "if you don't understand advanced baseball number crunching your understanding of the game is below mine and you are an inferior fan of the game." I don't buy it and I think it is an awful attitude. There are numerous ways to appreciate the game of baseball. Some people enjoy messing about with numbers, and that's cool. Some people enjoy watching the way the players position themselves during the game. Some people can tell you what a player makes compared to other players and determine which one is a better value. Some people can turn on a game and tell you what pitch the pitcher will throw and what the shortstop is telling the other infielders between pitches. Both groups like the game and know the game. Personally, I've always been a lot more interested in the mechanics of hitting and things of that nature. I would love to sit down with Charlie Manuel and talk about hitting, preferably during hitting season. Some people would like to sit down with Ruben and discuss the cost structure of his bullpen. That's fine. Not my thing, but I see why people are into it. I do think that it is harder to acquire the "pine tar and rose" baseball knowledge and I think that is why so many people are gravitating to the maths and science aspect of fandom lately. But then again the number crunching element is probably harder to keep current on whereas the mechanics of the game haven't changed much over the years. But they are both valid ways to enjoy the game. No need to rip people apart.

that should read "pine tar and rosen", although "pine tar and rose" is the working title of pat burrell's autobiography.

Assigned to the minor league camp: Aumont, Flande, Mathieson, Naylor, Ramirez, Sanchez, Savery, White, Gosewisch, Nelson, Suomi, Galvis, Berry and Gillies.

(Zolecki tweet).

I like the notion that baseball should just "contract" teams out of cities like Kansas City and Pittsburgh. Yeah, KC - not a baseball town. [cough] I'm sure they'd pay off hte owners but, what exactly would baseball do for the taxpayers of Pennsylvania, and especially Western Pennsylvania, if they got rid of the team for whom they built a baseball stadium? I'm no fan of Pirates ownership and current ownership control is in the hands of people worse than the previous guy who ran the team but, once baseball has a hand in convincing taxpayers to support the product, baseball ceases to have teh unilateral right to 'contract'.

Mathieson didn't really get a chance to show what he has

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG