Part of

« Phillies roster war will be waged on the Baez front | Main | Report: Phillies contact Rangers about Michael Young »

Wednesday, February 09, 2011



As long as you dont work out in them or sweat profusely, you should be able to wear the same sox a minimum of 2 days. The key is taking them off at night and letting them air out.

The harder Braddy boy throws, the faster the ball will fly over the fence.

"As long as you dont work out in them or sweat profusely, you should be able to wear the same sox a minimum of 2 days. The key is taking them off at night and letting them air out. "

Or have athlete's foot. No amount of airing out will help you then, and your feet will start to itch uncontrollably. /flashbacks

"Chad Durbin is receiving offers from non-contenders, but is holding out for a chance to pitch for a winner, according to Ken Rostenthal."

Sounds like Durbin has to decide if he wants a payday or if he wants to pitch for a specific team(s).

Besides, WTF does this mean? Unless the only offers he's gotten have been from the Mariners, Orioles, Pirates, Mutts and Royals, most of the teams in the league have at least an outside shot of being competitive.

Well if you have athlete's foot, that's a whole different issue. Of course, a good bit of preventing athlete's foot is the regular switching of socks and the airing out of said socks if you are required to use the same pair several times without washing...

I got terrible athlete's foot in the military (must have been the wet boots + socks + tropical environment + communal showers combo) and have never been able to shake it.

I know most of the tricks.

(Struck by the thought that the first thread on this blog is about a fungal ailment. Really sorry about that. Shutting up now.)

Those military showers are brutal. Good shower shoes will take you far in the military.

Also, on ruck marches...when they stop, you gotta change your socks no matter how much you dont feel like taking your boots off.

~former Army~

OMG. A thread about athletes foot? This is officially the longest winter ever.

donc, yep. I'm gone until the conversation changes.

hey, do you think the Phils can work out a deal for Michael Young?

awh - I think the Phillies COULD work out a deal for Michael Young, but that doesn't mean we will. I think acquiring Young would hurt us more than it would help us.

First, everyone knows the guy is way overpaid. He hits very well, no doubt, and is still above average defensively, but he is currently the age around which most major leaguers (even all-stars) begin to decline. No one is going to want to pay Young $20 mil over the next few years.

Second, he is smart defensively, but it's a little late in his career to try to shift him into the outfield. And the same goes for Rollins or Polanco. Ultimately, if we were to acquire Young, one of those three would have to move out there (unless we traded one of them for Young, which wouldn't even happen to begin with). So no matter what, we'd end up weaker defensively in the outfield than with Francisco or even Brown.

Finally, speaking of BenFran and Dom, acquiring Young would obviously serve as a detriment to their playing time and development into the role of a major league starter. Is it really worth it?

If only they'd give Rizzotti & Mathieson a chance.

That would solve everything.

AWH: Michael who? This is the first I'm hearing of it.

Will S.:

From the last thread just to repsond to your comment. My opinion on Young wasn't/isn't meant to be the last word on the subject. I'm just pointing out that Young is not coming here. They wouldn't take on that kind of money in a trade when they passed on FA's who were better fits, who signed for a lot less (A. Jones for example.)

***If only they'd give Rizzotti & Mathieson a chance.

That would solve everything.****

We'd win 125 games next year if we just put both of them on the 25 man.

"I think the Phillies COULD work out a deal for Michael Young, but that doesn't mean we will. I think acquiring Young would hurt us more than it would help us."

I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second. I'll beat this dead horse one last time (mostly to reply to awh's ten posts that closed the previous thread), and then I'm done.

Folks...I agree with your points as to why the deal probably won't happen...but "probably won't happen" and "zero chance" are two very different things. Again, just about everyone here (myself included) put the return of Cliff Lee in the "zero chance" column. No one is arguing that Young to Philly is likely, so arguing why it is unlikely is a straw man argument and a waste of time.

I disagree that Young wouldn't want to come to Philly, but both sides of this argument are only guessing. I think if it meant a very good chance at a World Series ring, he'd accept a reduced role, especially if the alternative is as a DH of a team that has less of a chance at a title (much less, IMO).

It's just a hypothetical, and I was arguing that if it happened, Young would increase the chances of a 2012 WFC for the following reasons:

- decreasing the injury risk to Polanco/Rollins/Utley (routine days off without loss of offensive production) and prevention of yet another fall in which Utley plays hurt.

- contingency plan if (and when) any of the above three spend time on the DL (which is frequent).

- right handed bat in the lineup.

- pinch hitter off of the bench (either he or whoever he's replacing on any given night).

- we need a right handed bat more than we need three #5 starters (or an aging left handed LF).

- in most cases, a "super utility" player is a a drastically reduced role. In the case of Young and the 2011 Phillies, this would not be the case. If he started 3B, SS, 2B, LF once per week (based on the opposing pitcher), he'd get plenty of at bats even if everyone stayed healthy (which WON'T happen. I wish it would, but let's be realistic).


Is there "zero chance"? No. Is there even an average chance of this happening? No. It's a very, very low probability, but Amaro has done quite a few things done that weren't very probable, so unless it's a completely batsh*t acquisition, it's not "zero chance"...not after Halladay, Lee, Oswalt, etc...

DPatrone: I was just messing with you. The wording just struck me as a mom saying "I said no". :)

I would bring back Durbin. He doesnt want much and he was there most reliable reliever over the past 3 years.

Durbin is reportedly asking for 2 years, $5 million or something like that...that's too much for what he brings.

I propose the following plea bargain on the Michael Young discussion:

Will agrees never to mention the name Michael Young again, unless he actually appears in a game in which the Phillies are involved.

Everyone else who posted on the subject agrees that there is not "0 percent" chance that the Phillies will acquire Michael Young. Granted, the chances are probably something along the order of .0001%, but I am willing to agree that they are not zero.

My hopoe is that, with this issue resolved, we can get on with discussing important news items like athlete's foot, soiled underwear, and whether Placido Polanco is tall enough to have another good season at 3rd base.

BAP: Agreed. I never wanted to get into the discussion of likelihood in the first place. I conceded that point right off the bat.

NEPP: I'd like to see Durbin back too, but who's the odd man out? I'd hate to see Baez pull a Jose Mesa and go on a tear with someone else.

GeeGee? Are we really using that nickname?

Guys, I got it. We trade Rizotti and Mathieson (blasphemy!) to St. Louis for Pujols, and we play him as a super-utility guy, because he's played 3B and LF before in addition to 1B.

Obviously he wouldn't supplant Howard, who is the single greatest 1B in the history of baseball.

My daughter has a pair of those plaid Phillies shorts. Being a Phillies fan runs in the family, despite living in the sub tundra belt in the deep south.

The big local stink right now is that Sean Payton is moving his family from New Orleans to Dallas. Fans are worried about his commitment. Phillies fans need not worry, Cholly lives in South Jersey.

Heather, a cheap treatment for athlete's foot is to make a 50-50 mixture of white vinegar and rubbing alcohol. Use a Q-tip to apply to the problem areas. The alcohol evaporates quickly drying out the fungus and the vinegar makes the area alkaline, a situation that fungus hate. It doesn't smell the greatest as vinegar is not the greatest scent. Mask the aroma with perfume.

Will, Preach and bap posted in the last thread:

Preach: "Cliff Lee, as a pitcher every 5th day, with his caliber, is such a wild upgrade that the spend and resulting "too many pitchers" is outweighed.

Michael Young provides no sizable upgrade and the roster is limited to 25 men and 8 regular starters on the field.

To use the Lee signing/duplicity to justify a Young trade is comparing apples to oranges."

bap: "I haven't really tracked this argument but, Will, which of the following do you think is the more reasonable inference: (1) That, because we paid big money to add Cliff Lee to our already $150M payroll, we obviously have a limitless budget; or (2) That, because we paid big money to add Cliff Lee to our already $150M payroll, we obviously are at the limit of our budget and are not in a position to take on any more big salaries?"

bap: "Will: Actually, our assumptions are usually based on comments that come out of the front office and those assumptions/comments have usually proven quite accurate. Last year, the FO said that the budget for opening day payroll would be around $140M and, lo and behold, it was $141M.

This year, Amaro hinted that opening day payroll would be around $150M. It's currently around $160M, but here is an exact quote from Amaro: "We went out of our element a little bit here . . . It's something that, frankly, when you get into this realm of years and dollars, it gets a little [difficult]. But I think this is a special circumstance." In other words, ownership made an exception because of the unique opportunity to get a dominant starter. Rememeber, too, that the $150M figure referred to opening day payroll, not full-season payroll. But Amaro has broadly hinted that, unless they shed salary (i.e., trade Blanton), that full-season payroll will be very close to the opening day payroll, since we won't be making any significant in-season trades.

There is absolutely nothing in his comments, or within the realm of common sense, which would suggest a willingness to spend an additional $48M."

Taken together, you should realize that there is zero chance of Young coming to Philly.

Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I'd really be happy if there were no more posts about Michael Young.

Let's talk Tuffy Goosewurst. Projectible? Start him in Double A? Snack or sandwich?

Clout: Double-A with a just a bit of honey mustard.

If you added some pickles and a side of chips, I could see Triple-A in his future.

I don't really see Ibanez as being that bad for us. He was over-paid for his age, but overall his numbers have been fine especially for his age. The contract is the thing that makes people expect more out of him when really he's never been a player to produce numbers that generally a 13 mil a yr player should, that's not his fault though.

Seems like he's been here 5 years when it's really he's coming into his 3rd. He's carried us for 4-5 weeks at a time in '09 and '10 when the rest of the lineup was absent.

I can't knock the guy. Pat broke my heart though so I'm grasping for straws here to fill that void.

Did you guys know that Campo's will ship hoagies and cheesesteaks overnight to anywhere in the country?

Pretty cool option if you live outside the Philly area and really crave a real hoagie or cheesesteak.

Its something like $70 for 1, $90 for 2, $140 for 4 and they come with some utz chips, tasty kakes and a Philadelphia post card.

Something tells me that the Michael Young trade discussion will live on into Beerleaguer eternity -- forever popping up as a source of ongoing humor, much like the subject of third basemen's height.

Cheaper than the ballpark.

I don't remember too much discussion at the time, but I think Greg Gross is a very odd choice as a hitting coach. The guy had only one thing he could do with the bat. He could only use about 10% of the field. What in god's name could a banjo hitter like that tell Ryan Howard or Utley about hitting. He might be able to help out some speed guys who only know how to pull the ball but that's about it. Quite frankly, though he was a very good pinch hitter, I would vomit if I ever saw another hitter that remotely resembled him. It's almost like asking Greg Luzinski to work with the outfielders.

I tend to think that UC is the actual hitting coach regardless of who official holds the title.

Could be right NEPP, but if so why not save the money. We could have given it to Davey Lopes or better yet we could sign Michael Young. Sorry, I just had to.

Most hitting coaches were never great hitters. Most great mlb players never come back to coach anymore. Not like the old days due to lottery like salaries. You can understand and teach theories of hitting without having been a good hitter much like a history professor can teach history without making history him or herself.

donc: would have been a brilliant idea.

Hitting coaches honestly don't make that big of a difference. They either sit and talk about the old days or they're falls guys when you go on 3 month slumps. Charlie's the real hitting coach of the squad.

donc: At least at the major league level, I don't think there's any relationship between playing ability & coaching ability. And, just because Greg Gross was a certain kind of hitter doesn't mean he's unable to coach different kinds of hitters.

My bigger issue with Gross is that he's a retread. He has already been our hitting coach once and, like every other Phillies hitting coach since Richie Hebner, he played for the Phillies. That shouldn't be a relevant hiring consideration -- let alone a job requirement.

Caveat to my 12:39 post: I really have no idea if Greg Gross is an effective hitting coach and, frankly, I am extremely dubious that a hitting coach even makes any difference when it comes to major league hitters. My objection to Gross has more to do with the process behind his hiring than to his merits as a coach.

Um, great discourse fellas...

Anyone read that Lidge article? Perhaps it's that overwhelming pessimism that I just never seem to be able to shake but a couple of things stood out to me:

- Do we think it's a great idea that Lidge has been throwing every other day in the off season, just because he can since he didn't have to undergo surgery? Should we expect a dead arm in May or June? If he didn't have previous elbow issues maybe I wouldn't be as concerned.

- His comments about BenFran were interesting. Not that he'd know any more than the rest of us, but he seems to indicate that Bennie is the guy and that "We’ll need Domonic Brown at some point." Interesting.

BAP: "I am extremely dubious that a hitting coach even makes any difference when it comes to major league hitters."

Just wait til Brown is raking to start Spring Training and Gross is hailed as a savior. After all, surely it can't be a coincidence that the Phils started winning the VERY SAME DAY that they dumped Milt as hitting coach. (tongue firmly in cheek)

Charlie Manuel was a career .198 hitter in MLB.

Will S~ Didn't take it seriously. Just thought you misunderstood is all. One good point you bring up though is "right handed bat in the lineup".

I'm glad to see another voice of reason (along with AWH) on that point. This is not to say say that other posters are not reasonable, by any means. As I've stated in the past, if Ben Fran is in the lineup, our bench is short on RH hitters. If Brown is in the lineup, Ben Fran is the main RH guy off the bench which would consist of Gload, Schneider, and Valdez.

Starting lineup (8), Rotation (5), Bench (4), Bullpen (7). I guess Mayberry is the 25th man, maybe by default. I'm worried about that bench quite frankly.

Willard: They had plenty of inconsistent hit parades during last season while Milt was still the coach. The numbers did not change really at all after he left. It's more about whether the coach is loose and inspirational as opposed to a structured technique he prescribes.

Dom, I'm not real worried about the bench.

Sure, would I like to see a bench of guys who were .280/.335/.450 hitters? Absolutely, but guys that can do that usually find a starting spot somewhere in MLB.

Why? You have to remember, the NL averages last season were .255/.324/.399 (all positions incl. P). Obviously backup OF and 1B will probably have better numbers than a backup middle IF or a backup C.

But Charlie hasn't used his bench that much in the past, and even though he may feel he needs to rest some of the guys more in 2011, I don't see him using it THAT much more.

Keep in mind, they're bench players. They are - by definition - usually below average offensively for their position.

Can you accuse me of expecting too little? I don't think so. Sometimes I think people expect too much from the bench.

Here's some more data:


As starter - .259/.327/.406
As Sub - .222/.294/.342

As a PH, 5,451 PA: .219/.295/.343

I'd wager that someone who can come off the bench and PH like this: .250/.330/.390 would have a pretty good career as a MLB bench player.

Good points guys about hitting coaches. And I do tend to agree that they don't have all that much impact. And I absolutely agree that you needn't be a great hitter to be a hitting coach. It's just that Greg Gross is the most extreme example of a guy with only one way to hit a baseball. For those not old enough to have seen him, all he could do was hit flairs over the thirdbaseman's head. And he was a damn good bunter. He was physically unable to hit the ball to the right of the shortstop. I honestly don't ever remember him doing it. In the end it doesn't matter much. Also, BAP, I agree about re-treads. If he was deemed expendable once, what has changed?

How did the Braves beat us out in the Rodrigo Lopez minor league sweepstakes? Unbelievable. Am I only one that thinks we have a glaring hole at the third string RHP long-guy position?

Thoughts on who has the best chance in the AL?

I guess it's the Red Sox but I like our matchups:

Halladay / Lester

Lee / Beckett

Oswalt / Bucholz

Hamels / Lackey

Blanton / Wakefield

Beckett's so done it hurts, but I guess he's still their 2 based on history. Bucholz probably is their 2 talentwise at this point.

Boston's offense is just dirty. Should be interesting.

Donc, with a team like ours where the offensive talent is already there and guys came in already knowing how to hit successfully you really only need a guy to preach focus and really inject confidence when it's lacking. For some other clubs headlined by Michael Taylor alikes might benefit more from an experienced and succesful hitter as a coach and that might pay greater dividends in redefining a swing or teaching overall hitting philosophy, but that's not necessarily needed for this team IMO. However we also really have no idea what Gross is doing behind closed doors, but my guess is he's more of a knockaround guy than a guy that demands his stamp be on every hump-back liner.

I wouldn't be so quick to write off Beckett

NCAA baseball changes:

- NCAA is using different bats this year and implementing a new rule that pitchers must throw the ball in 20 seconds or less after receiving the ball if no one is on base. First time, they get a warning. Next time, a ball is automatically added to the pitch count. Definitely a rule I would love to see implemented in MLB. No reason pitchers screw around so much when nobody is on base.

Mets sale (same Biz of Baseball article):

Basically, the revenues that Mets derive from SNY (Wilpons supposedly own a 60-66% ownership stake) vary considerably annually based on various estimates that were put forth in the NY Times, Forbes, and the WSJ but the conclusion is universal & that what really matters in the future for MLB teams is the value of their media content (e.g., ownership stake).

Biz of Baseball is one of my favorite baseball blogs because you usually get some interesting stuff that falls below the radar on Sports pages.

***Definitely a rule I would love to see implemented in MLB. No reason pitchers screw around so much when nobody is on base.

Dont they already have that rule? It simply isn't ever enforced...or its very rarely enforced. Its Delay of Game.

Rule 8.04: 8.04 When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 20 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call "Ball." The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire.

"Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing."

awh: I dropped it, so who is arguing for the sake of arguing now?

Relax, man. All is well with the world.

NEPP - I think I have only seen a single game where it was ever enforced (Red Sox-Mariners game).

MLB could greatly benefit from just strictly enforcing mandatory rules about batters in the batter's box, managers trips to the mound, etc. Individually, it wouldn't be much but in aggregrate I bet it would shave a minimum of 10-15 minutes a game and possibly more.

NEPP - Thanks. Good catch.

I wish they'd enact (and/or enforce) a rule limiting the number of times a catcher can visit the pitcher's mound. I'm looking at you, Posada.

I vaguely recall MLB putting out a memo to umpires before the 09 or 10 season about enforcing it. They tend to do that every few years...but it rarely is called. I dont remember the last time it was called during a Phillies game.

It isn't absolute but average/bad players generally make better coaches. It is hard to teach someone how to do something when it came easy to you. Look at Moyer, average pitcher but to excel he really studied and mastered the craft. He would probably make a great coach.

Can I get a cup of coffee with my Goosewurst?

I'm very quick to write off Beckett. He had one fantastic season, a few really good ones, and mostly mediocre ones. He's injury prone and will be a mixed back for the rest of his career in my opinion. Of course now that I said this, he'll win 20 and take the AL Cy Young.

I think the Phils could take the BoSox. I'd expect tough games that go right to the wire though. I guess we'll see in June though won't we?

Popularity of baseball:

Baseball has been fairly stable but really trails the NFL in popularity. No surprise there but I bet the Selig & the owners are hoping the NFL owners are foolhardy enough to have a real lockout that affects their '11 season which would likely give baseball a lift.

Marcus Hayes and Michael Young need the Horse Doctor treatment.

Selig & Co are making money hand over fist...I doubt they're concerned about catching the NFL in popularity.

81 home games a year vs 8 means $$$$.

"He had one fantastic season, a few really good ones, and mostly mediocre ones."

Are we talking about Jon Garland or Josh Beckett? Between 2003 and 2009, Beckett had exactly one "mediocre" season -- the 2006 season when he posted a 5.01 ERA but still managed to win 16 games. Other than that, he was good in every season, very good in some, and great in one.

There is no denying that he's injury prone but he has been a consistently good pitcher when he has been healthy. Last year, he wasn't and, for the first time in his career, he was bad. But the guy is only 30. Saying he's washed up is just silly.

Popularity of the Regional Sports Networks:

- YES averaged 72,000 Primetime TV households in the New York DMA in 2010. Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia was second nationally in 2010 with an average of 69,000 TV households.

- YES averaged 32,000 Total Day TV households in the New York DMA in 2010. Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia was second nationally in 2010 with an average of 20,000 TV households.

If I am correct, don't the Phils own a 1/3 stake in Comcast SportsNet but are't they locked into their current deal until 2013 or 2014?

I know the Phils 3-year deal expires with WPHL-TV at the end of this season.

Beckett just doesn't do it for me. He reminds me of Jay Cutler in a lot of ways, obviously he's accompolished a lot more than Cutler but his demeanor and existence is comparable. He's a winner by default but not a leader by any stretch.

Our staff on paper is better than any staff so we'll always win the pitching matchup debate. But then if you look at the offense it seems we'll always beat out most teams in 2-3 positions, push on a few, and really only fall behind in a couple positions to the most elite teams. Therefore we really have to be the most well-rounded team going in.

Take Boston's offense, which is probably projected as the #1 offense:

Ruiz v Saltalamcchia: Ruiz
Howard v Gonzalez: Push
Utley v Pedroia: Utley/Push
Rollins v Scutaro: Rollins
Polanco v Youkilis: Youkilis
Drew v Francisco: Drew
Victorino v Crawford: Crawford
Ibanez v Ellsbury: Push

NEPP - It is the media revenues though were teams are increasingly make the huge bucks though.

Your right though about Selig & MLB making money hand over fist. Players have really benefit too. I read somewhere recently that in just 20 years the average MLB salary has gone from roughly $500k/year (1990) to over $3.0M last year (2010).

So we should be getting quite the revenue stream out of our TV deal then...which probably helps explain the massive increase in payroll.

Well, they also get TV revenue from 162 games instead of just 16. Even with the lower ratings, that has to add up considerably.

NEPP - Yeah that is what I was getting to. Phils own a 1/3 share in CSN Philly. Originally it was Spectacor (Ed Snider), Comcast, and Phils but that changed when Comcast bought the Flyers/Sixers.

Mets own a 2/3 share in SportsNet NY with Time Warner and Comcast owning the remaining share. Cubs and White Sox only own a 1/5 share in CSN Chicago. Giants own a 30% take in CSN Bay Area.

I would be really curious to see a rundown on all MLB teams.

A winner by default? Didn't he single-handedly lead the Marlins to a world championship? And hasn't he won both a World Series & ALCS Championship MVP?

Emmett, don't you know that such positional comparisons are useless without the b00b method of >>> and <<<?

Re: Beckett

Last year, in addition to his injuries, Josh Beckett was also unlucky. His BAPIP .338, pretty bad.

For those who think a direct trade for Young is possible, I suggest that a more likely scenario would be a three way trade including a team that needs a second baseman and has a surplus of corner outfielders.

Winner by default is used loosely there, meaning sure he had a terrific season and has had good seasons but there's something missing with him that even most Boston fans feel detached from him.

I wouldn't necessarily say single-handedly either won the '03 WS. Definitely a huge piece though. Willis, Cabrera, Lowell, Lee, Pudge, Pierre contributing as well.

I wouldn't call Beckett an elite starter. For one thing, he simply misses too much time to be called an elite starter. For another, his overall numbers just aren't elite. When healthy, though, he is a very solid No. 2 who, like most No. 2s, is fully capable of delivering an elite season.

The Sox have one elite starter in Lester, one potentially elite starter in Buchholz, & 3 starters who have been very good in the past, but are coming off down years (Dice-K, Lackey, Beckett). If they get a bounce-back from 1 or 2 of those guys, they are going to be very scary. Fortunately, they're the Yankees' problem, not ours.

Nice article, don't know if anyone has seen it, breaking down Roy Oswalt's pitches, and especially the use of his Changeup.

Also, thanks Lake Fred for the tip about the feet.

FINALLY, a foot thread!!

Living in New Engaland and having to listen to all the elitist, front running red sox fans talking about an arrogant punk like beckett is bad enough. Not necessary on Beerleaguer IMHO.

Heather, military communal showers and fungus anecdotes in one thread? If you're NOT a dude, maybe you should just pretend you are from now on, because I think using a girl's name just lost any semblance of feminism you might have had...

Willard: His name really IS Heather. Joe Heather.

You got a problem with that?

No sir. Sorry. :(

I'm really happy this thread came back around to Heather's fungus. I was worried it had gone way O/T with the baseball talk.

Also, I know this comes up from time-to-time here, but the Phillies no longer own any part of CSN Philly. Comcast bought them out, but the Phillies keep the ad revenue during games.

Wait there aren't any women in the military, and only men get athletes foot.

Mike: Right. Just as it's impossible that a man would ever post under the name Heather.

Hexy - Thanks for the update. When did Comcast buy them out and what was the price? Likely an incredibly short-sighted deal by the Phils.

AWH~ I understand. I was just hoping RAJ would augment the bench a little. But maybe Mayberry & Co. could do the job.

Clout, I have no idea whether Heather is a guy or girl, nor do I care. For that matter, I have no idea if you are a guy or a girl, nor do I care. All I'm saying is that there are women in the military, and they get athletes foot just like men do.

And all I'm saying is that if you're a chick on a baseball blog, you aren't doing yourself any favors on the femininity front by talking about your military athlete's foot.

****Albert Pujols and the Cardinals remain far apart in discussions about a possible extension, according to Jon Heyman of (Twitter links). Heyman says the sides are so far apart that there's "virtually no chance" for a deal by Pujols' February 16th deadline. Pujols is looking for Alex Rodriguez money ($275MM over ten years), while the Cardinals are reluctant to offer anything more than a six or seven-year deal.****

So...where does he end up? If they were smart, the Angels would sign him. They really really NEED a big name big bat guy. I'm really shocked that the Cards are so far off his asking price.

Also of interest from MLBTradeRumors:

Former Phillie (kinda) Dennys Reyes signed a minor-league deal with the BoSox:

"The Red Sox signed Dennys Reyes to a minor league contract with an invitation to Spring Training, the team announced. Reyes will earn $900K if he makes the major league team with incentives that could push the value of the deal to $1.4MM, according to Alex Speier of"

Matty Energy should be in Clearwater following Ron Bradley's quest to make the Phillies in 3D. (Turns out he was a visionary after all)

NEPP, I read somewhere that some baseball people have estimated Pujols was "underpaid" by as much as $130MM during his current 8-year deal. Regardless of what the number is, he was underpaid, and I suspect he's serious about not giving STL a discount this time.

According to other reports Pujols' agent Dan Lozano (JRoll's also) started out by asking for 10/360 [no misprint]. The STL FO has not even countered with a formal offer, and it's being speculated that they don't want to because they're afraid Lozano is just going to shop the deal if/when Pujols becomes an FA.

If you ask me that's a little foolish on their part. If they don't make a formal offer then Pujols is going to become an FA anyway, and they'll be competing against other teams, assuming they even want to re-sign him.

It could very well be that they've made the decision not to extend him (or that they just don't want to go that high/long), and that they're just going through the motions of appearing to negotiate with him in order to save face with their fans. I sure wouldn't rule out the possibility that they're not negotiating in good faith.

All the reports are that everyone in MLB thinks he'll wind up a Cardinal, but I'm not certain of that.

It could be they kept Holliday after he became an FA because they have though tall along they needed to prepare for "Life Without Albert."

They're so far apart at this point that I actually think he'll go somewhere else. If they pay him what he wants, they'll be hamstrung budget wise so they're basically screwed either way.

*Jerry Crasnick* Just said that the Phillies have contacted the Rangers about Michael Young, however, they were more or less kicking the tires on what it would take to acquire him, and of course Joe Blanton would have to be in any package.....Where would he play though? there is our right handed bat, but can he play the outfield?

People are always complaining that all the Phils do is acquire old guys so it would be a change to bring in someone Young.

How many minutes until actual baseball starts?

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel