The Cubs sit 6 games behind the Reds after last night’s loss. I’ll even admit that I didn’t think the Cubs would fall this far behind this quickly. With the Cubs easy schedule early on I expected them to actually look like a contender and then fall back when the schedule became tougher. Instead of that, the Cubs fell behind early playing less than average teams and have continued to fall since.
We knew going in that this wasn’t an especially good team. The projections had the Cubs winning between 77 and 80 games. It was the worst the Cubs had been entering the season since at least 2002. Based on attendance, that information was something the fans already knew about. You didn’t need to see a projection to recognize the lack of talent on this roster. Each team from 2003 through 2010 was projected to win more games than they were this year. I think all but the 2003 team was expected to win at least 5 more games than this one. The 2006 team was projected to win about 85 games by PECOTA. That just goes to show how much error there is in a projection, but even that team had a shot entering the season.
It’s even possible the 2002 team was projected to win more, but I don’t know and I’m not going to run the numbers right now. It is something I may do later on because I had a feeling back in December and January that this was the worst team the Cubs sent out on Opening Day in over a decade. I’m pretty sure the 2000 team was horrible, but the 2001 team contended and I can easily see following year’s team being projected to win more than this group.
The question right now isn’t whether or not this is the worst they’ve been in a decade, but whether or not they are out of it. Let me start by saying that no team is out of at this point. There are 120 or more games left to be played so there’s plenty of time for any team to come back at this point. It’s obviously harder for some teams, but even for the really bad teams there’s so much that is random in this game that even a bad team can play really well. That’s just baseball.
If we were to assume that each team plays up to their projected records the rest of the way, the Cubs have a lot of ground to make up. They were projected to finish 5 to 6 games behind the Reds, but are already 6 out. Here is how the NL Central would play out if all the teams played to their projected winning percentage.
| Central | W | L | PCT | Proj Pct. | Proj-W | Tot-W | GB |
| Reds | 24 | 17 | .585 | .528 | 63.9 | 87.9 | — |
| Cardinals | 23 | 19 | .548 | .514 | 61.7 | 84.7 | 3.2 |
| Brewers | 20 | 21 | .488 | .513 | 62.1 | 82.1 | 5.8 |
| Cubs | 17 | 22 | .436 | .493 | 60.6 | 77.6 | 10.3 |
| Pirates | 18 | 23 | .439 | .433 | 52.4 | 70.4 | 17.4 |
| Astros | 15 | 26 | .366 | .407 | 49.2 | 64.2 | 23.6 |
The Brewers have underperformed so far, which is obviously good for the Cubs since they were projected to finish ahead of them. However, the Cardinals have played better than expected and the Reds have played significantly better than expected. This now leaves the Cubs more than 10 games behind the Reds at the end of the season because they’re already so far behind.
If the Cubs were to catch the Reds at 88 wins, the Cubs would have to play .585 baseball the rest of the season. This means they’d have to go 72-51 the rest of the way to get to 89 wins. .585 is 94.8 wins per 162 game schedule. The Cubs would have to be nearly as good as they were in 2008 in order to catch the Reds if the Reds play up to expectations.
Let’s say the Reds fall down quite a bit and the Cubs just have to get to 85 wins at which point they’d pass the Cardinals. That means the Cubs would have to play .553 ball the rest of the way, which is the equivalent of an 89 to 90 win club over 162 games.
The Cubs aren’t out of it yet, but it’s highly unlikely they’ll find themselves in contention. They’ve dug themselves a pretty big hole while the top team in the division has played better than expected. That’s the opposite of what the Cubs needed to happen this season.
Comments
From the last thread:
[quote name=mb21]I don’t think there is either, but why can’t the model used by every other profession in this country be used for professional sports? Can someone honestly tell me that parity is more important than giving these guys the same basic rights that every other citizen has?[/quote]
Initially (I think starting in 1879), baseball contracts had “reserve clauses” which gave the teams/owners a massive claim over its players. Starting in 1914 and culminatining in 1922, the Baltimore Terrapins sued the MLB/National League for cornering the market on players, and in the ’22 case of Federal Club of Baltimore Baseball vs National League, the Court came down on the side of the NL. In the opinion, Justice OW Holmes said: “personal effort, not related to production, is not a subject of commerce” and that baseball therefore wasn’t subject to federal regulation.
This sort of set a precedent for keeping the gov’t out of regulating baseball (which is rare because this was during an era where the commerce clause would be broadly interpreted).
Shortly after Flood vs Kuhn, baseball would ultimately enter the Free Agency era making the “reserve clause” effectively invalid. Bill Clinton would eventually pass the Curt Flood Act which removed the reserve clause all together, but that was more for show as the MLB was already in the middle of a CBA between the players and owners.
Just some quick background on the regulatory environment that I drudged up just now.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]From the last thread:
Initially (I think starting in 1879), baseball contracts had “reserve clauses” which gave the teams/owners a massive claim over its players. Starting in 1914 and culminatining in 1922, the Baltimore Terrapins sued the MLB/National League for cornering the market on players, and in the ’22 case of Federal Club of Baltimore Baseball vs National League, the Court came down on the side of the NL. In the opinion, Justice OW Holmes said: “personal effort, not related to production, is not a subject of commerce” and that baseball therefore wasn’t subject to federal regulation.
This sort of set a precedent for keeping the gov’t out of regulating baseball (which is rare because this was during an era where the commerce clause would be broadly interpreted).
Shortly after Flood vs Kuhn, baseball would ultimately enter the Free Agency era making the “reserve clause” effectively invalid. Bill Clinton would eventually pass the Curt Flood Act which removed the reserve clause all together, but that was more for show as the MLB was already in the middle of a CBA between the players and owners.
Just some quick background on the regulatory environment that I drudged up just now.[/quote]This should have been an Unobstructed View.
AndCountingQuote Reply
Way to ruin my optimism, MB. Fucker.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]This should have been an Unobstructed View.[/quote]
Correct.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]These guys aren’t MLB players that are being drafted. Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee and Alex Rodriguez cannot determine what is right for someone who is not yet an MLB player.[/quote]
No, but they were former draftees that represent all players. They were drafted and were fine with the system.
[quote name=mb21]I’m shocked that someone as Libertarian as Ryno agrees with the current system.[/quote]
Maybe it’s just because I’m at the point where I realized that it’s easier to adapt to the world than try to make the world adapt to you. We’re talking about children, some of whom make more money in six months than I’ll make in my lifetime. I have no pity on them if they’re “forced” to play for a team they don’t like for a few years.
I chose to be a journalist in college. I can be a journalist if I want, but now I’ll only be paid $20K per year to do it, despite the fact that I’m “worth” more. My other option is to choose an industry I don’t like to be paid what I’m worth.
Life sucks.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]Maybe it’s just because I’m at the point where I realized that it’s easier to adapt to the world than try to make the world adapt to you. We’re talking about children, some of whom make more money in six months than I’ll make in my lifetime. I have no pity on them if they’re “forced” to play for a team they don’t like for a few years.
I chose to be a journalist in college. I can be a journalist if I want, but now I’ll only be paid $20K per year to do it, despite the fact that I’m “worth” more. My other option is to choose an industry I don’t like to be paid what I’m worth.
Life sucks.[/quote]
This. (dying laughing)
WaLiQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]
I chose to be a journalist in college. I can be a journalist if I want, [/quote]
Like Al?
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]This should have been an Unobstructed View.[/quote]
Too freeform without sources and a rigorous fact-check to put my name on it.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]You get to make the choice whether or not to accept the promotion and move. Brett Jackson didn’t get to accept whether or not he wanted to work for the Cubs. His only option was to give up the skill he’s most qualified at.[/quote]
Let’s not exaggerate. He doesn’t have to give up baseball. He might have to be paid much less than he’s worth (like journalists), but he can still play.
I guess the reason the draft doesn’t bother me, is that I can’t pity someone for not being able to choose which professional sports organization to collect enormous sums of money from for six years.
It might not be fair according to some, but the majority of the players subjected to it are fine with it. The players look out for themselves, and theyr’e fine with it.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Like Al?[/quote]
I wish.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Central W L PCT Proj Pct. Proj-W Tot-W GB
Reds 24 17 .585 .528 63.9 87.9 —
Cardinals 23 19 .548 .514 61.7 84.7 3.2
Brewers 20 21 .488 .513 62.1 82.1 5.8
Cubs 17 22 .436 .493 60.6 77.6 10.3
Pirates 18 23 .439 .433 52.4 70.4 17.4
Astros 15 26 .366 .407 49.2 64.2 23.6[/quote]
The Cubs are expected to finish dick-high
WenningtonsGorillaCockQuote Reply
Apparently my problem with draft opposition is that I feel like I’ve been subjected to something similar. I didn’t realize it until just now.
I have to do a job I don’t like for the first company that allowed me to (I didn’t have a choice). I could have done what I wanted to do for the company I wanted, but I would have been vastly underpaid.
It sucks, but I go to work every day without bitching about it. If you told me today that I could go do the job I want for the company I want in six years, I would be ecstatic.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]Way to ruin my optimism, MB. Fucker.[/quote]Does that make me a fun-sucker?
mb21Quote Reply
Journalism and MLB have little in common. MLB is thriving and journalism isn’t. It’s like saying someone who is qualified to be a teacher but can’t find a job hasn’t been granted the same rights as everyone else. That sucks, but it’s life. This is MLB intentionally limiting the freedom of the player.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]Apparently my problem with draft opposition is that I feel like I’ve been subjected to something similar. I didn’t realize it until just now.
I have to do a job I don’t like for the first company that allowed me to (I didn’t have a choice). I could have done what I wanted to do for the company I wanted, but I would have been vastly underpaid.
It sucks, but I go to work every day without bitching about it. If you told me today that I could go do the job I want for the company I want in six years, I would be ecstatic.[/quote]
You and I don’t often agree.
I had an internship (minor league stint) and then was offered a job (major leagues). I now work a shitty company (Pittsburgh?) and soon will have enough experience and then I can decide where I want to go (Yankees or bust!)
WaLiQuote Reply
To lighten the mood…
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Video-College-baseball-players-joust-during-rai?urn=mlb-wp6617
Jackasses. (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]Let’s not exaggerate. He doesn’t have to give up baseball. He might have to be paid much less than he’s worth (like journalists), but he can still play.
I guess the reason the draft doesn’t bother me, is that I can’t pity someone for not being able to choose which professional sports organization to collect enormous sums of money from for six years.
It might not be fair according to some, but the majority of the players subjected to it are fine with it. The players look out for themselves, and theyr’e fine with it.[/quote]
That’s also untrue. The majority aren’t fine with. The ones who make the decisions are fine with it, but you can’t tell me that a league minimum player is fine with it. He’s looking at what they get in the NBA and NHL, which aren’t close to as profitable as MLB and he’s not fine with it.
It’s OK not to have pity for Brett Jackson in part because he’s already a millionaire, but the lack of pity doesn’t mean we should grant him less rights than you and I have. We’ve seen how he can make millions in MLB. He could make thousands in Indy Ball. There is no comparison. It’s like you being unable to be a journalist and your other alternative is to collect nickels and dimes from strangers. Is that OK with you?
mb21Quote Reply
These kids could still go to college and have another career. It’s a back up plan, everyone should have one.
I can’t stand it when I hear someone say they can’t afford to get another job. It might be hard to get a job for the Yankees or Sox, but there’s no reason why they can’t afford to get another job.
WaLiQuote Reply
This isn’t similar. Your situation is similar to someone who wants to make a living fixing 1970s station wagons. It’s similar to someone who wants to make his living developing cell phones that weigh more than a pound and a half. It’s similar to someone who wants to continue making Commodore 64 games. It’s similar to how ridiculously fucking tough it is to make any money as a farmer today. It is not similar to someone who wants to work in a thriving industry that pays its employees an absurd amount of money.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Journalism and MLB have little in common. MLB is thriving and journalism isn’t. It’s like saying someone who is qualified to be a teacher but can’t find a job hasn’t been granted the same rights as everyone else. That sucks, but it’s life. This is MLB intentionally limiting the freedom of the player.[/quote]
My situation is similar to the person you lament, though. My choices are limited to working for a company I don’t want to work for or taking a dramatic pay cut. I can do what I don’t want to for someone I don’t want for a few years and choose a better job then or I can do what I want for whom I want right now for less money. It sucks, but so does life. I deal with it.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
In ideal world, I would agree with MB that players should be able to go play for any team they want. Obviously, I don’t think that will ever happen so the players union has set up some pretty good trade-offs for those players good and lucky enough to make MLB – $400,000+ minimum salary, unbelievably good pension and health plan benefits, good working conditions etc.
cwolfQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
Did someone make Yellon the default avatar? That’s like 5 Yellons now.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]
Shortly after Flood vs Kuhn, baseball would ultimately enter the Free Agency era making the “reserve clause” effectively invalid. [/quote]
The Curt Flood case got the most publicity but it was NOT what started the free agency era. Curt Flood lost his case. Is was the Messerschmidt and McNally cases that led to a limited form of free agency. IIRC one of them broke the reserve clause on technical grounds because he did not sign the automatically tendered contracts and played essentially without one, then elected for free agency. I think the other case was a guy who retired for a year then was urged to come back to challenge the reserve clause. MLBPA won those cases and that’s when the old contract structure started crumbling down. The union tried the no-contract trick with a few guys and the owners freaked the fuck out and were trying desparately to sign the guys.
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]It is not similar to someone who wants to work in a thriving industry that pays its employees an absurd amount of money.[/quote]
And if I had to give up the right to choose my employer for six years to make an absurd amount of money in a thriving industry, I’d do it in a fucking heartbeat. So would 99% of baseball players out there.
No I don’t fucking feel sorry for them. No, I don’t think it’s a fucking rights violation. I think it’s a fucking gift and they should be down on their fucking knees sucking the dick of the fucking god of their choice that they’re in the position they are while people with a fucking brain and talent have to work in a shit job just to survive.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]That’s also untrue. The majority aren’t fine with. The ones who make the decisions are fine with it, but you can’t tell me that a league minimum player is fine with it. He’s looking at what they get in the NBA and NHL, which aren’t close to as profitable as MLB and he’s not fine with it.
It’s OK not to have pity for Brett Jackson in part because he’s already a millionaire, but the lack of pity doesn’t mean we should grant him less rights than you and I have. We’ve seen how he can make millions in MLB. He could make thousands in Indy Ball. There is no comparison. It’s like you being unable to be a journalist and your other alternative is to collect nickels and dimes from strangers. Is that OK with you?[/quote]
I don’t have time to properly compose my thoughts, but my kneejerk to this is that to alter the system, you’d almost have to dissolve the union (not going to happen), have the owners agree to pay more for minor leaguers and first year players (eating into profits which leads to a number of trickle-down issues) and then if the market truly is free, I don’t see how the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn’t still be able to snag the best players and basically fuck the rest of the MLB teams. I get that people have a right to choose where they want to work, but money plays a big role in it too.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]The Curt Flood case got the most publicity but it was NOT what started the free agency era. Curt Flood lost his case. Is was the Messerschmidt and McNally cases that led to a limited form of free agency. IIRC one of them broke the reserve clause on technical grounds because he did not sign the automatically tendered contracts and played essentially without one, then elected for free agency. I think the other case was a guy who retired for a year then was urged to come back to challenge the reserve clause. MLBPA won those cases and that’s when the old contract structure started crumbling down. The union tried the no-contract trick with a few guys and the owners freaked the fuck out and were trying desparately to sign the guys.[/quote]
You are correct – I did not mean to implicate that the Flood case led to free agency, just that the free agency era occurred shortly after the Flood case.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS](dying laughing)
Did someone make Yellon the default avatar? That’s like 5 Yellons now.[/quote](dying laughing) I didn’t even realize I had an avatar much less having Yellon. That’s a violation of my rights. (dying laughing)
cwolfQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I don’t have time to properly compose my thoughts, but my kneejerk to this is that to alter the system, you’d almost have to dissolve the union (not going to happen), have the owners agree to pay more for minor leaguers and first year players (eating into profits which leads to a number of trickle-down issues) and then if the market truly is free, I don’t see how the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn’t still be able to snag the best players and basically fuck the rest of the MLB teams. I get that people have a right to choose where they want to work, but money plays a big role in it too.[/quote]
I’m too lazy to go back and read all the arguing about this, but while the Yankees and the Red Sox make the most money their revenues are a (relatively large) drop in the bucket compared to the entire revenue of MLB. And as Ryno pointed out, there are only so many slots on an MLB roster.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I have zero interest in campaigning to get this changed. They can fix it on their own and it eventually will be. I hardly find complaining about it meaning I’m trying to make the world adapt to me. In fact, a much stronger argument could be made that your philosophy and arguments are attempting to get people to adapt to you. Since MLB, NFL and NHL are the only industries that have a draft you have to convince the rest of the people that having one is OK. You have to convince a plumber it’s OK he be drafted out of Ohio and moved to Rhode Island for a minimum of 6 years. Everybody already agrees that’s crazy. Why are sports different?
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]I’m too lazy to go back and read all the arguing about this, but while the Yankees and the Red Sox make the most money their revenues are a (relatively large) drop in the bucket compared to the entire revenue of MLB. And as Ryno pointed out, there are only so many slots on an MLB roster.[/quote]
That’s true, but if the Yanks and Sawx have the 50 best players due to economic advantages, that would still lead to competitive imbalance that the lay-fan complains about (crazy randomness in the playoffs notwithstanding).
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21] Why are sports different?[/quote]
A vague and poorly defined expectation of competitive balance?
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]My situation is similar to the person you lament, though. My choices are limited to working for a company I don’t want to work for or taking a dramatic pay cut. I can do what I don’t want to for someone I don’t want for a few years and choose a better job then or I can do what I want for whom I want right now for less money. It sucks, but so does life. I deal with it.[/quote]But the reasons you are faced with this choice are entirely different. The journalism gig is dead or dying. There are already thousands of baseball players who choose to do something else because they can make more money doing something they’d rather not do. Your situation may be similar to them, but it’s not similar to a highly touted draft prospect. A friend of my father’s chose to go to medical school rather than sign with the Royals out of college. He was drafted in the later rounds, didn’t have much of a chance of ever being any good and he was quite intelligent. Going to medical school made a lot more sense to him even though his dream was to play baseball. He knew he had little chance of making a good life out of it and also knew he could make significantly more money doing something else. That happens all the time and that’s life. That’s what you’ve gone through.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]A vague and poorly defined expectation of competitive balance?[/quote]
Nice.
I don’t think you can govern sports by the same rules…there’s no way Microsoft or Apple would give some startup money to stay afloat and restock/rebuild while they continue to be the juggernauts in their field.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
You have to admit it’s a really bizarre industry.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]In fact, a much stronger argument could be made that your philosophy and arguments are attempting to get people to adapt to you.[/quote]
Arguing that keeping things the way there are is the opposite of adapting.
Look, I get that players are people too and you know where I stand on that. I just happen to look at the perks and inconveniences of being an athlete and see them differently.
These guys CHOOSE to become athletes. The athletes who HAVE BEEN drafted are fine with a draft. The player reps make decisions for the union like the Electoral College. It’s not like Hallady and ARod are deciding themselves. They’re representing the good of the players. If they thought a draft were half as bad as you seem to, they’d abolish it. They haven’t because it’s a minor inconvenience.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Is there a plumbing industry out there that has only 30 plumbing companies who are literally in direct competition with one another but not trying to put the other out of business at the same time?
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Nice.
I don’t think you can govern sports by the same rules…there’s no way Microsoft or Apple would give some startup money to stay afloat and restock/rebuild while they continue to be the juggernauts in their field.[/quote]
That’s exactly why there are Antitrust laws.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]You have to admit it’s a really bizarre industry.[/quote]
Are sports significantly different from, say, the film industry? This question is in earnest, but that would be an example that would seem (at least on the surface) to be analogous.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]That’s true, but if the Yanks and Sawx have the 50 best players due to economic advantages, that would still lead to competitive imbalance that the lay-fan complains about (crazy randomness in the playoffs notwithstanding).[/quote]There would still be the same imbalance that there is today, but the draft hasn’t solved the so-called problem. I don’t see a problem with it and it’s unlikely the imbalance would get any “worse” than it is. So fans would be complaining about the same stuff they’re complaining about now.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Your situation may be similar to them, but it’s not similar to a highly touted draft prospect.[/quote]
A highly-touted draft prospect has the option to make several million dollars to play baseball. The downside is that he doesn’t get to choose his employer for six years. Fuck anyone who pities that person.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]A vague and poorly defined expectation of competitive balance?[/quote]But there’s the same expectation in the free market. I think the real reason is more about how some fans (Cubs fans, Royals, whoever) think it’s unfair they haven’t won in so long.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]There would still be the same imbalance that there is today, but the draft hasn’t solved the so-called problem[/quote]
It has in the NFL, where there’s a slotting system…which was my initial point.
Next year, Andrew Luck will be the best player available in the NFL draft. He’ll be taken first overall and there’s no doubt he’ll sign. NFL prospects don’t slide because of bonus demands because they get paid based on their slot.
If MLB wants parity, set up a slotting system and allow trades. Then set a salary cap and a salary floor.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Or more likely, they haven’t because they realize they’d make significantly less money than they currently do. People like money. They save it and stuff. They want more and more. $30 million is better than $29 million. That’s why there’s still a draft. That’s the ONLY reason there’s still a draft.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]It has in the NFL, where there’s a slotting system…which was my initial point.
Next year, Andrew Luck will be the best player available in the NFL draft. He’ll be taken first overall and there’s no doubt he’ll sign. NFL prospects don’t slide because of bonus demands because they get paid based on their slot.
If MLB wants parity, set up a slotting system and allow trades. Then set a salary cap and a salary floor.[/quote]The NFL hasn’t solved the problem of imbalance. There’s slightly more balance in the NFL, but not much. The NFL isn’t the only sport. It hasn’t solved in the NBA, which is easily the most imbalanced professional sports league in history.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]A highly-touted draft prospect has the option to make several million dollars to play baseball. The downside is that he doesn’t get to choose his employer for six years. Fuck anyone who pities that person.[/quote]An injustice is OK if the person makes enough money? Should we take away the first amendment rights of the wealthiest people because, well, fuck them?
The amount of money someone earns has little to do with this discussion. A person who earns more money doesn’t sacrifice more rights. It would be a pretty fucked up country if that were true.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Journalism and MLB have little in common. MLB is thriving and journalism isn’t. It’s like saying someone who is qualified to be a teacher but can’t find a job hasn’t been granted the same rights as everyone else. That sucks, but it’s life. This is MLB intentionally limiting the freedom of the player.[/quote]It’s difficult for me to think of MLB as an industry so much as a single company with 30 principal owners. A player who didn’t want to play for the Cubs could go save face with the Nippon-Ham Fighters if he wanted. He’s not without freedom in the baseball industry. But within MLB he has to abide by the rules because it’s a system that so thoroughly
colludedagreed upon. I don’t particularly like the way young players are handled within that system or that mega-company, especially since many of them will find that their most valuable contributions are made in the years they are paid the least; when you run the real risk of career-ending injury in those lean years, it’s unfair. But that’s up to the young stupid players to negotiate, I guess. I don’t think the owners really care all that much who gets their money.AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Or more likely, they haven’t because they realize they’d make significantly less money than they currently do. People like money. They save it and stuff. They want more and more. $30 million is better than $29 million. That’s why there’s still a draft. That’s the ONLY reason there’s still a draft.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter why there’s a draft. The reason there’s a draft is because the players want it. I’m not going to feel sorry for the players when they choose to have a draft.
What shocks me is that you can think it’s acceptable for a cheerleader to be forced to cheer for her alleged rapist or kicked off the team, but that a draft is a rights violation.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Are sports significantly different from, say, the film industry? This question is in earnest, but that would be an example that would seem (at least on the surface) to be analogous.[/quote]Even if it is bizarre, I don’t see how it changes anything.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]The NFL hasn’t solved the problem of imbalance. There’s slightly more balance in the NFL, but not much. The NFL isn’t the only sport. It hasn’t solved in the NBA, which is easily the most imbalanced professional sports league in history.[/quote]
Look at the playoff turnover in the NFL. That’s about as balanced as it can get.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]It’s difficult for me to think of MLB as an industry so much as a single company with 30 principal owners. A player who didn’t want to play for the Cubs could go save face with the Nippon-Ham Fighters if he wanted. He’s not without freedom in the baseball industry. But within MLB he has to abide by the rules because it’s a system that so thoroughly
colludedagreed upon.[/quote]Agreed.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]An injustice is OK if the person makes enough money? Should we take away the first amendment rights of the wealthiest people because, well, fuck them?
The amount of money someone earns has little to do with this discussion. A person who earns more money doesn’t sacrifice more rights. It would be a pretty fucked up country if that were true.[/quote]
It’s not an injustice. It’s an inconvenience. And yes, the amount of money one earns does typically correlate to the amount of inconvenience they encounter.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]It’s difficult for me to think of MLB as an industry so much as a single company with 30 principal owners. A player who didn’t want to play for the Cubs could go save face with the Nippon-Ham Fighters if he wanted. He’s not without freedom in the baseball industry. But within MLB he has to abide by the rules because it’s a system that so thoroughly
colludedagreed upon. I don’t particularly like the way young players are handled within that system or that mega-company, especially since many of them will find that their most valuable contributions are made in the years they are paid the least; when you run the real risk of career-ending injury in those lean years, it’s unfair. But that’s up to the young stupid players to negotiate, I guess. I don’t think the owners really care all that much who gets their money.[/quote]Until they share revenues equally, they have to be considered 30 companies. I don’t see how we consider it one company when the Company A is making significantly more money than Company B.
It’s also important to point out that the Yankees don’t want the Blue Jays to succeed or the Orioles or the Rays. They have some interest in the Red Sox succeeding, but only a small amount. MLB is set up so that enough teams are guaranteed to succeed that each team is competing against one another much like every other industry. The Cubs want the entire viewership in Chicago even if it means the White Sox fail. They want viewers from Iowa even if it means the Twins, Cardinals and Royals suffer.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]Look at the playoff turnover in the NFL. That’s about as balanced as it can get.[/quote]Shorten baseball’s season to 80 games and increase the number of playoff teams to 12 and you’d see the same thing. it’s about sample size and the number of playoff teams. It provides the illusion that the NFL has that much more balance. They have some, but not much.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]It doesn’t matter why there’s a draft. The reason there’s a draft is because the players want it. I’m not going to feel sorry for the players when they choose to have a draft.
What shocks me is that you can think it’s acceptable for a cheerleader to be forced to cheer for her alleged rapist or kicked off the team, but that a draft is a rights violation.[/quote]Of course it matters why there is a draft when certain people are profiting from it. The current players want one because it means they make more money. Any person that goes through the process is also going to want more money. That’s how we know someone is human: they want more money. They’re not idiots. They know if teams are giving out larger contracts to young players it means there’s less for them. The people making the decisions are doing so out of greed. That they went through the process doesn’t mean it’s OK for them to then make wrong decisions for someone else.
As for the cheerleader, I don’t even see how that’s similar. First of all, we’re talking about a minor and the biggest reason I supported the school’s decision is because of what the opposite would have said about the not yet charged, indicted or proven guilty student. If he had been charged, indicted, and convicted or had already plead guilty, I wouldn’t really have cared.
That situation, as far as I was concerned, was about protecting both children and I thought the school handled it well.
mb21Quote Reply
Anyone who thinks that workers have ultimate control over where they work and that we don’t have places of employment that “draft” their workforce has never been exposed to the academic job market. I’m sure b, RC, and Urk can back me up on this.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Definitely, which means we have to ask, who does care? It’s the current players, which explains why a league half as profitable as MLB has a league minimum more than twice as much. No league treats their young players worse than MLB does.
mb21Quote Reply
It’s also interesting when you consider how much more nicely the owners are treating the younger players whereas the veterans continue to shit on them. Makes you think the harmony in MLB is nothing more than bullshit. The owners are clearly trying to weaken the union and have for some time. They finally figured out a good way to do so while also improving their own team.
As AC pointed out, the owners don’t care who gets their money, but if they can split the union, they’ve succeeded.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Until they share revenues equally, they have to be considered 30 companies. I don’t see how we consider it one company when the Company A is making significantly more money than Company B. [/quote]They don’t share equally, but they share a ton and depend considerably on each other for all their revenue, more than can be said of competing companies in any other setting. In a lot of ways they function as one. Not in all ways, but a lot. And there are just so many ways they don’t act like individual companies. It’s unique, and MLB takes full advantage of its uniqueness. The players aren’t exactly getting screwed, though.
I’ve worked at places where internal departments acted this same way. (dying laughing)
AndCountingQuote Reply
KG
Jae-Hoon Ha, OF, Cubs (Double-A Tennesee): 2-for-4, 2B, R. Double-A debut for 20-year-old Korean outfielder who hit .311/.344/.523 in 35 High-A games.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]It’s also interesting when you consider how much more nicely the owners are treating the younger players whereas the veterans continue to shit on them. Makes you think the harmony in MLB is nothing more than bullshit. The owners are clearly trying to weaken the union and have for some time. They finally figured out a good way to do so while also improving their own team.
As AC pointed out, the owners don’t care who gets their money, but if they can split the union, they’ve succeeded.[/quote]So Bud Selig is Lord Palpatine. Got it. Not difficult to imagine.
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Shorten baseball’s season to 80 games and increase the number of playoff teams to 12 and you’d see the same thing. it’s about sample size and the number of playoff teams. It provides the illusion that the NFL has that much more balance. They have some, but not much.[/quote]
Look at it relative to the 80s and early 90s, then.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]As for the cheerleader, I don’t even see how that’s similar.[/quote]
Both involve organizations imposing questionable policies. The cheerleading team said the cheerleader had to perform the cheers or GTFO. MLB says US amateurs enter the draft or GTFO. You sided with the school in one and the players (some of which are minors) in another.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
I wouldn’t say they’re getting screwed. They’re nicely paid for what they do though most of them are paid considerably less than equals in the other professional leagues.
One reason I think baseball is so different from the other sports is how important the minor league system is. The minor league system for the NFL is college and the colleges pay for that. The NFL has little to no expense. That’s mostly true with the NBA, as well. In baseball, it’s not. At one time the richest teams would have many more minor league teams than the poorer ones. That’s still true to some extent today and the cost isn’t shared in any way.
I’m one of those people who wants nothing to do with parity. If you want parity, assign the players to a team randomly each season. It’s that simple. Any other method is a failure since the way to accomplish true balance is so obvious.
One of the reasons I don’t like the NFL any longer is because of how much luck is involved in each regular season. It annoys the piss out of me that teams that go 4-8 one year can go 8-4 the next as frequently as they do. I like that in baseball you have to be good from the top of the organization (ownership) to the bottom (the lowest paid scouts in the organization). No other sports league shows off the significant difference between organizations like MLB does. You don’t notice each season because of the luck involved, but over time it’s obvious.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]Both involve organizations imposing questionable policies. The cheerleading team said the cheerleader had to perform the cheers or GTFO. MLB says US amateurs enter the draft or GTFO. You sided with the school in one and the players (some of which are minors) in another.[/quote]No, I sided with the employees in one and in the other I took the side that could do the least amount of damage based on information known at the time. If a baseball player is kicked off the team for refusing to swing the bat and I side with the player then you can tell me I took opposite sides.
mb21Quote Reply
What this argument boils down to is the level of injustice we perceive the draft to be.
You see it as something people are forced to do if they want to maximize their earning potential. It is.
I see it as a means to an end. It is.
You see it as a violation of someone’s rights. I see it as a choice.
The bottom line is that we’re talking about a small number of peole who choose to be affected by the draft. Of all the people who enter the draft, a very small number of them are upset by not being able to choose the team they play for initially.
MLB runs a league and they have rules and polcies for those who want to play in it. If you don’t want to have your employe select you, don’t spend your life becoming a baseball player.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Anyone who thinks that workers have ultimate control over where they work and that we don’t have places of employment that “draft” their workforce has never been exposed to the academic job market. I’m sure b, RC, and Urk can back me up on this.[/quote]
(dying laughing), true, but academia is such a scam anyway.
/goes back to work grading exams and writing useless papers
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Mercurial Outfielder]Anyone who thinks that workers have ultimate control over where they work and that we don’t have places of employment that “draft” their workforce has never been exposed to the academic job market. I’m sure b, RC, and Urk can back me up on this.[/quote]
The colleges I applied to sort of “recruited” me…i.e. UChicago vs. WashU in STL, etc. It wasn’t a true drafting system but they did compete for the best students. Naturally the best students want to go to Harvard or Stanfurd, but not everyone will get those spots…which is sort of similar to the argument that the Yankees and Red Sox only have 50 spots between them for the myriad of players that want them. The same is true for postdocs and faculty jobs.
In a way the academic path is similar to MLB. You toil in the minors (grad school) for a few years making poverty-level wages while acting as slave labor for your mentor. Then you’re promoted to AAA (first postdoc) where you make a bit more, then you apply for a fellowship (first cup of coffee) and churn out a few papers (pre-arb) and finally you get your first faculty position (arbitration). Finally you get tenure after something like 10-15 years of ridiculously hard work (free agency).
Kind of funny how that works. The NIH and academia are trying to make it easier for people to transition into faculty jobs so it doesn’t take half your lifespan, but considering how many people are going in to get PhDs (available talent pool) and how many spots there actually are…
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]No, I sided with the employees in one and in the other I took the side that could do the least amount of damage based on information known at the time. If a baseball player is kicked off the team for refusing to swing the bat and I side with the player then you can tell me I took opposite sides.[/quote]
It’s just interesting that you view an organization drafting players as a violation of the players’ rights while not thinking the same of an organization removing a girl for not cheering for her alleged rapist.
Not saying either is right or wrong, but it seems inconsistent.
If you want to be a cheerleader, you have to do the cheers we say no matter how uncomfortable they make you feel.
If you want to be a MLB baseball player, you have to waive your right to choose your employer for roughly six years.
That seems the same to me.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius](dying laughing), true, but academia is such a scam anyway.
/goes back to work grading exams and writing useless papers[/quote]
(dying laughing)
Screw research, I’m going into consulting.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I sure hope they send that memo to the NSF and DOE
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube](dying laughing)
Screw research, I’m going into consulting.[/quote]
There are many days when I wish I said “Fuck it” 4-6 years ago and become a boring ass programmer instead.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
I think you’re right in that few of the people drafted really care so it’s not as big a deal as it seems for people who have read this thread. You and I have been talking about baseball online for a long time now and this is something that has only come up on occasion and never discussed at length like this. I think it’s obvious that it’s not something I care deeply about and it’s not something I’m going to seek to change. I don’t even care to do that with the type of bats they use and those could kill people.
I will say that I don’t think someone has the right to say it’s OK for one to be selected and forced to work in a company for set number of years for a set minimum unless they’ve also done so. It’s easy for us to sit here and say a rich bastard that plays in MLB should just shut up and go play baseball, but I’m certain if it was me, I’d feel much differently. Yes, I’d still enter the draft and go play for whatever team drafted me because it’s more important than fixing what’s wrong, but doing so does not mean I agree with the policy. it also does not mean that I don’t have a problem with it if I’m 30 years old and agree to keep it. It simply means that I’m trying to maximize my earnings and that’s why the draft is still there.
There’s not one other reason why MLB still has one. The people in charge are the ones who have years of MLB service time. The people who stand the lose the most with no draft are those with years of service time. That the system is in place does not mean it’s the system that would be put in place if the sport started today. I can almost guarantee it wouldn’t be. If there were no veterans that stood to lose so much money, there’s no way this system would be agreed to.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]The colleges I applied to sort of “recruited” me…i.e. UChicago vs. WashU in STL, etc. It wasn’t a true drafting system but they did compete for the best students. Naturally the best students want to go to Harvard or Stanfurd, but not everyone will get those spots…which is sort of similar to the argument that the Yankees and Red Sox only have 50 spots between them for the myriad of players that want them. The same is true for postdocs and faculty jobs.
In a way the academic path is similar to MLB. You toil in the minors (grad school) for a few years making poverty-level wages while acting as slave labor for your mentor. Then you’re promoted to AAA (first postdoc) where you make a bit more, then you apply for a fellowship (first cup of coffee) and churn out a few papers (pre-arb) and finally you get your first faculty position (arbitration). Finally you get tenure after something like 10-15 years of ridiculously hard work (free agency).
Kind of funny how that works. The NIH and academia are trying to make it easier for people to transition into faculty jobs so it doesn’t take half your lifespan, but considering how many people are going in to get PhDs (available talent pool) and how many spots there actually are…[/quote]Pretty much. (dying laughing)
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
The part that’s bolded is important. By no means do I think the male student should have been allowed to participate on the same court as the female student if he had already plead guilty. I might still think the school had a right to tell an unpaid student who chose to join a squad that she had to choose, but I’d never have put her in that situation to begin with. I also doubt the school would have.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I will say that I don’t think someone has the right to say it’s OK for one to be selected and forced to work in a company for set number of years for a set minimum unless they’ve also done so. It’s easy for us to sit here and say a rich bastard that plays in MLB should just shut up and go play baseball, but I’m certain if it was me, I’d feel much differently. Yes, I’d still enter the draft and go play for whatever team drafted me because it’s more important than fixing what’s wrong, but doing so does not mean I agree with the policy. [/quote]
If I were a baseball player, I’d prefer to choose my team. Everyone would. But I’m not going to say a draft is “not right.” There are many organizations that make many people follow many arbitrary rules.
I think NYY telling players they can’t have beard’ is as much of a rights violation as the draft. That’s telling a person how they have to look. I completely disagree with that, but it’s a small price to pay for what they get in return.
I’m not sure how the draft is more lucrative for MLB other than holding the event itself, but why the draft exists doesn’t change whether it’s a rights violation or not. It is or isn’t. I see it as not because it’s a well-established rule of MLB and you can very easily be something other than a baseball player if you don’t want to follow their rules. Going back to the NYY thing. You can be a Yankee if you want, but you have to look a certain way.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]The part that’s bolded is important. By no means do I think the male student should have been allowed to participate on the same court as the female student if he had already plead guilty. I might still think the school had a right to tell an unpaid student who chose to join a squad that she had to choose, but I’d never have put her in that situation to begin with. I also doubt the school would have.[/quote]
I agree with all that. The guy shouldn’t have been out there. The crux of that issue, though, is that the cheer team had rules. The reason we agreed that the school won the law suit is that the cheer team is an organization with set rules. Follow them or you’re off the team. It’s cold, but it’s within their right because no one is forcing the cheerleader to be on the team.
Certain players have to enter the draft. They have to be selected by their employer rather than vice versa. It sucks, but it’s clearly within MLB’s right because no one is forcing these kids to work their entire lives becoming baseball players.
They know how it works going into this and they still choose the system. It might suck, but that’s the way it is until it isn’t. If/when it isn’t, so be it.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
A huge part of why I agreed with that is that he had not yet even been charged. Had he already plead guilty, I’d have focused more on why the school allowed that situation to occur. I’d have lost any sympathy I had for the school. The articles were dishonest in how they told us what happened. Based on their story, we should be outraged, but based on the facts I failed to see how the school did anything wrong. Had the story itself been more accurate, at the very least I would not have spent a couple ours arguing in favor of the school.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=GBTS](dying laughing)
Did someone make Yellon the default avatar? That’s like 5 Yellons now.[/quote]Yes, that was done last night.
mb21Quote Reply
It was either Yellon or the Cubbie facepalm and I elected to go with Yellon because it made me laugh. It’s even funnier when you click on the profile link: http://obstructedview.net/view-user-profile.html?user=142
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]It was either Yellon or the Cubbie facepalm and I elected to go with Yellon because it made me laugh. It’s even funnier when you click on the profile link: http://obstructedview.net/view-user-profile.html?user=142%5B/quote%5D
I’m surprised his minions haven’t informed him so he can threaten legal action yet again (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
Mac from Philly likes spreadsheets.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Mac from Philly likes spreadsheets.[/quote]
I wonder if he owns a bar with Dennis and Charlie.
WaLiQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]based on the facts I failed to see how the school did anything wrong.[/quote]
They didn’t. A grand jury refused to indict the player. The school can’t bar him from activities. The cheerleader refused to cheer for him, which was against the cheer team’s rules, so she was kicked off the team (and later allowed back on the team if she agreed to follow the rules). THEN a grand jury indicted the player and he pled down.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]They didn’t. A grand jury refused to indict the player. The school can’t bar him from activities. The cheerleader refused to cheer for him, which was against the cheer team’s rules, so she was kicked off the team (and later allowed back on the team if she agreed to follow the rules). THEN a grand jury indicted the player and he pled down.[/quote]After he had graduated from high school. I feel that’s an important part that was glossed over. While in high school, he had no charges against him. None.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]After he had graduated from high school. I feel that’s an important part that was glossed over. While in high school, he had no charges against him. None.[/quote]Ah, I had the timeline wrong. That does complicate it further.
AndCountingQuote Reply
I see your stimulating and thought-provoking conversation, and raise you:
ZappBranniganQuote Reply
^^^^(dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)
AndCountingQuote Reply
I don’t have the heart to tell Al that TOOTBLAN actually means “Tonguing on old taints, ball-licking, and necrophilia”
Aisle424Quote Reply
Which, coincidentally, also involves Theriot.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Of course, Al won’t take credit himself, but he refuses to give credit to the proper source. Our pal, WV23.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]I don’t have the heart to tell Al that TOOTBLAN actually means “Tonguing on old taints, ball-licking, and necrophilia”[/quote]
Shit I’ve been doing in wrong.
LukasQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]Of course, Al won’t take credit himself, but he refuses to give credit to the proper source. Our pal, WV23.[/quote]
That was pretty weak of him. Though, does the Urban Dictionary entry credit wv23?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]I don’t have the heart to tell Al that TOOTBLAN actually means “Tonguing on old taints, ball-licking, and necrophilia”[/quote]
I’m pretty sure he thought that’s what it was…except Nincompoop instead of necrophilia.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]That was pretty weak of him. Though, does the Urban Dictionary entry credit wv23?[/quote]
Guess not…though it specifically talks about Theriot.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
I wonder if wv23 still has an online store open.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Guess not…though it specifically talks about Theriot.[/quote]
No, Urban Dictionary doesn’t but Al has been around the Cubs blogosphere enough to know. It’s not like Wrigleyville23 was an obscure site back in its day. Plus LOHO gives proper credit all the time and I’m fairly certain ccd did on waxpaperbeercup. He almost had to know its origin beyond Urban Dictionary. Al’s warped sense of morality won’t let him take full credit, but his ego won’t let him give credit where credit is due.
Aisle424Quote Reply
It makes me want to stop using the term because Al has adopted it as a BCB term.
Aisle424Quote Reply
I like the part where the comment blurb changed again.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Maybe we should just call TOOTBLAN fun-suckers for now.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Maybe we should just call TOOTBLAN dick-highs for now.[/quote]
.
Aisle424Quote Reply
“dick-high” doesn’t seem to fit what a TOOTBLAN entails…could you explain the logic?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/05/16/the-gentleman-called-killer/
The story at the end about the Brunet guy IBBing Killebrew was quite amusing.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Using Your Dick-High Brain On Base
UYDHBOB
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
I would like to meet a girl tonight…preferably a dick-high fun-sucker.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]”dick-high” doesn’t seem to fit what a TOOTBLAN entails…could you explain the logic?[/quote]
I like how you think I employed logic in my dick-high joke.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]Ah, I had the timeline wrong. That does complicate it further.[/quote]That’s because the articles wanted us to think it had happened before the cheering incident did, but it happened long after. The timeline was this: alleged rape, no charges, grand jury does not indict, cheer incident, grand jury does not indict, graduation, grand jury indicts, pleads to a lesser charge.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]Of course, Al won’t take credit himself, but he refuses to give credit to the proper source. Our pal, WV23.[/quote]I’m surprised he didn’t take credit for it.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]I like how you think I employed logic in my dick-high joke.[/quote]
My mistake.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]I would like to meet a girl tonight…preferably a dick-high fun-sucker.[/quote]
So its name is “fun” eh.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]That’s because the articles wanted us to think it had happened before the cheering incident did, but it happened long after. The timeline was this: alleged rape, no charges, grand jury does not indict, cheer incident, grand jury does not indict, graduation, grand jury indicts, pleads to a lesser charge.[/quote]
This is the 2nd time this has come up and I still have absolutely no idea what the hell you guys are talking about. I’ll just sit here quietly and make dick-high jokes periodically.
Aisle424Quote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]So its name is “fun” eh.[/quote]
There’s a lot of fun where that came from.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]This is the 2nd time this has come up and I still have absolutely no idea what the hell you guys are talking about. I’ll just sit here quietly and make dick-high jokes periodically.[/quote]
Fun-sucker.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]Fun-sucker.[/quote]424 got thrown out on the bases/licked an old guy’s balls?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]424 got thrown out on the bases/licked an old guy’s balls?[/quote]
All of the above.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]This is the 2nd time this has come up and I still have absolutely no idea what the hell you guys are talking about. I’ll just sit here quietly and make dick-high jokes periodically.[/quote]We’re going to keep bringing it up until you stop making dick-high jokes. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]424 got thrown out on the bases/licked an old guy’s balls?[/quote]I believe that to be true.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I believe that to be true.[/quote]It was something he recently enjoyed.
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]There’s a lot of fun where that came from.[/quote](dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
GBTSQuote Reply
I don’t know why that cracked me up so much, but it did.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=Mish]There’s a lot of fun where that came from.[/quote]
Good choice of word here.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Mateo ———————————-> Iowa
Maine & Campana ———————————> coffee time
Suburban kidQuote Reply
I could get used to that.
GBTSQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]
I could get used to that.[/quote]
He might want to bring a bat next time
WenningtonsGorillaCockQuote Reply
[quote name=WenningtonsGorillaCock]He might want to bring a bat next time[/quote]It’s only dick-high, so you can’t see it.
GBTSQuote Reply
Rain in the forecast in Cincinnati today, but I’m going to be extremely surprised if the Reds wuss out.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=GBTS]It’s only dick-high, so you can’t see it.[/quote]amazing that all of these players are exactly the same height
WenningtonsGorillaCockQuote Reply
Omer Asik has game: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/offhanded-dribble/2011/05/omer-asik-is-dating-this-girl-no-seriously.html
MishQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Rain in the forecast in Cincinnati today, but I’m going to be extremely surprised if the Reds wuss out.[/quote]Once again, wuss out is much funnier as a noun.
“I’m going to be extremely surprised if there is a wuss out.”
Suburban kidQuote Reply
[quote name=Suburban kid]Once again, wuss out is much funnier as a noun.
“I’m going to be extremely surprised if there is a wuss out.”[/quote]
As you wish. It should be a compound word as well, as with rainout. Now we have wussout. Or is it hyphenated? I know not.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
The Reds are opposing Garza with Volquez so there’s a slight chance of wussout.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Suburban kidQuote Reply
^^^(dying laughing) (dying laughing)
LukasQuote Reply
I guess Brett Jackson isn’t going anywhere. With Tony Campana getting the call, I guess he is just holding the roster spot for Colvin until he gets his shit together.
Maybe Campana is auditioning for 5th outfielder for when Reed gets dumped in a month or two. Wonder why Perez wasn’t brought up.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Illogical wussout?
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/17/an-unnecessary-rainout-in-washington-today/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
It was Charlie Morton against Jordan Zimmerman. Washington said they would skip Zimmerman’s start to limit his innings since he’s coming back from surgery, but he’s not hurt. Still a weird wussout.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
http://www.wrigleyville23.com/2010-articles/june/clarifying-the-tootblan.html
ZappBranniganQuote Reply
Thomas Diamond ———–> bullpen test
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Thomas Diamond ———–> bullpen test[/quote]
I thought he was released
GWQuote Reply
Cashner—–> Square One
http://obstructedview.net/unobstructed-views/cubs/cashner-back-to-square-one.html
AndCountingQuote Reply
[quote name=AndCounting]Cashner—–> Square One
http://obstructedview.net/unobstructed-views/cubs/cashner-back-to-square-one.html%5B/quote%5D
Ah geez.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
open game thread up
mb21Quote Reply