Red Mosquito

matt reeder wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:Can someone explain to me how an ivy league educated manager that's been in baseball for his entire life can still manage to screw up using his bullpen so badly night, after night, after stinking night?

There are a lot of managers who can't manage a bullpen. A lot of managers just go for their gut or use a small sample size as a reason why somebody should get the call. And sometimes their bullpens just suck, and it limits their options.

There are a lot of bad bullpens in baseball right now, and a handful of very good ones. I'm glad my team has, at least for the moment, one of the good ones.

I always thought that Joe Torre was horrible at managing the bullpen, but no one noticed because Rivera.

PHATJ wrote:Talk about surprises, the Twins have won 8 of 9 and are 16-7 since starting the season 1-6.

They have some young studs coming too. They are getting pretty good starting pitching. Molitor is doing a good job thus far.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-l ... 40290.html
Pirates pulled off the first 4-5-4 triple play in history. It wasn't exactly pretty, but cool nonetheless.

The Argonaut wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-l ... 40290.html
Pirates pulled off the first 4-5-4 triple play in history. It wasn't exactly pretty, but cool nonetheless.

been out on pro baseball since '11 when my rangers broke my heart...

but that's pretty cool!

Iholdthepain wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-l ... 40290.html
Pirates pulled off the first 4-5-4 triple play in history. It wasn't exactly pretty, but cool nonetheless.

been out on pro baseball since '11 when my rangers broke my heart...

but that's pretty cool!

Nelson Cruz is a pussy.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Iholdthepain wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-l ... 40290.html
Pirates pulled off the first 4-5-4 triple play in history. It wasn't exactly pretty, but cool nonetheless.

been out on pro baseball since '11 when my rangers broke my heart...

but that's pretty cool!

Nelson Cruz is a pussy.

Chramin soft and doesn't always play hard.

brewers win in 11, owning the cubs this year

The fightin Craig Counsells.

spike wrote:brewers win in 11, owning the cubs this year

if the Brewers could play on mothers day everyday... and have played the reds everyday, Bill Hall would be in the hall of fame.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/05/b ... usion.html

This should be fun!

philpritchard wrote:http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/05/b ... usion.html

This should be fun!

I don't know how he could prove it, but I'm sure he's right.

4/5 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/05/b ... usion.html

This should be fun!

I don't know how he could prove it, but I'm sure he's right.

That's pretty much how I feel, too. Unless the teams were dumb enough to have record of their discussions about not signing him, this probably won't go anywhere. It's pretty easy and reasonable for teams to say "We didn't want his negative influence on our clubhouse" to explain why they didn't sign him.

philpritchard wrote:

4/5 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/05/b ... usion.html

This should be fun!

I don't know how he could prove it, but I'm sure he's right.

That's pretty much how I feel, too. Unless the teams were dumb enough to have record of their discussions about not signing him, this probably won't go anywhere. It's pretty easy and reasonable for teams to say "We didn't want his negative influence on our clubhouse" to explain why they didn't sign him.

Yep. "He would have been 43 and was an injury risk. Media circus."

Orioles fans classin' up the joint at Camden Yards:

4/5 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/05/b ... usion.html

This should be fun!

I don't know how he could prove it, but I'm sure he's right.

How much burden of proof is required? Isn't this something decided by an arbitrator? A bunch of people successfully sued MLB for the same thing in the late 80s, and I think several of them won. I can't imagine there was more of a paper trail/hard proof of that than there would be of this.

Lament wrote:

4/5 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/05/b ... usion.html

This should be fun!

I don't know how he could prove it, but I'm sure he's right.

How much burden of proof is required? Isn't this something decided by an arbitrator? A bunch of people successfully sued MLB for the same thing in the late 80s, and I think several of them won. I can't imagine there was more of a paper trail/hard proof of that than there would be of this.

Maybe, but Bonds was singled out here and he had much more extreme circumstanced than those affected by the 80s collusion. Though I personally believe there was collusion here, it's very plausible that all 30 teams independently came to the conclusion that barry bonds wasn't worth the hassle.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Lament wrote:

4/5 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/05/b ... usion.html

This should be fun!

I don't know how he could prove it, but I'm sure he's right.

How much burden of proof is required? Isn't this something decided by an arbitrator? A bunch of people successfully sued MLB for the same thing in the late 80s, and I think several of them won. I can't imagine there was more of a paper trail/hard proof of that than there would be of this.

Maybe, but Bonds was singled out here and he had much more extreme circumstanced than those affected by the 80s collusion. Though I personally believe there was collusion here, it's very plausible that all 30 teams independently came to the conclusion that barry bonds wasn't worth the hassle.

I'm 50-50 on this whether there's collusion or not. It's interesting, though.

Coach wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Lament wrote:

4/5 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/05/b ... usion.html

This should be fun!

I don't know how he could prove it, but I'm sure he's right.

How much burden of proof is required? Isn't this something decided by an arbitrator? A bunch of people successfully sued MLB for the same thing in the late 80s, and I think several of them won. I can't imagine there was more of a paper trail/hard proof of that than there would be of this.

Maybe, but Bonds was singled out here and he had much more extreme circumstanced than those affected by the 80s collusion. Though I personally believe there was collusion here, it's very plausible that all 30 teams independently came to the conclusion that barry bonds wasn't worth the hassle.

I'm 50-50 on this whether there's collusion or not. It's interesting, though.

He still would have been productive and had a high ops.

True stroy, almost all of Bob Ueckers lines in Major League were improvised, and, actual lines hed use in game play by plays.
and last night, he had one that he should definitely use again if they ever make another Major League movie...

"Swing and a fly ball to left, Davis going back on it and hes going to watch it go out of here, or, hes going to catch it? did he catch it? I dont know whats going on I lost it, he caught it? okay then i guess its an out" classic Bob

My favorite Uecker line in Major League is "In case you haven't noticed, and judging by the attendance you haven't, the Indians are on quite a roll!"