Please sign in to complete your action
 
DONE!
Cheer and debate with
6,000,000+ fans!
My Team:
Charlotte
My Team:
Michael
My Team:
Britney


Fan Articles
Home
Newest
NFL
MLB
NBA
NHL
NCAAF
NCAABB
NASCAR
Soccer
Golf
More Sports
 
 
8/1/09
Trade Deadline Winners And Losers
Who Were The Biggest Winners And Losers At This Year's Trade Deadline?
READ MORE:
MLB, San Francisco Giants, Arizona Diamondbacks, Atlanta Braves, Baltimore Orioles, Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Cincinnati Reds, Cleveland Indians, Colorado Rockies, Detroit Tigers, Florida Marlins, Houston Astros, Los Angeles Angels, Los Angeles Dodgers, Milwaukee Brewers, Minnesota Twins, New York Mets, New York Yankees, Oakland Athletics, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, San Diego Padres, Seattle Mariners, St. Louis Cardinals, Tampa Bay Rays, Texas Rangers, Toronto Blue Jays, Washington Nationals
by Pat more posts by author
108
Some people were a little disappointed about the moves at the MLB trade deadline, mostly because everyone expected to see Roy Halladay go somewhere in a blockbuster deal, and it just never happened. However, there were still quite a few deals made, several of which made a big difference for some contending teams.

The biggest trade news over the past few days:
There were a couple more minor deals, like the Red Sox getting Adam LaRoche, and then shipping him to the Braves for Casey Kotchman.

So who were the winners and losers at the deadline? Here's my take:

Winners:

The Phillies were already the hottest team in baseball, and one of the few teams in the NL thought to have a chance to challenge the Dodgers. With the acquisition of Cliff Lee, they now have one of the best rotations in baseball from top to bottom, and have 2 legitimate aces in Lee and Cole Hamels. They also have an extremely potent offense, and very few weaknesses at all. With Lee, they may have made themselves the favorites to win the National League. While they did give Cleveland some very talented young players, they managed to keep JA Happ and Kyle Drabek, whom they desperately wanted to hold on to.

They gave up a lot for him, but in just over a week with the Cardinals, Matt Holliday is looking a lot like the Matt Holliday we saw back in Coors Field. Through his first 8 games in a Cardinals uniform, he's batting .586, with a HR and 8 RBI's. Holliday is already benefitting greatly from being in the same lineup as Albert Pujols, the best hitter in baseball, and I'm sure that Holliday's presence will do nothing but good things for Pujols as well. Picking up Julio Lugo wasn't awful either, and Mark DeRosa was one of the better acquisitions earlier this year. At a time when the Cubs are surging, the Cardinals definitely made all the right moves.

The Red Sox made the biggest splash on the actual day of the trade deadline, picking up Victor Martinez from the Indians. He provides them with another strong bat that they have desperately needed for several weeks now. He also provides them with an opportunity to rest several guys that are getting a little older, and/or might be feeling the effects of no longer being on steroids. Martinez can give David Ortiz some rest at DH, he can spell Jason Varitek behind the plate, or he can play first base, allowing Kevin Youkilis to take over at 3B for Mike Lowell, whose hip seems like it's ready to fall apart at any given moment.

Honorable Mentions: Detroit Tigers, Chicago White Sox, Minnesota Twins


Losers:

Roy Halladay was as good as gone. The fans were ready to see him traded, and several teams around the league were offering the Blue Jays huge bundles of prospects for him. Unfortunately, it was never enough for Toronto GM JP Ricciardi, and the deal never got done. So not only will the Jays continue to be a bad team with a few unbearably bad contracts, they also lost a great opportunity to restock their farm system, thanks to Ricciardi's greed.

They didn't really do anything, at the deadline, with their biggest acquisition being Jerry Hairston, Jr. And while that might be enough for most teams, especially when they are 2 games away from having the best record in baseball. But there are higher expectations for the Yankees, since they always seem to do something major to tweak their team for the stretch run. They were rumored to be chasing Halladay, or perhaps even Jarrod Washburn, but it never actually happened. Considering the Red Sox have been playing as poorly as they possibly could, and are still only a game and a half back, the Yankees might have wanted to do a little more to counter the Victor Martinez trade.

They're pretty much out of the playoff race, but for some reason, they felt the need to get Scott Rolen. They should be working on getting younger and cheaper, but Rolen is the exact opposite. He still has something to offer on the field, but this deal really just doesn't make a lot of sense, and it's hard to believe that it will really do anything to help them.


What are your thoughts on your team's activity (or lack thereof) at the deadline?
108
COMMENT
SHARE
EMAIL
ADD FEED
108 comments
Vote!
Comment!
Your votes determine top comment

8/1/09
13
The reason I criticize the Rolen deal is this:
The Reds are not going to win this year. They know it, their fans know it. They need to build for the future, and Rolen is the exact opposite of what they need. It doesn't improve their team at all, in the long run.

8/1/09
0
I think the team(s) that put themselves in the best position to get to ... and possibly win ... the World  Series were the Phillies and the Cardinals. For the Phillies to add the reigning AL Cy Young winner to an already very good staff with the best offense in the league was a solid move. And the Cards added some serious pop to an offense that already has the most feared hitter in baseball. DeRosa and Holliday are already returning huge dividends for St Louis.
Im not sure the Martinez trade to Boston will prove to be so fruitful. You have to sit someone down to play him whether it be Veritek, Ortiz or Lowell. Martinez is a great player but just not sure it will add alot to the outcome. We'll see I guess.
And Im not sure why everyone (ya you Pat) keeps slamming on the Reds for acquiring Scott Rolen. If you have a chance to improve your team... dont you do it? Isnt that what your fans (and players) expect from a GM and an organization? Only one team can win it all, but you play 81 games in front of your fans and they expect the best product you can offer them.

8/1/09
13
The reason I criticize the Rolen deal is this:
The Reds are not going to win this year. They know it, their fans know it. They need to build for the future, and Rolen is the exact opposite of what they need. It doesn't improve their team at all, in the long run.

8/1/09
1
As a Tribe fan I criticize GM Shapiro for not getting Clay Bucholz, then again I may be wrong too LOL!

8/1/09
1
The Holliday trade is looking really good for the Cardinals.  They were quickly losing momentum when the signing happened and now it's hard to find an out in their lineup. 

8/1/09
6

In fairness to the Yankees, they did do most of there wheeling and dealing in the offseason and spent a quarter of a billion dollars in the process.  As for the winners, definitely the Phillies and the Cardinals and I really like the Tigers pickup of Washburn.  I also have to give some props to Kenny Williams for having the cajones to go out and trade for an injured player.  It's a helluva a risk to take with what the Sox gave but the payoff for the White Sox will be huge for the rest of this year and the next if they can keep Peavy's arm from falling off. 

J.P. Ricciardi is the ultimate loser for not dealing Halladay at his highest value.  The Angels, Phillies and Dodgers all made offers that should've been good enough but Ricciardi held to his original demands of apparently any teams double A team.  My other loser is the Angels.  They obviously have the prospect to go out and get a quality arm and I'm surprised they didnt try to make a play for both Lee or Washburn once the Halladay thing went thru.  The Angels rotation has been suspect this season and while it may be good enough to hold off the Rangers and Mariners in the AL West, I dont see it holding up against the other Red Sox, Yankees or the Tigers.

8/1/09
1
How the hell are the Sox only an honorable mention? They got one of the best pitchers in the game.

8/1/09
6
joshwillis52 wrote:
How the hell are the Sox only an honorable mention? They got one of the best pitchers in the game.
Yeah... with a jacked up shoulder. Let's see him pitch this year, and let's see how he does against AL batters before we start praising them too much for this. I love Peavy, but they traded for someone who's on the DL. We'll see how that pans out.

8/1/09
0
joshwillis52 wrote:
How the hell are the Sox only an honorable mention? They got one of the best pitchers in the game.
they traded a crap load of prospects to get that deal done. Of course Peavy is good, hopefully he can keep his swagger against the better hitting American League.

8/1/09
0
Pat wrote:
Yeah... with a jacked up shoulder. Let's see him pitch this year, and let's see how he does against AL batters before we start praising them too much for this. I love Peavy, but they traded for someone who's on the DL. We'll see how that pans out.
curses! hahahahaha, you got me by a half a second! That's right, he's hurt too. I know the Sox want to improve, but they gave away a crap load of players for an injured "NL" star pitcher. That's pretty risky. Hats off to Chicago if it works out.

8/1/09
3
Scott Rolen's OPS's the past three years : .729, .780, and currently .846
Edwin Encarnacion's the past three years: .794, .807, and currently .707

If these guys were the same age, I would understand trading Encarnacion for Rolen, but Encarnacion hasn't entered his prime yet (only 26) and is much cheaper.  A trade of those two guys for each other is stupid, but the Reds even threw prospects in there too.  Just stupid.

8/1/09
1
 "Picking up Lugo wasn't awful either"

Well I'd say! He's been great for the Cardinals batting leadoff, and second, and also playing 2B aside from shortstop. The Cardinals really cashed in before the deadline. DeRosa has 7 HRs since coming to the Cardinals and Holliday is a hitting machine. When Albert gets hot again, look out NL!!! I think the Yankees really messed up by not getting Washburn, that division will go down to the wire, and the Tigers getting him makes them the favorite for the AL Central. I'm surprised neither the Angels, Rangers, nor Dodgers ended up with Halladay, well maybe not surprised, but without him, I don't think any of them have a real shot at the World Series. 

8/1/09
3
Great job Pat. The Phillies, i think, are going back to the World Series after getting Cliff Lee.
The defending N.L. Champs are, as you mentioned, playing lights out of late, and they now have Cliff Lee, who gave the Tigers fits while in Cleveland.

I love the Jarrod Washburn move for Detroit. The lefthanded pitching was not getting the jod done...Nate Robertson was terrible, and is now on the DL, as is Donterrle Willis, who has been a huge flop for the Tigers.

Boston will be hard to beat for the A.L. flag with the addition of Victor Martinez, one of the best hitting catchers in baseball..."to the Victors go the spoils.!"

Ah, baseball..."i love it very much.!"

8/1/09
1
kantwistaye wrote:
Scott Rolen's OPS's the past three years : .729, .780, and currently .846
Edwin Encarnacion's the past three years: .794, .807, and currently .707

If these guys were the same age, I would understand trading Encarnacion for Rolen, but Encarnacion hasn't entered his prime yet (only 26) and is much cheaper.  A trade of those two guys for each other is stupid, but the Reds even threw prospects in there too.  Just stupid.
U are forgetting that Rolen is a Gold Glover. Encarnacion thinks first base is somewhere between the 3rd and 7th row of seats behind the first base dugout ..... when he does actually field the grounder cleanly!!!!!

8/1/09
2
(Edited by kantwistaye)
Rolen's career Range Factor is 2.91 and Encarnacion's is 2.51.  Encarnacion can still improve while Rolen is getting worse (his RF this year is 2.66).

8/1/09
0
Pat wrote:
The reason I criticize the Rolen deal is this:
The Reds are not going to win this year. They know it, their fans know it. They need to build for the future, and Rolen is the exact opposite of what they need. It doesn't improve their team at all, in the long run.
Sorry Pat but Im sticking to my guns here. You show me a team that is "building for the future" and I'll show you a team that is never in contention. To say it doesnt improve their team at all, in the long run .... is just ludicrous! How bout next year. They are certainly an improved team already for 2010. The future comes primarily thru the draft and developement .... not always thru trades. And in the age of 2 and 3 yr contracts with trade and opt out clauses.... what does "the future" mean anyway. I guarantee you the lineups for the Sox and Yanks looks much different in 2011 then it does now.

btw... Nobody has said much of the Hairston Jr trade to the Yanks. This kid can play. Last season, he was injury prone but when he was in the Reds line-up he made things happen and they usually won. I think he's gonna surprise alot of people with his contributions in the Big Apple (as much as it pains me to say that).

8/1/09
0
kantwistaye wrote:
Rolen's career Range Factor is 2.91 and Encarnacion's is 2.51.  Encarnacion can still improve while Rolen is getting worse (his RF this year is 2.66).
Rolen has been playing on artificial turf. Sure the range goes down. Cincy is grass and dirt and he's more apt to improve those numbers. I expect Edwin's fielding numbers to tank in Toronto. The ball will eat him up.

8/1/09
0
zzj000 wrote:
Rolen has been playing on artificial turf. Sure the range goes down. Cincy is grass and dirt and he's more apt to improve those numbers. I expect Edwin's fielding numbers to tank in Toronto. The ball will eat him up.
You're paying a ridiculous amount of money to get an older, limited player when you had a cheaper player with the potential to be considerably better for the next 6-7 years. That's just stupid. There is no rationale for it. A slight upgrade on defense and offense for one year. If the Reds had a remote shot of doing anything this might work, but they don't.

8/1/09
3
zzj000 wrote:
Sorry Pat but Im sticking to my guns here. You show me a team that is "building for the future" and I'll show you a team that is never in contention. To say it doesnt improve their team at all, in the long run .... is just ludicrous! How bout next year. They are certainly an improved team already for 2010. The future comes primarily thru the draft and developement .... not always thru trades. And in the age of 2 and 3 yr contracts with trade and opt out clauses.... what does "the future" mean anyway. I guarantee you the lineups for the Sox and Yanks looks much different in 2011 then it does now.

btw... Nobody has said much of the Hairston Jr trade to the Yanks. This kid can play. Last season, he was injury prone but when he was in the Reds line-up he made things happen and they usually won. I think he's gonna surprise alot of people with his contributions in the Big Apple (as much as it pains me to say that).
Nothing you just said justifies the Reds getting an older, more expensive and overall lesser quality player for a younger, better, cheaper one. As Mike (kantwistaye) said, there's really no rationale for it.

As Ricky Bobby said, if you're not first, you're last. And the Reds are not first, nor will Scott Rolen get them there.

8/1/09
1
The Reds arent on the hook for all of Rolen's salary. And you OBVIOUSLY have not seen to many Reds games or had a chance to watch Encarnacion night after night. If you think hes so good and has so much "potential", pick him as your 3rd baseman on your fantasy teams. Then when you start cryin and cursin the day you did.... dont come whinin to me! I dont get the Cincinnati papers here nor do I listen to WLW during the day but I guarantee you  that noone in Cincinnati is upset about this trade. When the Reds have traded away players like Griffey, Dunn, Hamilton, Freel.... just to name 4 ....  over the past season and a half..... its nice to see them GO GET SOMEONE for a change!

8/1/09
0
(Edited by kantwistaye)
Selling off is what smaller market teams do when they rebuild and its smart.  If the team does their job and really scouts out the prospects in a few years you'll have a new replenished team with young talent.  Its just good baseball management.  However, trading younger guys who can still grow (as much as you try to downplay Encarnacion he hasn't been any worse than Rolen the past few years) for older guys who have damn near nothing left in the tank is just pointless.  Unless the Reds were just a little bit away from win a division crown, this is a horrible trade.  As it turns out, the Reds are a long way from a division (or even Wild Card) crown.

8/1/09
0
zzj000 wrote:
The Reds arent on the hook for all of Rolen's salary. And you OBVIOUSLY have not seen to many Reds games or had a chance to watch Encarnacion night after night. If you think hes so good and has so much "potential", pick him as your 3rd baseman on your fantasy teams. Then when you start cryin and cursin the day you did.... dont come whinin to me! I dont get the Cincinnati papers here nor do I listen to WLW during the day but I guarantee you  that noone in Cincinnati is upset about this trade. When the Reds have traded away players like Griffey, Dunn, Hamilton, Freel.... just to name 4 ....  over the past season and a half..... its nice to see them GO GET SOMEONE for a change!
Alright... well, from the perspective of someone who has seen a team transform from a mediocre team to a WINNING team recently, I will go ahead and say that no matter how many Reds fans are in favor of this deal, it still makes no sense. I'm not saying Encarnacion is a special player by any stretch. I'm merely saying that Scott Rolen isn't anything special anymore either, and Encarnacion isn't the only player they gave up.

The Reds have zero chance of winning this year. They DO have a slight chance at success in the future. So logic dictates that they should plan for the future, right? Well, guess what Scott Rolen is? That's right... the past, and borderline present. He's not the future of anything.

8/1/09
0
Pat wrote:
Nothing you just said justifies the Reds getting an older, more expensive and overall lesser quality player for a younger, better, cheaper one. As Mike (kantwistaye) said, there's really no rationale for it.

As Ricky Bobby said, if you're not first, you're last. And the Reds are not first, nor will Scott Rolen get them there.
Just your comment "overall lesser quality player" shows the flaw of your argument. Their is ABSOLUTLY no doubt that Rolen is a far superior player to Encarnacion. Today, tomorrow ... and 3 yrs year from now when quite possibly he's STILL a Red.

8/1/09
1
zzj000 wrote:
Just your comment "overall lesser quality player" shows the flaw of your argument. Their is ABSOLUTLY no doubt that Rolen is a far superior player to Encarnacion. Today, tomorrow ... and 3 yrs year from now when quite possibly he's STILL a Red.

Scott Rolen will be on a bench or retired in 3 years.  Also, last year Encarnacion's OPS+ was 106 and Rolen's was 107.  They were essentially the same player at the plate.  Rolen will not be anywhere near the player Encarnacion is in three years.  That doesn't mean Encarnacion will be anything special, but he'll undoubtedly be much better than Rolen.

8/1/09
0
zzj000 wrote:
Just your comment "overall lesser quality player" shows the flaw of your argument. Their is ABSOLUTLY no doubt that Rolen is a far superior player to Encarnacion. Today, tomorrow ... and 3 yrs year from now when quite possibly he's STILL a Red.
If he's still a Red in 3 years, then I promise you the Reds will still be looking at 4th or 5th place in the NL Central. The trade accomplishes absolutely nothing for the Reds. Zero.

Keep in mind that the Reds also gave up Zach Stewart and Josh Roenicke, AND they'll have to pay Scott Rolen $11M next year. That's over $6M more than Encarnacion. Even if you think Rolen is better at this point in his career (and I have a hard time wrapping my head around that), is he really $6M per year better?

Bobby Abreu, Mark Ellis, Jason Giambi, Mike Gonzalez, Trevor Hoffman, Braden Looper, JJ Hardy, Ryan Ludwick and many other players all signed last offseason, and all make $6M or less. You're telling me you'd rather have Rolen than Encarnacion AND one (or more) of those guys? I'm not saying they're incredible, but they're just a few guys who could undoubtedly make the Reds better... if they weren't wasting $6M more than they need to on Scott Rolen. I'm not saying all of those guys were or are readily available, but there's no reason for the Reds to spend more than they have to on guys in their mid 30's. It's pointless.

8/1/09
0
Chris wrote:
they traded a crap load of prospects to get that deal done. Of course Peavy is good, hopefully he can keep his swagger against the better hitting American League.
Clayton Richard is the only one of those prospects who I think will be one of the top pitchers in the game within the next 3-4 years. Aaron Poreda might be a good middle relief guy someday, but not a starter.Adam Russell might be a decent reliever enentually. And Dexter Carter? I didn't even know who the hell he was before this trade, but apparentally he was some pitcher on their Single A Kannapolis minor league team.

8/1/09
1
joshwillis52 wrote:
Clayton Richard is the only one of those prospects who I think will be one of the top pitchers in the game within the next 3-4 years. Aaron Poreda might be a good middle relief guy someday, but not a starter.Adam Russell might be a decent reliever enentually. And Dexter Carter? I didn't even know who the hell he was before this trade, but apparentally he was some pitcher on their Single A Kannapolis minor league team.
So... you're saying that the Sox gave up a guy who will be one of the best pitchers in the game in a few years for a pitcher who may not even play this year, and you're upset that I "only" gave them an honorable mention? Seriously?

8/1/09
2
zzj000 wrote:
Just your comment "overall lesser quality player" shows the flaw of your argument. Their is ABSOLUTLY no doubt that Rolen is a far superior player to Encarnacion. Today, tomorrow ... and 3 yrs year from now when quite possibly he's STILL a Red.
I finally figured out why your so headstrong and blind to the obvious here. The Reds ARE a better team TODAY. Period! You're just upset about the trade because you KNOW the Reds are better now and are likely gonna take away wins from the Brew Crew........ sorry dude, tell your guys they better not hit it down the 3rd baseline any more.

8/1/09
0
so the yankees are losers because they didnt react? Why do they have to react? Sure everyone wants to get their hands on halladay but just because they didnt doesnt mean they are losers... just my opinion. 

8/1/09
0
Pat wrote:
So... you're saying that the Sox gave up a guy who will be one of the best pitchers in the game in a few years for a pitcher who may not even play this year, and you're upset that I "only" gave them an honorable mention? Seriously?
I think that Richard will be a good pitcher in a few years because of his potential and some of the signs that he has shown this year. Peavy is already a proven player. I know that he is currently on the DL, but pitchers come off of the DL all the time and are just fine. I'm not upset that you only gave them an honorable mention, but I definitely think they made one of the top 3 best moves if not the #1 trade in the league at the deadline

8/1/09
0
zzj000 wrote:
I finally figured out why your so headstrong and blind to the obvious here. The Reds ARE a better team TODAY. Period! You're just upset about the trade because you KNOW the Reds are better now and are likely gonna take away wins from the Brew Crew........ sorry dude, tell your guys they better not hit it down the 3rd baseline any more.
I could care less about the Reds. They're not winning anything this year and they gave up on part of their future.  The Reds are irrelevant.  Also, we've at least made the playoffs at some point within the last decade.  And hitting down the 3rd base line will be slightly less successful now. Oh well.  Nobody was making a killing doing that anyway.

8/1/09
0
I think at best Clayton Richard will be a #4 or #5 starter.  I think Aaron Poreda will be a quality reliever.  Adam Russell is useless, like Nick Masset last year.  Dexter Carter still has a lot of work to make the majors.  However, the Sox got another ace for 3-4 years to go with Buehrle, Danks, and Floyd, forming a solid rotation.

8/1/09
2
zzj000 wrote:
I finally figured out why your so headstrong and blind to the obvious here. The Reds ARE a better team TODAY. Period! You're just upset about the trade because you KNOW the Reds are better now and are likely gonna take away wins from the Brew Crew........ sorry dude, tell your guys they better not hit it down the 3rd baseline any more.
Comment of the year, without a doubt. Thanks man, that was hilarious.

8/1/09
0
zzj000 wrote:
I finally figured out why your so headstrong and blind to the obvious here. The Reds ARE a better team TODAY. Period! You're just upset about the trade because you KNOW the Reds are better now and are likely gonna take away wins from the Brew Crew........ sorry dude, tell your guys they better not hit it down the 3rd baseline any more.
Remind me again.... when was the last pennant hoisted in Milwaukee? If you're not sure what they look like... come to Great American Ballpark. There are just a few hangin around. CHEERS!

8/1/09
0
zzj000 wrote:
Remind me again.... when was the last pennant hoisted in Milwaukee? If you're not sure what they look like... come to Great American Ballpark. There are just a few hangin around. CHEERS!
reds are pretty irrelevant... for a fan whose team hasnt even been to the playoffs since the mid 90s you sure do talk a lot of trash. oh i believe they have a pennant from the 80's...

8/1/09
0
zzj000 wrote:
Remind me again.... when was the last pennant hoisted in Milwaukee? If you're not sure what they look like... come to Great American Ballpark. There are just a few hangin around. CHEERS!
Thanks for making my point for me......

8/1/09
0
zzj000 wrote:
I finally figured out why your so headstrong and blind to the obvious here. The Reds ARE a better team TODAY. Period! You're just upset about the trade because you KNOW the Reds are better now and are likely gonna take away wins from the Brew Crew........ sorry dude, tell your guys they better not hit it down the 3rd baseline any more.
I hate to put down an IU fan, but I really don't think the Reds are going to take wins away from anybody.

8/1/09
0
joshwillis52 wrote:
I hate to put down an IU fan, but I really don't think the Reds are going to take wins away from anybody.
Cept the natinals and mets... cause they are just awful

8/1/09
0
TurkogluForMVP wrote:
Cept the natinals and mets... cause they are just awful
Maybe the Nationals, but I don't think they would really even hurt the Mets a whole lot.

8/1/09
0
joshwillis52 wrote:
I hate to put down an IU fan, but I really don't think the Reds are going to take wins away from anybody.

haha... probably so. But at least the fans behind the first base dugout dont have to wear headgear fearing another errant Encarnacion throw to first!

8/1/09
2
zzj000 wrote:
Remind me again.... when was the last pennant hoisted in Milwaukee? If you're not sure what they look like... come to Great American Ballpark. There are just a few hangin around. CHEERS!
You know, if I were you I wouldn't be slamming the Brew Crew for not hoisting a pennant when your Reds haven't won one themselves since 1990.

8/1/09
0
Pat wrote:
Yeah... with a jacked up shoulder. Let's see him pitch this year, and let's see how he does against AL batters before we start praising them too much for this. I love Peavy, but they traded for someone who's on the DL. We'll see how that pans out.
 I thought he was on the dl with an ankle injury?

8/1/09
2
 As for the Yankees it's hard to call them losers the did not do much of anything.

8/1/09
0
the sox are winners and the indians are loosers the indians lost victor martinez and lee and the sox got a guy that can get the bat on the ball so they can break out of there slump

8/1/09
0
Any truth to the rumor that a deal was done between the Jays and Rangers that would have sent Hallady to TX but Hallady closed it down with his no trade clause? I thought I read that somewhere...

8/1/09
1
Pat, solid post. However, (and this is partially to see more hear you answer cause I think you've responded brilliantly to all other question on this post) I don't agree that Boston should be a winner, they should be a honorable mention. I really don't see it as that much of a move in fact i really don't understand it at all. If they would have traded away Varitek or Lowell it would make a lot more sense to me. I could be proven wrong if Lowell's hips to crumble to dust ( strong possibility) but it looks to me Boston created a log jam of players at positions of little need. If this was a deal for say someone like Chad Tracy in Arizona (3rd baseman riding the pine behind Mark Reynolds) who would have been much cheaper  as insurance for Lowell. Overall this deal makes no sense for me. Kinda like the Tigers deal for a Pitcher when they were in desperate need for a bat.

8/1/09
0
Marshall wrote:
Pat, solid post. However, (and this is partially to see more hear you answer cause I think you've responded brilliantly to all other question on this post) I don't agree that Boston should be a winner, they should be a honorable mention. I really don't see it as that much of a move in fact i really don't understand it at all. If they would have traded away Varitek or Lowell it would make a lot more sense to me. I could be proven wrong if Lowell's hips to crumble to dust ( strong possibility) but it looks to me Boston created a log jam of players at positions of little need. If this was a deal for say someone like Chad Tracy in Arizona (3rd baseman riding the pine behind Mark Reynolds) who would have been much cheaper  as insurance for Lowell. Overall this deal makes no sense for me. Kinda like the Tigers deal for a Pitcher when they were in desperate need for a bat.
Victor Martinez is a long-term fit, not just a short term solution. Between Lowell, Ortiz and Varitek, there are plenty of at bats to go around. Varitek has needed a lot of rest lately, and Lowell is a hangnail away from calling it a career at this point. Ortiz has been highly ineffective for the majority of the year, and some people think that it's not just because he's clean, but possibly also lingering results from his wrist injury. That, combined with the fact that the Red Sox offense has been miserable since the All Star break, and I think he's definitely the spark plug that they need, and a great fit, thanks to his versatility.

8/2/09
1
BluDevil wrote:
Any truth to the rumor that a deal was done between the Jays and Rangers that would have sent Hallady to TX but Hallady closed it down with his no trade clause? I thought I read that somewhere...
Read that too, although I've also seen it denied.  They would've been a dangerous team with an ace like him to depend on.

8/2/09
1
Hats off to the Indians for packing in and calling it a night once again.  Always winners in my book since half the league consists of our former players.  Good job guys, enjoy winning for a change!

Honorable mention to the Reds for that completely inconsequential trade.  There must be something in the air here in Ohio.  That or we found a way to cut out down on the unemployment by giving a couple of hobos jobs as GMs.

8/2/09
0
I missed out on the early part of this thread but I want to say the Bo Sox and Phills got 2 fantastic players from Cleveland.  I am disappointed with the management recent years and oh that DeRosa is a solid pickup earlier too.  I just hope we are regearing and retooling for a new run like in the 90's.

8/2/09
0
Oh and like the Reds bit said...wth are they thinking?  I like Rolen but seriously what??

8/2/09
0
kramer wrote:
You know, if I were you I wouldn't be slamming the Brew Crew for not hoisting a pennant when your Reds haven't won one themselves since 1990.
Good one, Brian!!  Couldn't decide between smart and funny; went with funny(since the guy you responded to is obviously delusional!!)

8/2/09
0
(Edited by elevenbravo138again)
        If Jake Peavy comes back and pitches like an ace, he might put the White Sox over the top.  Cliff Lee may do the same for the Indians, Washburn is largely underrated.  Getting Matt Holliday makes the already solid Cardinals a real threat to get all the way to the World Series,  C/1B Victor Martinez bolsters a very strong lineup but it's a notch or 1.5 notches below the impact Lee, Peavy or even Washburn could have, this is just about a 1/2 notch above the Nick Johnson deal.  Now if you truly believe that the Yankees are not going to get another arm you are sadly mistaken but I do admit that I am surprised that they didn't go harder at Lee, Peavy or Washburn.  The Rolen deal is 100% confusing!   


8/2/09
0
Baseball fails, in general.

8/2/09
1
streetballer123 wrote:
Baseball fails, in general.
Much like 99.9% of your comments on this site.

8/2/09
0
The giants are in the wild cardI have high hopes for them

8/3/09
0
I think I need to add that the biggest gamble was the Giants getting Garko and Sanchez.  seeing as the Giants were 7 and 8 games back at the time of the deals it seems those trades were made with next year in mind rather than this one.  The Giants have had troubles finding a decent keystone player in their system so getting Sanchez was not a bad thing.  Hopefully what they gave up won't come back in three years and bite them on their rear.  Sanchez is good through 2010 but the trade will look better if they can sign him to an extension.

One more thing...  This year is still a possibility.  7 games back is not that big a gap, but with 9 weeks to go in the season it is a pretty large lead to chase down.  The Giants made up 9 games in 2002.  Sure, they needed 2 more, but they did make up a lot after being hopelessly out of the race and made the Snakes sweat a bit.  Perhaps they can make the Dodgers sweat some this year... 

I think a good old Giants-Dodgers race might be a good thing for MLB, too.  Hopefully the doyers will slip and help create one!

8/3/09
4
ML31 wrote:
I think I need to add that the biggest gamble was the Giants getting Garko and Sanchez.  seeing as the Giants were 7 and 8 games back at the time of the deals it seems those trades were made with next year in mind rather than this one.  The Giants have had troubles finding a decent keystone player in their system so getting Sanchez was not a bad thing.  Hopefully what they gave up won't come back in three years and bite them on their rear.  Sanchez is good through 2010 but the trade will look better if they can sign him to an extension.

One more thing...  This year is still a possibility.  7 games back is not that big a gap, but with 9 weeks to go in the season it is a pretty large lead to chase down.  The Giants made up 9 games in 2002.  Sure, they needed 2 more, but they did make up a lot after being hopelessly out of the race and made the Snakes sweat a bit.  Perhaps they can make the Dodgers sweat some this year... 

I think a good old Giants-Dodgers race might be a good thing for MLB, too.  Hopefully the doyers will slip and help create one!
Alright... we know YOU aren't a proponent of the Wild Card. We get it. But while these trades certainly won't hurt the Giants' chances next year, they are designed for this year as well. You know it, I know it, everyone else knows it. The Giants are very much in the Wild Card hunt. Garko and Sanchez could provide just enough offense to win them the wild card, and Lincecum and Cain might be enough to carry them through the playoffs.

It's fine that you don't like the Wild Card, but when you pretend that it doesn't even exist, or that the Giants aren't making every attempt to win it, you're just making yourself look confused and ignorant.

8/3/09
0
Minnesota picking up Cabrera didn't make the list? 4 playoff appearences in 5 years on different teams too sounds like the luck of Cliff Floyd

8/3/09
0
(Edited by ML31)
I have a hard time thinking those trades were made with this year in mind.  Most teams do not make deals like that when they are so far back in the standings.  Like I said, it's a gamble and an optimistic one I don't entirely reject.  But I think the Sanchez deal will be better next year. 

And a correction for you...  No one "wins" the welfare card because by definition you have to lose in order even qualify for it.

Call it what you like, but I feel better about my team assuming they are trying to win.  If Sabes is indeed aiming for 2nd place, then his butt needs to be fired immediately.  No fan should want anyone on their team who is satisfied with finishing 2nd.

My comments only appear ignorant to folks who are happy with NOT winning.

And as I said in another thread, MLB is just a lot more fun when the welfare card factor is removed.  So stop raining on a REAL baseball fan's parade, please.

And a PS...  Should the Giants get back in the race and put some pressure on the Dodgers, with the welfare card in place it would be a ho-hum, who cares kind of thing since both teams would be in the post season.  If you blow off the welfare card suddenly it becomes a fantastic race to the end with the final games between the teams being HUGE.
I would think you would understand this since you have followed the Red Sox in recent years where those games down the stretch with their rival meant practically nothing...  Thanks to the welfare card.

8/3/09
1
ML31 wrote:
I have a hard time thinking those trades were made with this year in mind.  Most teams do not make deals like that when they are so far back in the standings.  Like I said, it's a gamble and an optimistic one I don't entirely reject.  But I think the Sanchez deal will be better next year. 

And a correction for you...  No one "wins" the welfare card because by definition you have to lose in order even qualify for it.

Call it what you like, but I feel better about my team assuming they are trying to win.  If Sabes is indeed aiming for 2nd place, then his butt needs to be fired immediately.  No fan should want anyone on their team who is satisfied with finishing 2nd.

My comments only appear ignorant to folks who are happy with NOT winning.

And as I said in another thread, MLB is just a lot more fun when the welfare card factor is removed.  So stop raining on a REAL baseball fan's parade, please.

And a PS...  Should the Giants get back in the race and put some pressure on the Dodgers, with the welfare card in place it would be a ho-hum, who cares kind of thing since both teams would be in the post season.  If you blow off the welfare card suddenly it becomes a fantastic race to the end with the final games between the teams being HUGE.
I would think you would understand this since you have followed the Red Sox in recent years where those games down the stretch with their rival meant practically nothing...  Thanks to the welfare card.
As you are probably, truly aware...the Giants are not that far back in the standings TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS.  And yes, they probably won't finish 1st, but they have a great shot at finishing in the Wild Card slot.  My guess is that if the Giants take the wildcard place, you won't turn them off...and I'm betting that you didn't turn off the 2002 Playoffs (remember the Giants qualified by way of the Wild Card) at least until Dusty Baker gave Russ Ortiz the "game ball" in Game 6 of the World Series.

If you ask Sabes if he's trying to finish 2nd, he'll say "no."  But he will also tell you that he's trying to get into the playoffs because that's the ONLY way they have a chance to finish 1st (winning a World Series).

So, regardless of how you feel about the Wild Card, it's here.  And whether you "win" it or not is a matter of semantics.  But you certainly can QUALIFY to play meaningful October baseball by finishing 2nd.  That's likely what the Giants are trying to do, QUALIFY.

8/3/09
0
Seachickenhawk wrote:
As you are probably, truly aware...the Giants are not that far back in the standings TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS.  And yes, they probably won't finish 1st, but they have a great shot at finishing in the Wild Card slot.  My guess is that if the Giants take the wildcard place, you won't turn them off...and I'm betting that you didn't turn off the 2002 Playoffs (remember the Giants qualified by way of the Wild Card) at least until Dusty Baker gave Russ Ortiz the "game ball" in Game 6 of the World Series.

If you ask Sabes if he's trying to finish 2nd, he'll say "no."  But he will also tell you that he's trying to get into the playoffs because that's the ONLY way they have a chance to finish 1st (winning a World Series).

So, regardless of how you feel about the Wild Card, it's here.  And whether you "win" it or not is a matter of semantics.  But you certainly can QUALIFY to play meaningful October baseball by finishing 2nd.  That's likely what the Giants are trying to do, QUALIFY.
I wouldn't say 7 games is that far back...  But it is not that close either.

If they won't finish first, then it is time to start evaluating for next year.  Not putting together guys for what could be a hopeless cause.

If the Giants finish in 2nd, their season will be over.  Just as it was in 2001, 2002 and 2004. 
If you are talking about turning off those meaningless practice games in 2002, I paid as much attention to them as I do practice games in the spring.  I saw a little bit but it didn't matter if they won or lose since the games didn't count for anything.  If the Giants end up playing practice games again, I will be annoyed because I don't want them extending their season and risking injury for nothing.

The other side of that situation will be that I will be put in the uncomfortable situation of hoping my team loses games.   I never thought I would ever be rooting against the Giants.  But it looks like MLB has found a way.  I hated being there in 2002 and I hoped to never go through that hell again.

Finally, if a team finishes in 2nd place, they are not playing any meaningful games.  2nd place teams did not earn their playoff spot.  They got in as a gift from MLB for being the best of the losers.  Whoop dee friggin doo.

When I see see my team win the World Series, I want it to be legit.  I don't want anyone to claim it was tainted in any way.  I want it to be done the honest way.  Through winning.  Not by using some kind of booby prize for not winning.  And I think all honest fans would want that too.

8/3/09
3
ML31 wrote:
I wouldn't say 7 games is that far back...  But it is not that close either.

If they won't finish first, then it is time to start evaluating for next year.  Not putting together guys for what could be a hopeless cause.

If the Giants finish in 2nd, their season will be over.  Just as it was in 2001, 2002 and 2004. 
If you are talking about turning off those meaningless practice games in 2002, I paid as much attention to them as I do practice games in the spring.  I saw a little bit but it didn't matter if they won or lose since the games didn't count for anything.  If the Giants end up playing practice games again, I will be annoyed because I don't want them extending their season and risking injury for nothing.

The other side of that situation will be that I will be put in the uncomfortable situation of hoping my team loses games.   I never thought I would ever be rooting against the Giants.  But it looks like MLB has found a way.  I hated being there in 2002 and I hoped to never go through that hell again.

Finally, if a team finishes in 2nd place, they are not playing any meaningful games.  2nd place teams did not earn their playoff spot.  They got in as a gift from MLB for being the best of the losers.  Whoop dee friggin doo.

When I see see my team win the World Series, I want it to be legit.  I don't want anyone to claim it was tainted in any way.  I want it to be done the honest way.  Through winning.  Not by using some kind of booby prize for not winning.  And I think all honest fans would want that too.
You're the only one I've ever seen around here who thinks a championship is "tainted" when a Wild Card team wins it, and let's be honest, you wouldn't say it was tainted at all if the Giants had won the WS back in 2002, we all know better.  Can you do us all a favor and spare the lecture about how the Wild Card isn't legit in your opinion?  It's like a broken record, and nobody is on your side about that so you're wasting your breath.

8/3/09
0
kramer wrote:
You're the only one I've ever seen around here who thinks a championship is "tainted" when a Wild Card team wins it, and let's be honest, you wouldn't say it was tainted at all if the Giants had won the WS back in 2002, we all know better.  Can you do us all a favor and spare the lecture about how the Wild Card isn't legit in your opinion?  It's like a broken record, and nobody is on your side about that so you're wasting your breath.
How wrong you are.  I am not alone in this line of thinking.  I know a number of people who feel the same.  One feels so strongly that he has just blown off baseball ever since the welfare card began back in '94.  There is nothing wrong with assumptions when you have evidence and legitimate reasoning to make them.  In this case, you have none.  

Not only are you wrong about no one being on my side, you are also very very wrong about 2002.  Had the Giants won that pathetic nobody-cared-about series, I would be the first to claim it was tainted and worthless.  Hell that faux "pennant" they were given that year is a very sick joke that I wish to never be reminded of.  Thanks to the Bud Selig and the welfare card, I was put in the horrid position of rooting AGAINST my favorite team only in the name of fairness and justice.  So don't go making assumptions with nothing to back them up with.

8/3/09
1
ML31 wrote:
How wrong you are.  I am not alone in this line of thinking.  I know a number of people who feel the same.  One feels so strongly that he has just blown off baseball ever since the welfare card began back in '94.  There is nothing wrong with assumptions when you have evidence and legitimate reasoning to make them.  In this case, you have none.  

Not only are you wrong about no one being on my side, you are also very very wrong about 2002.  Had the Giants won that pathetic nobody-cared-about series, I would be the first to claim it was tainted and worthless.  Hell that faux "pennant" they were given that year is a very sick joke that I wish to never be reminded of.  Thanks to the Bud Selig and the welfare card, I was put in the horrid position of rooting AGAINST my favorite team only in the name of fairness and justice.  So don't go making assumptions with nothing to back them up with.
I specifically said "ON HERE," meaning ON FANIQ!  Once again, you didn't pay attention to what I wrote.  You ARE the only one that I've seen ON THIS SITE complaining about the Wild Card.  As I also said, spare us because we have all heard the lecture before, and I am not in the mood to listen to that garbage again.  It's your opinion, nobody that I've seen ON FANIQ agrees with you on it, and yet you don't know when to leave it alone.  If you're that adamant about it, write to Bud Selig, because nobody on this site wants to hear the broken record anymore, goodnight.

8/3/09
0
kramer wrote:
I specifically said "ON HERE," meaning ON FANIQ!  Once again, you didn't pay attention to what I wrote.  You ARE the only one that I've seen ON THIS SITE complaining about the Wild Card.  As I also said, spare us because we have all heard the lecture before, and I am not in the mood to listen to that garbage again.  It's your opinion, nobody that I've seen ON FANIQ agrees with you on it, and yet you don't know when to leave it alone.  If you're that adamant about it, write to Bud Selig, because nobody on this site wants to hear the broken record anymore, goodnight.
Yes, you did say "on here" in your first sentence.  But...  If you recall what you yourself wrote in your last sentance you said "...and nobody is on your side..."  Not 'nobody HERE is on your side'.  Which would be false as well.  Over the years I have had a handful of people give me thumbs up and write messages of agreement.  Again, you need to think about what leads you to make baseless assumptions.

8/3/09
1
ML31 wrote:
Yes, you did say "on here" in your first sentence.  But...  If you recall what you yourself wrote in your last sentance you said "...and nobody is on your side..."  Not 'nobody HERE is on your side'.  Which would be false as well.  Over the years I have had a handful of people give me thumbs up and write messages of agreement.  Again, you need to think about what leads you to make baseless assumptions.
Oh I am so sorry, remind me to spell it out for you next time, NOBODY HERE IS ON YOUR SIDE THAT I HAVE SEEN!  Is that clear enough for you?  I based what I said off of what I've seen.  That is correct on my part, end of discussion.  Most of what I see from you when it comes to sports is arguments because people don't agree with most of your nonsense about the Wild Card, and you don't know when to quit, and THAT is a cold hard fact.  Agree to disagree for once in your life instead of letting things escalate to mindless bickering, which again is a fact from a lot of your sports-related posts.

8/3/09
0
kramer wrote:
Oh I am so sorry, remind me to spell it out for you next time, NOBODY HERE IS ON YOUR SIDE THAT I HAVE SEEN!  Is that clear enough for you?  I based what I said off of what I've seen.  That is correct on my part, end of discussion.  Most of what I see from you when it comes to sports is arguments because people don't agree with most of your nonsense about the Wild Card, and you don't know when to quit, and THAT is a cold hard fact.  Agree to disagree for once in your life instead of letting things escalate to mindless bickering, which again is a fact from a lot of your sports-related posts.
Like it or not the Wild Card is here to stay. Get over it. There is way too much money to be made by the teams and the league by having it. If anything, I see an expansion of two more wid card teams from each league just as you have in football. Again... more money for the teams and league. Only problem with expanding is they will either have to move the season start up a week or risk playing in colder weather for the World Series.

8/3/09
0
zzj000 wrote:
Like it or not the Wild Card is here to stay. Get over it. There is way too much money to be made by the teams and the league by having it. If anything, I see an expansion of two more wid card teams from each league just as you have in football. Again... more money for the teams and league. Only problem with expanding is they will either have to move the season start up a week or risk playing in colder weather for the World Series.
You replied to the wrong person, I'm not the one who constantly disses the Wild Card, try again.

8/4/09
0
zzj000 wrote:
Like it or not the Wild Card is here to stay. Get over it. There is way too much money to be made by the teams and the league by having it. If anything, I see an expansion of two more wid card teams from each league just as you have in football. Again... more money for the teams and league. Only problem with expanding is they will either have to move the season start up a week or risk playing in colder weather for the World Series.
Sadly, you are right it is here to stay.  At least until MLB expands again.  Then they will probably go to 4 four team divisions in each league.  Which presents its own set of problems.  But at least no 2nd place teams will be in the post season.
It is here to stay mostly because MLB refuses to admit they make mistakes.  Yes, it does provide a little bit of extra income for teams.  But, I strongly suspect that the extra income that comes about from a round of playoffs is more than offset by the income lost from the multitude of fans turned off to the game who are mourning the loss of the pennant races and from MLB's consistant marketing the game telling fans not to care about any team other than their favorite team.  The leads to the game being less popular and profitable on a national basis.

And to be honest, I am very surpised the division series has not become a best of 7 yet.  This seems like the perfect way to extract more blood from the stone.

8/5/09
3
Personally, I have no problem with your hatred for the Wild Card. You hate it, I have no problem with it, whatever. We can agree to disagree on that.

However, you have to realize that your feigned confusion about the Giants trading for Sanchez makes you look like an idiot. Whether or not you think it's legitimate, the fact is that the Giants are doing whatever they can do to make the playoffs. Right now, it appears as though their only real chance is with the Wild Card. So it's not a move for next year. It might help next year as well, but it's a deal for THIS year.

You don't have to support the Wild Card to understand that it's exactly why the Giants made that deal.

8/6/09
0
(Edited by ML31)
And I have no problem at all that you place a higher value on an expanded playoff than on a pennant race.  Hey, your take.  That's fine.  What I don't fully get is why you decided to make the thread about that.  I never brought it up.  I just gave my take on a couple of pre-deadline trades and it seems to have set you off.

I'm not confused by the deal.  I just don't think it is enough.  They STILL don't have any kind of impact bat in that line up.  Garko isn't it.  At this point, this is NOT a team that can challenge for a title.  Sure, Sanchez makes them better, but better enough to win now?  I think not.

It makes sense to me that this is the first step for improving for next year.  When they DO get some kind of impact bat to make the line up more than mediocre on a good day.

And BTW...  It can be said that anyone who thinks aiming for 2nd place is a good thing could easily be perceived as the idiot,.

8/6/09
0
(Edited by ML31)
Duplicate post.

8/6/09
3
ML31 wrote:
And I have no problem at all that you place a higher value on an expanded playoff than on a pennant race.  Hey, your take.  That's fine.  What I don't fully get is why you decided to make the thread about that.  I never brought it up.  I just gave my take on a couple of pre-deadline trades and it seems to have set you off.

I'm not confused by the deal.  I just don't think it is enough.  They STILL don't have any kind of impact bat in that line up.  Garko isn't it.  At this point, this is NOT a team that can challenge for a title.  Sure, Sanchez makes them better, but better enough to win now?  I think not.

It makes sense to me that this is the first step for improving for next year.  When they DO get some kind of impact bat to make the line up more than mediocre on a good day.

And BTW...  It can be said that anyone who thinks aiming for 2nd place is a good thing could easily be perceived as the idiot,.
If 2nd place gives you an opportunity to win a championship, then yes, it's a good thing.

Also, it has been proven several times that a couple great pitchers are enough to overcome an inferior lineup in the postseason. The Giants have that, in Lincecum and Cain. They will be able to at least compete.

8/6/09
0
(Edited by ML31)
If 2nd place gives you an opportunity to win a championship, then yes, it's a good thing.

That is subjective and in minds of many, depends on the sport.

I don't think it has been proven.  A couple of great pitchers leading a team to a title is very very rare.  I can only think of two times where a pitcher has made the difference in the last 20+ years.  

But, with the current number of playoff teams, it is not so much the great pitchers who make the difference, but the team that is on the roll more than anything else.  As a Giants enthusiast, I know that all too well.

8/6/09
3
ML31 wrote:
If 2nd place gives you an opportunity to win a championship, then yes, it's a good thing.

That is subjective and in minds of many, depends on the sport.

I don't think it has been proven.  A couple of great pitchers leading a team to a title is very very rare.  I can only think of two times where a pitcher has made the difference in the last 20+ years.  

But, with the current number of playoff teams, it is not so much the great pitchers who make the difference, but the team that is on the roll more than anything else.  As a Giants enthusiast, I know that all too well.
No, it's not subjective at all. If 2nd place in your division gives you the opportunity to play for a championship, then it is, without a doubt, a good thing to get 2nd place. By no standard whatsoever is it NOT good to make the playoffs.

8/6/09
0
(Edited by ML31)
Obviously it is completely subjective.  It depends on the sport.  A 2nd place NFL team wins the title.  No problem there.  They only play 16 games.  Very easilly a couple of funny hops or bad calls could be the difference between 1st and 2nd with little to no time to recover.  But, a 2nd place baseball team getting in, after playing so very very many games, it completely demeans all the 162 games played before it.  It causes the division winner to think, why did we bust our humps putting as much distance between us and them as we possibly could, when in the end, they end up with the exact same result we did?  A 0-0 record and a chance at the World Series.
A 2nd place baseball team making the playoffs cannot be considered a good thing for the game unless a person places little value on the regular season and was never interested in pennant races to begin with.

Therefore, it IS subjective depending on what sport you are talking about.  

8/6/09
2
No. You're wrong. It's not subjective at all. It is better to make the playoffs through the wild card than to not make the playoffs at all. Whether or not you agree with the premise of the wild card in the first place, you can not deny that it is better for a team to make the playoffs than miss them altogether.

Stop twisting my words and pretending that you don't know what I'm saying. I'm not asking whether you agree with the wild card, I'm merely saying that it is an undeniable fact that making the playoffs is better than missing them.

8/6/09
0
Pat wrote:
No. You're wrong. It's not subjective at all. It is better to make the playoffs through the wild card than to not make the playoffs at all. Whether or not you agree with the premise of the wild card in the first place, you can not deny that it is better for a team to make the playoffs than miss them altogether.

Stop twisting my words and pretending that you don't know what I'm saying. I'm not asking whether you agree with the wild card, I'm merely saying that it is an undeniable fact that making the playoffs is better than missing them.

I am curious...  What words did I twist?  I wasn't pretending anything.  I was explaining a situation where what you describe is viewed differently by different people.

Your conclusion is not a fact at all.  It's a personal viewpoint, or opinion if you will.  For many people, the ends do not justify the means.  Hence, it is indeed subjective.

I want to make a lot of money.  But I'm not going to do something unsavory or questionable to achieve that end.  But others might.

For many people, HOW something is achieved is just as important as that something they are striving for.

All subjective.

8/6/09
1
I'm not going to answer that, because it is extremely obvious to anyone of at least average intelligence. I find you and this discussion to be extremely tiresome, and have no desire whatsoever to continue.

8/7/09
0
(Edited by ML31)
Nice cop out from actually having to explain yourself.

I understand your desire to not back up your words.  It is obvious to anyone of at least average intelligence you either don't fully believe in them or you simply can't without admitting you made some errors in judgment.

PS...  It is also obvious to even the simplest of minds that I did not twist any of your words in any way.  I just wanted to see how you would back up the allegation.  The result...  You didn't.

8/26/09
1
(Edited by jvuk1)
kramer wrote:
Oh I am so sorry, remind me to spell it out for you next time, NOBODY HERE IS ON YOUR SIDE THAT I HAVE SEEN!  Is that clear enough for you?  I based what I said off of what I've seen.  That is correct on my part, end of discussion.  Most of what I see from you when it comes to sports is arguments because people don't agree with most of your nonsense about the Wild Card, and you don't know when to quit, and THAT is a cold hard fact.  Agree to disagree for once in your life instead of letting things escalate to mindless bickering, which again is a fact from a lot of your sports-related posts.
The guy is ignorant. He insists that steroids do not enhance athletic performance.

8/26/09
0
jvuk1 wrote:
The guy is ignorant. He insists that steroids do not enhance athletic performance.
You think me ignorant, but at least I know how to read and understand what others write.

I never made that claim.  But it seems that since your misreading made you think that, then you are going to continue to believe I did.

This is not only arrogant, but borderline ignorant as well.

8/27/09
0
Holliday for sure and I think Victor Martinez to the Sox

9/1/09
1
(Edited by jvuk1)
ML31 wrote:
You think me ignorant, but at least I know how to read and understand what others write.

I never made that claim.  But it seems that since your misreading made you think that, then you are going to continue to believe I did.

This is not only arrogant, but borderline ignorant as well.
To sum it up you said there is no proof and that you don't think that using steroids will enhance performance for baseball players. All the baseball players that used them took all the risks (health related and consequences of getting caught) for nothing

9/1/09
1
jvuk1 wrote:
To sum it up you said there is no proof and that you don't think that using steroids will enhance performance for baseball players. All the baseball players that used them took all the risks (health related and consequences of getting caught) for nothing
To clarify...

There is no consensus in the medical or scientific community that steroids turn good players into super players.  In fact, what they do agree on are the recovery benifits.  A reason that many players have used for why they took it. 

Players doing stuff they think will help that doesn't in reality?  You bet it happens.  Why do players dive into first base when it actually retards your speed?  I have often heard that referred to as 'false hustle'.  Yet I still see players do it.  Plus, why does anyone take drugs?  Someone they may trust feeds them a line...  They see others doing it...   It's a story repeated time and time again.

9/1/09
1
ML31 wrote:
To clarify...

There is no consensus in the medical or scientific community that steroids turn good players into super players.  In fact, what they do agree on are the recovery benifits.  A reason that many players have used for why they took it. 

Players doing stuff they think will help that doesn't in reality?  You bet it happens.  Why do players dive into first base when it actually retards your speed?  I have often heard that referred to as 'false hustle'.  Yet I still see players do it.  Plus, why does anyone take drugs?  Someone they may trust feeds them a line...  They see others doing it...   It's a story repeated time and time again.
If it helps the recovery it makes the workouts more efficient meaning more results in less time meaning it does enhance a baseball player's performance

9/2/09
0
jvuk1 wrote:
If it helps the recovery it makes the workouts more efficient meaning more results in less time meaning it does enhance a baseball player's performance
If that is the case then physical therapy enhances performance.  Aspirin enhances performance.  Hell, the fact that they take batting practice is a performance enhancer.

You are on a very slippery slope with that reasoning.

9/2/09
2
ML31 wrote:
If that is the case then physical therapy enhances performance.  Aspirin enhances performance.  Hell, the fact that they take batting practice is a performance enhancer.

You are on a very slippery slope with that reasoning.
Yes... those things DO enhance performance. But steroids and the other drugs that we refer to as "performance enhancing drugs" are illegal. Therein lies the difference.

9/2/09
0
Pat I couldn't agree with you more!

9/2/09
1
(Edited by jvuk1)
ML31 wrote:
If that is the case then physical therapy enhances performance.  Aspirin enhances performance.  Hell, the fact that they take batting practice is a performance enhancer.

You are on a very slippery slope with that reasoning.
Of course batting practice enhances performance but that is an enhancement achieved safely and with effort.
.When I played high school football a friend of mine started taking steroids, not only did he get bigger really quick but he was always a step behind me in sprints shortly after he started to take them he was always a step ahead of me in the sprints.
Ben Johnson still has the fastest 100 m sprint. On September 24, Johnson beat Lewis in the 100m final at the Olympics, lowering his own world record to 9.79 seconds. Johnson would later remark that he would have been even faster had he not raised his hand in the air just before he finished the race. However, Johnson's urine samples were found to contain Stanozolol, and he was disqualified three days later. He later admitted having used steroids when he ran his 1987 world record, which caused the IAAF to rescind that record as well. But Johnson and hundreds of other athletes[citation needed] have long complained that they used doping in order to remain on an equal footing with the other top athletes on drugs they had to compete against On September 24, Johnson beat Lewis in the 100m final at the Olympics, lowering his own world record to 9.79 seconds. Johnson would later remark that he would have been even faster had he not raised his hand in the air just before he finished the race. However, Johnson's urine samples were found to contain Stanozolol, and he was disqualified three days later. He later admitted having used steroids when he ran his 1987 world record, which caused the IAAF to rescind that record as well. But Johnson and hundreds of other athletes[citation needed] have long complained that they used doping in order to remain on an equal footing with the other top athletes on drugs they had to compete against.
You have said that strength gains are not made during recovery bit during training and playing. When you workout if you do a set to failure your muscles fatigue and you will have less strength for your next  set and won't be able to do as many reps. It is during recovery that muscle repairs itself and gets stronger that is how working out works.
Don't you think the medical community may be downplaying the performance enhancing effects of steroids to make it less tempting for youngsters thinking of trying them?

Anabolic steroids (AAS) were first isolated, identified and synthesized in the 1930s, and are now used therapeutically in medicine to stimulate bone growth and appetite, induce male puberty, and treat chronic wasting conditions, such as cancer and AIDS. Anabolic steroids also produce increases in muscle mass and physical strength, and are consequently used in sport and bodybuilding to enhance strength or physique. Known side effects include harmful changes in cholesterol levels (increased Low density lipoprotein and decreased High density lipoprotein), acne, high blood pressure, liver damage. Some of these effects can be mitigated by taking supplemental drugs.[28]

AAS user in sports began in October 1954, John Ziegler, a doctor who treated American athletes, went to Vienna with the American weightlifting team. There he met a Russian physicist who, over "a few drinks", repeatedly asked "What are you giving your boys?" When Ziegler returned the question, the Russian said that his own athletes were being given testosterone.

Returning to America, Ziegler tried weak doses of testosterone on himself, on the American trainer Bob Hoffman and on two lifters, Jim Park and Yaz Kuzahara. All gained more weight and strength than any training programme would produce but there were side-effects. [29] Ziegler sought a drug without after-effects and hit on an anabolic steroid, methandrostenolone, (Dianabol, DBOL), made in the US in 1958 by Ciba.[30][31]

The results were impressive - so impressive that lifters began taking ever more. Steroids spread to other sports where bulk mattered. Paul Lowe, a former running back with the San Diego Chargers American football team, told a California legislative committee on drug abuse in 1970: "We had to take them [steroids] at lunchtime. He [an official] would put them on a little saucer and prescribed them for us to take them and if not he would suggest there might be a fine."

Olympic statistics show the weight of shot putters grew 14 per cent between 1956 and 1972, whereas steeplechasers grew 7.6 per cent. The gold medallist pentathlete Mary Peters said: "A medical research team in the United States attempted to set up extensive research into the effects of steroids on weightlifters and throwers, only to discover that there were so few who weren't taking them that they couldn't establish any worthwhile comparisons."[32]

Jay Silvester, of the physical education department of Brigham Young university in the USA, questioned fellow competitors at the 1984 Olympics. The range of steroid use he found ranged from 10 mg a day to 100 mg.

Responses to questionnaire
Question Yes No Other
Were you influenced by a professional athlete to take Performance enhancing drugs? 61% 39% 0%
Have you ever taken anabolic steroids? 68 32 0
Ethically, do you approve of anabolic steroids in athletics? 48 25 27
If a test could positively identify steroid users, would you favour banishment of the drug in sport? 48 35 17
Are you aware of any specific reason why athletes who have not attained full maturity should avoid anabolic steroid usage? 42 48 10
If you were a coach, would you commend anabolic steroid usage to (mature) athletes in your event? 45 35 20
Do you feel anabolic steroids have positively affected the performance of athletes in your event? 65 16 19
Do you feel that steroids have negatively affected the performance of athletes in your event? 6 61 33
Do you feel that steroids enable a person to gain strength faster than otherwise possible? 84 3 13
Do you believe that steroids enable a person to gain cardio-respiratory endurance more quickly than otherwise possible? 13 42 45
Do you believe that steroids enable a person to gain greater cardio-respiratory endurance than otherwise possible? 6 45 49
Have you ever gained localised muscular endurance faster when taking anabolic steroids? 48 42 10
Have you gained greater local muscular endurance faster when taking anabolic steroids? 32 22 46
Do steroids enhance mental attitude? Do you feel more in control of your life? Do you feel you will perform better in your event? 68 10 22
Has steroid usage appeared to contribute to injury problems? 26 32 42
Do Athletes who use Performance enhancing drugs lose popularity? 74 19 7
Do steroids increase body weight? 55 16 29
Are steroids difficult to obtain? 22 61 17
Several successful athletes and professional bodybuilders have admitted long-term methandrostenolone use before the drug was banned, including Arnold
Everyone knows steroids enhance performance. I have seen it more than a few times with people I know and the effect is dramatic,

9/2/09
1
Pat wrote:
Yes... those things DO enhance performance. But steroids and the other drugs that we refer to as "performance enhancing drugs" are illegal. Therein lies the difference.
And they have a much bigger performance enhancing and recovery effect

9/2/09
0
wow

9/2/09
0
Pat wrote:
Yes... those things DO enhance performance. But steroids and the other drugs that we refer to as "performance enhancing drugs" are illegal. Therein lies the difference.
Actually, they are controlled substances.  And perfectly legal if you have a prescription. 

9/2/09
1
jvuk1 wrote:
Of course batting practice enhances performance but that is an enhancement achieved safely and with effort.
.When I played high school football a friend of mine started taking steroids, not only did he get bigger really quick but he was always a step behind me in sprints shortly after he started to take them he was always a step ahead of me in the sprints.
Ben Johnson still has the fastest 100 m sprint. On September 24, Johnson beat Lewis in the 100m final at the Olympics, lowering his own world record to 9.79 seconds. Johnson would later remark that he would have been even faster had he not raised his hand in the air just before he finished the race. However, Johnson's urine samples were found to contain Stanozolol, and he was disqualified three days later. He later admitted having used steroids when he ran his 1987 world record, which caused the IAAF to rescind that record as well. But Johnson and hundreds of other athletes[citation needed] have long complained that they used doping in order to remain on an equal footing with the other top athletes on drugs they had to compete against On September 24, Johnson beat Lewis in the 100m final at the Olympics, lowering his own world record to 9.79 seconds. Johnson would later remark that he would have been even faster had he not raised his hand in the air just before he finished the race. However, Johnson's urine samples were found to contain Stanozolol, and he was disqualified three days later. He later admitted having used steroids when he ran his 1987 world record, which caused the IAAF to rescind that record as well. But Johnson and hundreds of other athletes[citation needed] have long complained that they used doping in order to remain on an equal footing with the other top athletes on drugs they had to compete against.
You have said that strength gains are not made during recovery bit during training and playing. When you workout if you do a set to failure your muscles fatigue and you will have less strength for your next  set and won't be able to do as many reps. It is during recovery that muscle repairs itself and gets stronger that is how working out works.
Don't you think the medical community may be downplaying the performance enhancing effects of steroids to make it less tempting for youngsters thinking of trying them?

Anabolic steroids (AAS) were first isolated, identified and synthesized in the 1930s, and are now used therapeutically in medicine to stimulate bone growth and appetite, induce male puberty, and treat chronic wasting conditions, such as cancer and AIDS. Anabolic steroids also produce increases in muscle mass and physical strength, and are consequently used in sport and bodybuilding to enhance strength or physique. Known side effects include harmful changes in cholesterol levels (increased Low density lipoprotein and decreased High density lipoprotein), acne, high blood pressure, liver damage. Some of these effects can be mitigated by taking supplemental drugs.[28]

AAS user in sports began in October 1954, John Ziegler, a doctor who treated American athletes, went to Vienna with the American weightlifting team. There he met a Russian physicist who, over "a few drinks", repeatedly asked "What are you giving your boys?" When Ziegler returned the question, the Russian said that his own athletes were being given testosterone.

Returning to America, Ziegler tried weak doses of testosterone on himself, on the American trainer Bob Hoffman and on two lifters, Jim Park and Yaz Kuzahara. All gained more weight and strength than any training programme would produce but there were side-effects. [29] Ziegler sought a drug without after-effects and hit on an anabolic steroid, methandrostenolone, (Dianabol, DBOL), made in the US in 1958 by Ciba.[30][31]

The results were impressive - so impressive that lifters began taking ever more. Steroids spread to other sports where bulk mattered. Paul Lowe, a former running back with the San Diego Chargers American football team, told a California legislative committee on drug abuse in 1970: "We had to take them [steroids] at lunchtime. He [an official] would put them on a little saucer and prescribed them for us to take them and if not he would suggest there might be a fine."

Olympic statistics show the weight of shot putters grew 14 per cent between 1956 and 1972, whereas steeplechasers grew 7.6 per cent. The gold medallist pentathlete Mary Peters said: "A medical research team in the United States attempted to set up extensive research into the effects of steroids on weightlifters and throwers, only to discover that there were so few who weren't taking them that they couldn't establish any worthwhile comparisons."[32]

Jay Silvester, of the physical education department of Brigham Young university in the USA, questioned fellow competitors at the 1984 Olympics. The range of steroid use he found ranged from 10 mg a day to 100 mg.

Responses to questionnaire
Question Yes No Other
Were you influenced by a professional athlete to take Performance enhancing drugs? 61% 39% 0%
Have you ever taken anabolic steroids? 68 32 0
Ethically, do you approve of anabolic steroids in athletics? 48 25 27
If a test could positively identify steroid users, would you favour banishment of the drug in sport? 48 35 17
Are you aware of any specific reason why athletes who have not attained full maturity should avoid anabolic steroid usage? 42 48 10
If you were a coach, would you commend anabolic steroid usage to (mature) athletes in your event? 45 35 20
Do you feel anabolic steroids have positively affected the performance of athletes in your event? 65 16 19
Do you feel that steroids have negatively affected the performance of athletes in your event? 6 61 33
Do you feel that steroids enable a person to gain strength faster than otherwise possible? 84 3 13
Do you believe that steroids enable a person to gain cardio-respiratory endurance more quickly than otherwise possible? 13 42 45
Do you believe that steroids enable a person to gain greater cardio-respiratory endurance than otherwise possible? 6 45 49
Have you ever gained localised muscular endurance faster when taking anabolic steroids? 48 42 10
Have you gained greater local muscular endurance faster when taking anabolic steroids? 32 22 46
Do steroids enhance mental attitude? Do you feel more in control of your life? Do you feel you will perform better in your event? 68 10 22
Has steroid usage appeared to contribute to injury problems? 26 32 42
Do Athletes who use Performance enhancing drugs lose popularity? 74 19 7
Do steroids increase body weight? 55 16 29
Are steroids difficult to obtain? 22 61 17
Several successful athletes and professional bodybuilders have admitted long-term methandrostenolone use before the drug was banned, including Arnold
Everyone knows steroids enhance performance. I have seen it more than a few times with people I know and the effect is dramatic,
I don't know what your point is with all that.  I am well aware of all of it except your personal story. 

We are all aware of steroid use in bodybuilding and what not.  I'm sure there are competitions where it could actually help. 

But the question is, does your lengthy post prove steroid use turns crappy hitters into good hitters and good hitters into great hitters? 

I think we all know the answer is...   *no*.

9/2/09
1
ML31 wrote:
I don't know what your point is with all that.  I am well aware of all of it except your personal story. 

We are all aware of steroid use in bodybuilding and what not.  I'm sure there are competitions where it could actually help. 

But the question is, does your lengthy post prove steroid use turns crappy hitters into good hitters and good hitters into great hitters? 

I think we all know the answer is...   *no*.
But it does help turn good hitters into better ones

9/3/09
0
jvuk1 wrote:
But it does help turn good hitters into better ones
There is no proof of that whatsoever.

9/3/09
0
Well I would agree, but we have seen stranger things in the recent years

9/3/09
0
(Edited by jvuk1)
ML31 wrote:
There is no proof of that whatsoever.
Deja vu that is exactly how we began this conversation many comments ago on a different thread,  we really are both very persistent. Sorry for any negative remarks I have made, that was ignorant of me.
The last thing I will say about this is I believe strength is an attribute that enhances hitting ability foot speed, jumping ability and many other abilities that are needed to play a sport.
Oh and one other thing (sorry again) belief and confidence are remarkable performance enhancers and the medical community does recognize that placebos can have effects on most people so at the very least steroids must have some sort of placebo performance enhancing effect

9/3/09
2
jvuk1 wrote:
Deja vu that is exactly how we began this conversation many comments ago on a different thread,  we really are both very persistent. Sorry for any negative remarks I have made, that was ignorant of me.
The last thing I will say about this is I believe strength is an attribute that enhances hitting ability foot speed, jumping ability and many other abilities that are needed to play a sport.
Oh and one other thing (sorry again) belief and confidence are remarkable performance enhancers and the medical community does recognize that placebos can have effects on most people so at the very least steroids must have some sort of placebo performance enhancing effect
I will give you the possibility of the the placebo effect.  Which is an idea I have thrown out in other threads, myself.  And of course strength is a part of hitting for power.  But there is more than just raw strength.  If it were just strength, you would see 'roided up bodybuilder types hitting 450 yard drives in the PGA.

I am also still open to the possibility that steroids do indeed help one hit for power.  It's just that there is not enough evidence out there to show it actually does just that and the medical and scientific community have yet to come to a consensus on the matter.  So until that changes, based on my observations and knowledge of the game, I have to conclude that it is very likely steroids do nothing to help players hit the ball farther or throw the ball harder or even run the bases faster.

 
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine.
Preview


BEST OF THE WEB
 
 more
SHOP
MLB GEAR
Reebok NFL Equipment New E..
$79.95
New Era New York Yankees N..
$33.95
adidas Los Angeles Lakers ..
$24.95
MLB TICKETS
Loading...
MEET OUR FANS
Over 6,000,000 fans and growing!
Elisha
Female, 18
HI FIVE
Caty
Female, 22
HI FIVE
 more

24/7 competition
12,798,192+
Games Played
ANSWER TODAY'S POLL
**UFC 110*Nogueria vs. Velasquez**Silva vs. Bisping**2/20/10
 more
PLAY NEVER-ENDING TRIVIA
The first ever WNBA game was played between which two teams?
Seattle v. Portland
Utah v. Houston
Detroit v. Chicago
New York v. LA
 more

TAKE A QUIZ
Wins Per Season---Atlanta Falcons
 more

PREDICT THE SCORE
Earn Points! Predict 
43
 games today
NFL
NBA
NHL
NCAABB
Soccer
 more

What's happening right now
2,555,658+
Fans
chhantyal_guy joined the Martial Arts league Fans of Uechi Ryu.
4 minutes ago
Diablorain answered the poll Alien Deathmatch.
4 minutes ago
mamat_mamay joined the Soccer league 2006 World Cup.
4 minutes ago
mamat_mamay joined the Soccer league Fans of Brazil (Soccer).
4 minutes ago
ashishkhandelwal89 joined the Cricket league Fans of India.
4 minutes ago
ashishkhandelwal89 joined the Cricket league CricketFans.
4 minutes ago
kudopa_amit82 joined the Cricket league Fans of India.
4 minutes ago
kudopa_amit82 joined the Cricket league CricketFans.
4 minutes ago
asheeshk joined the Cricket league Fans of India.
4 minutes ago
asheeshk joined the Cricket league CricketFans.
4 minutes ago
 

Join Today
About FanIQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Contact Us
Report A Bug
Help

Copyright 2010 Sportelligence, Inc. All Rights Reserved