RealityChuck

Funny but uneven. I generally like Frank Oz, though.

It was solid entertainment, and fun to see the versions of the characters. Not the worst ST film, but not the best, either.

="Ceetar":2rws4j9d]if this becomes an issue, they'll probably have some crazy fix. Like have Church play SS and put Murphy in right.[/quote:2rws4j9d]A left-handed throwing shortstop is not an idea whose time has come. Ceetar May 18 2009 07:42 AM ="RealityChuck":2qolk1xx]="Ceetar":2qolk1xx]if this becomes an issue, they'll probably have some crazy fix. Like have Church play SS and put Murphy in right.[/quote:2qolk1xx]A left-handed throwing shortstop is not an idea whose time has come.[/quote:2qolk1xx] That won't stop them. Besides, if you asked Keith, i'm sure he'd tell you that a "Right-handed first baseman is not an idea whose time has come." ;-) Actually, is that why Murphy and Reed are the two guys Manuel decided to mention about playing 1B? And..I've always wondered this, but why does Delgado play 1B righty? or why does he bad Lefty? which is it?! Edgy DC May 18 2009 08:22 AM ="Ceetar":32kkfa9d]Actually, is that why Murphy and Reed are the two guys Manuel decided to mention about playing 1B?[/quote:32kkfa9d] Since Murphy hasn't played yet, and Reed is behind Tatis, I'll guess not. DocTee May 18 2009 08:49 AM Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position! Nymr83 May 18 2009 09:35 AM ="DocTee":1a1olmaw]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:1a1olmaw] 15 years, 45 lbs, and a dozen injections ago maybe. Gwreck May 18 2009 10:29 AM ="DocTee":2fu35ilo]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:2fu35ilo] Hey, by that token, the solution is to put Delgado (once healthy) back at Catcher and use Tatis at first. No need to put Schneider, Castro or Santos in the lineup. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 11:47 AM ="Gwreck":35na9z32]="DocTee":35na9z32]Play Sheff at Short. It's his original position![/quote:35na9z32] Hey, by that token, the solution is to put Delgado (once healthy) back at Catcher and use Tatis at first. No need to put Schneider, Castro or Santos in the lineup.[/quote:35na9z32] Marketing slogan: "Just like 1986... minus all that annoying pitching!" Benjamin Grimm May 18 2009 11:50 AM You know, we'd all like to see Bobby Valentine come back. (I'm included in that group.) But I think I'd almost rather see Davey Johnson come back. I think he'd be a good for this particular team. Not at all likely to happen, of course, but if I were in charge, I'd consider reaching out to him. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 11:58 AM ="soupcan":30mmzwu6]What did I miss? Why are we talking about replacement shortstops? Jose's injury more serious than first thought? I haven't read or seen that anywhere. Cora's finger broke or something? Edgy just worrying too much?[/quote:30mmzwu6] Cora already sprained his left thumb during the game Saturday sliding after a double... then did the same to his right thumb last night in the first on the EXACT SAME PLAY. Headfirst slides and dumbshit plays make the Creepy Sun Baby cry. Ashie62 May 18 2009 02:38 PM Can Murphy learn short if Reyes is going on hiatus? Are we getting the Jose on DL after 9 days routine Elster88 May 18 2009 10:48 PM Two errors and some awful turns at the plate for Ramon. Early returns indicate he is not a major league shortstop. smg58 May 19 2009 06:56 AM I hope Minaya has Jose Valentin's number on speed dial. Elster88 May 19 2009 10:00 PM How many at-bats until Ramon Martinez gets his first hit? I say 25 or being sent back down to AAA, whichever comes first. Edgy DC May 22 2009 08:08 PM OK, time to talk shortstops. Part of me thinks Putz was held out because he's being dangled as trade bait. Tejada at Bingo: .236 / .301 / .356 // .657 in 36 games. Coronado at Bingo: .316 / .409 / .474 // .883 in six games, but... Coronado at Buff: .141 / .240 / .165 // .404 in 29 games. Gun to my head, I go with Jose over Ruben, but... John Cougar Lunchbucket May 22 2009 08:14 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 22 2009 08:18 PM Nevermind, just unnecessarily breaking nuts. Rockin' Doc May 22 2009 08:16 PM I'd go with whoever was the best defensively. It's not like their losing offense compared to Martinez. Martinez is not hitting (.063) and he has already committed 4 errors in roughly 25 innings. Edgy DC May 22 2009 08:30 PM My nuts have been busted to the consistency of baby powder already today. Edgy DC May 24 2009 09:45 PM Alexi Casilla, a prospect in the Luis Castillo mold who failed to replaced Luis when Castillo went to the Mets. Still young, played as much short as second in the minors, and is getting big league money to play down there now. Shot in the dark.

Must be a slow news day. The article has now been added to the dictionary as an illustration for the word "preposterous."

Nymr83 wrote: what was wrong with the IGT? When was the last walk-off walk in a mets win?

ROY for Santos is dreaming, but he does show a lot to like. Most likely the team will let Castro walk next year (or try to trade him as a rental) and use Santos as backup catcher next year.

="Nymr83"]]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there?Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing.

="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. ]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Let's go over a few misconceptions: Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech. Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play. Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway. The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday. Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer. Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech. A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit).

IIRC, a suspension with cause means no pay. I doubt even Boras could change that.

The Wilpons do make a lot of PR errors, which can be disastrous in NYC, but which would only be a minor problem elsewhere. Besides, were they the ones who objected to Gooden's writing on the wall, or was it some other Mets official? It seems that whenever the Mets have a PR screw up, everyone blames the Wilpons, even though it might have been a lower level official who made it. In any case, the Wilpons made a lot of mistakes when they first took over, but since hiring Minyana, they've been far less a disaster. They seem to be slowly learning how to run the club, and have certainly been serious about putting a contender on the field. As for the occasional claim that they're not willing to spend money (like on Manny*), it's pure cognitive dissonance. Fans complain about the high salaries being paid to ballplayers, unless it's their team, in which case the team is made up of cheapskates. But you can't have both. *Yes, I read the news today. Oh, boy.

Santana 5 Delgado 2 Tatis 1 Rodriguez 1 Feliciano 1

This game of baseball is only one half skill. The other half is something else . . . something bigger!

="Edgy DC":1qfj9mu7]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:1qfj9mu7] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury. Rotblatt Apr 29 2009 10:10 AM ]Lifting a starter after six with 100 or so pitches and a five-run lead just fries my butt. Totally. He's been too quick to yank starting pitchers (up to and including Johann), and while, yes, our bullpen is better this year, if we overwork our relievers, it won't stay that way. I'm not a fan of the bunting either, but I feel like he's been better than Willie on that front, and leaving his decision to stick with Green last night aside, his bullpen management has been better as well. So I'm going to go with, he's an improvement, but he could be better. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:20 AM With the way this new park looks like it's going to play , a lot of doubles and triples , it would seem to suit smart aggressive play . I would like to see Beltran and Reyes play with more abandon . Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:21 AM ="RealityChuck":3pp7aa9r]="Edgy DC":3pp7aa9r]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:3pp7aa9r] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:3pp7aa9r] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 10:32 AM ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]="RealityChuck":27hreoq1]="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:27hreoq1] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:27hreoq1] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values.[/quote:27hreoq1] Last year, even when we had three catchers, both Willie and Manuel still seemed reluctant to use one. To me, It's a low-risk situation. Sure, it's possible your catcher gets hurt and you have to make someone else squat behind there. But to me, that's managing scared, managing not to lose. Try to win, and if that's using Castro off the bench, do it. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:38 AM We used to have Joe McEwing as the emergency catcher and IIRC Woodward more recently. Who on this team would serve in that role? Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:49 AM Santana, of course. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 10:52 AM I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 11:12 AM I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 11:55 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt. mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb..... metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch".... Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"]] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

Actually, for Wallace Matthews, this is one of his better columns. Faint praise, I know, but if this was the worst he could do, it would be a vast improvement.

The stupid move isn't quite a disaster: http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/mets/archives/2009/04/figueroa_comes.html Question: if he's cleared waivers now, and the team brings him up again, would he have to clear waivers if they send him down again?

I wonder if they made the same mistake judging the wind that they did when they planned Candlestick Park.

Santana 5 Santos 1.5 Rodriguez 1.5 Reyes 1 Putz 1

Why does the ESPN game log show the Padres with four outs in the 8th inning?

What makes this a "call out"? Johann is merely stating facts. He's not criticizing Murphy particularly. He's not saying he's a terrible fielder. Everyone knows that Murphy is still learning the position, and will be making mistakes. If anything Johann is being classy -- acknowledging the fact, but minimizing it. It's the press that wants to turn a pretty innocuous statement into bad blood -- since bad blood sells newspapers. The question was asked to see if any controversy could be raised. When Johann is noncommittal, they twist things to turn it into a story.

]Laura Axelrod . . . When she was 22 years old, she graduated from New York University�s Tisch School of the Arts with an MFA in Dramatic Writing. She also received her BFA in Dramatic Writing, and was awarded the John L. Golden Award for Playwright with Most Potential, and the Rod Marriott Senior Playwriting Award that same year. When she was 22? Wow. How many people get an MFA by 22? Probably in the low hundreds of thousands. And with all those awards, I'm sure she's had many plays produced. Many many. Many. Any? This wins some soft of award for straining for relevance.

Delgado 4 Schneider 2 Pelfrey 1 Rodriguez 1 Beltran 1

Santana 4 Murphy 2 Green 1 Putz 1 Hernandez 1 Church 1

Pointing out bad journalism from Wallace Matthews is like pointing out signs of steroid use by Bobby Bonds. Much too easy.

It's a reasonable gamble. He could add RH power, or he could just flop. But if the latter, the team can just cut him. (I think that will help ensure Sheffield works hard -- he could be fired at any time).

It's chump change to sign him. Doesn't work out? He gets released. It's a smart deal. It may not work out, but for the minimum, it's a cheap gamble for a significant upside.