Vic Sage

]his record of coming up big in clutch situations should be factored in. if its true, its quantifiable. If its not, its just a misperception built on a limited sample and shouldn't be considered

its not stupid at all, from a business perspective. As the article points out, an additional 5,000-10,000 seats would cost more to build but generate the least revenue. Also, the perception of "scarcity" allows them to charge more, and encourages people to buy in advance, which both consitute additional profit to the team. so why is it "stupid"? Because you don't like it? Well, i don't like it either. But lets be clear... it's anything but stupid. It's just the typical exploitation of the working class by the owners of capital, and it makes perfect sense, in an amoral economy.

Since "those who do not belong" is a matter of opinion, it seems a rather arbitrary standard to impose after the fact, with the rather draconian result of metaphorically stripping a player of his epaulets. Tiers are a gentler way of imposing objectivity on the HOF, thus making it a more useful tool for future generations to assess the history of the game. As to your proposed voting breakdown, I don't think allocating 60% of the vote to sportswriters, radio heads and broadcasters is going to solve very much. I would suggest something more like: 20% - prominent statiticians, academics, historians (published within last 5 years, or holding a related position for 5+years) 20% - Newspaper/Internet professional sportswriters (5+years experience) 20% - Radio / tv commentators & broadcasters (5+ years) 20% - former managers, umps and executives (5+ years in the majors) 20% - current hall of famers 0% fans - are you kidding?

i had a series of epidural steroid injections, to deal with a ruptured disc. And I'm not sorry!! CF, be glad they weren't suppositories.

as i said, if you take the vote away from the "hacks" (regardless of race), you get a more sophisticated level of voter who will see that as a stupid reason to vote in less qualified candidates. the tiering is more a way to deal with mistakes of the past, rather than an excuse to continue making mistakes. But such a system is still rife with abuse, as you've noted, unless and until the vote is taken away from sportswriters of every color.

i've often advocated for the dis-enfranchisement of the BBSWA as the voting authority on the HOF and the institution of a blue ribbon panel (which could include some BBSWA members) to do the annual voting, for both current eligible nominees and expired veterans, as well as for executives, umps, etc. i like the idea of tiers, too. The HOF actually could do that in an informal way tomorrow. All they'd have to do is decide to display the HOF plaques in a different way, implying "tiers" of importance without stating it as such. You could have the "inner circle" of all-time greats, with a surrounding circle of valid HOFers, and a third outer ring of the borderline cases. I'm against any kind of expulsion mechanism, but reconsideration of a player's career further down the line, and then reclassifying what tier they might have more appropriately been assigned to seems like a reasonable course. But first lets get the voting away from the hacks. Nothing else good can happen until the HOF takes that first step.

he should've gone with the Pettitte defense: "i did it to come back from injury faster, to help my team!" that excuse seems very popular.

oh, i get what it was trying to do. And i'm sure if i had stuck with it, it would've paid off to some degree. but unlike FAST TIMES, i just found the characters in SUPERBAD (while truthful in alot of ways) just so repellant, i didn't want to spend another conscious moment with them. You have shown a higher tolerance for such characters over the years, so this probably wasn't a big deal to you. But i could not tolerate the company of that fat, brillo-haired, mono-maniacal walking dildo for another second

i guess i'm getting old. I got about 1/2 way thru and had to turn it off. I liked KNOCKED UP alot more. maybe i was just too tired.

Paul Lo-Juicer, says Mitchell report.

These are all the names i could glean from the report: Other than those who�ve publicly failed drug tests (Palmiero, etc), the following players are named in the Mitchell report: [u:d38faca5fa]BALCO[/u:d38faca5fa] Marvin Benard Barry Bonds Bobby Estalella Jason Giambi Jeremy Giambi Armando Rios Benito Santiago Gary Sheffield Randy Velarde [u:d38faca5fa]RADOMSKI:[/u:d38faca5fa] Lenny Dykstra David Segui Larry Bigbie Brian Roberts Jack Cust Tim Laker Josias Manzanillo Todd Hundley Chris Donnels Mark Carreon Hal Morris Matt Franco Rondell White Roger Clemens Andy Pettitte Chuck Knoblauch. Jason Grimsley Gregg Zaun David Justice F.P. Santangelo Glenallen Hill Mo Vaughn Denny Neagle Ron Villone Ryan Franklin Todd Williams Phil Hiatt Todd Pratt Kevin Young Mike Lansing Cody McKay Kent Mercker Adam Piatt Miguel Tejada Jason Christiansen Mike Stanton Stephen Randolph Jerry Hairston, Jr. Paul Lo Duca Adam Riggs Bart Miadich Fernando Vina Kevin Brown Eric Gagn� Mike Bell Matt Herges Gary Bennett, Jr. Jim Parque Brendan Donnelly Chad Allen Jeff Williams Howie Clark Nook Logan [u:d38faca5fa]OTHER SOURCES[/u:d38faca5fa] Mike Judd Ricky Stone Daniel Naulty [u:d38faca5fa]INTERNET SALES[/u:d38faca5fa] Rick Ankiel Paul Byrd Jay Gibbons Troy Glaus Jose Guillen Gary Matthews, Jr Scott Schoeneweis David Bell Jose Canseco Darren Holmes John Rocker Ismael Valdez Matt Williams Steve Woodard.

*avi*

[edit - i just found out the list i posted was speculative] sorry

weren't Brett Harper and Ambiorix Concepcion touted prospects at one point?

metirish wrote: Yeah but we will have the better defensive player in Church. what's the SC meter on that?

interesting article: "Economic principles guide free-agent contracts" http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Am6DBwI.EwThR3I_JYFaGPWpu7YF?slug=yp-gennarofreeagency121007&prov=yhoo&type=lgns Vince Gennaro is a consultant to several Major League Baseball teams and the author of "Diamond Dollars: The Economics of Winning in Baseball," an innovative look at the business of baseball... Gennaro teaches a graduate course on the business of baseball in the Sports Business Management program at Manhattanville College.

But Boswell also says... ]... especially because Cristian Guzman (.328) should be healthy and Nick Johnson told the Nats yesterday that he expects to be 100 percent healthy by spring training... ... without even a soupcon of irony. So i don't think you should put too much stock in his reportage.

]Is there anything Oprah doesn't have her fingers in? Stedman's vagina?

less funny than i'd hoped. Personally, i preferred Ricky Bobby. There are a few very funny scenes, but mostly not so much.

That's one hell of a "teaser". Did you just exploit his "first serial rights" without his knowledge or permission?

3 gibbons and a macaque.

Upon closer inspection of the numbers, i note that I-Rod's OPS+ dropped off 3 years ago (2005 = 94, 2006 = 97, 2007 = 85), so its not like he's just had a bad year. And think of this -- 9 BB / 96 K last year!!! And however much better he is than Schneider on defense (and its arguable that he isn't much better, or even as good), its certainly not worth the players and extra $9m/year he'll cost. As for Willis, he's had 1 great year, 1 good year, 2 mediocre years and 1 bad year. So "stud" is not an apt description. Over the last few years, his BBs have gone up and his Ks have gone down. And while he's still quite young, its interesting to note that the most comparable player to him at his age was Atlanta flameout Steve Avery. So, while he still can re-establish himself, he could also go the way of the dodo, and, again, giving up the players & $$ it'll take to get these 2 guys is HIGHLY risky. Which is why Omar might just do it.

yes, but he still suxx less than Schneider.

The Tigers pitching staff is deep enough not to need Willis, and I-Rod is in serious decline. That, together with the Mets agreeing to take those huge financial commitments off Detroit's books, give Mets some bargaining position here, and therefore the package of talent we offer should reflect that. I would try and keep Heilman and Pelfrey out of the deal: Schneider + Gomez + Humber or Mulvey + Guerra (or similar A ball prospect) If they insist on Pelfrey + Heilman, then they get Schneider, but no Gomez Otherwise, emptying the top tier of the farm system for 2 guys with significant question marks is a risky acquisition

He might be insurance in the pen if they move Heilman.