Vic Sage

Frayed Knot wrote: * 4 4-team divisions: HATE IT!!!! Not only are there too few in-division games and other stuff already mentioned, but with no Wild card there'd be almost no pennant races left. Look at the current NFL; with still almost 1/3 of their season to go most of the divisions are already in the bag and the "extra" teams are the only races left. Think about having that scenario for 50 or so games. Making the divisions so small reduces the odds of ever having 2 good teams in any one division and the lopsided in/out of division ratio makes it likely that you'll eventually have a sub-.500 winner. I also ain't wild about expanding at this point, particularly if its only purpose is to make some kind of pretty-looking realignment plan. 1) too few in-division games? -- so what? What is so great about beating up on (or getting beaten up by) the same team 18 times? I'd rather see all the other teams come in every year, with an extra series against the Yanks. My scenario still has each team playing its intra-division rivals 12 times, at least twice as much as any other team. 2) fewer pennant races wIthout the "wild card"? -- baseball survived for over 100 years without a WC. Not that i'm necessarily opposed to having one, but i don't see pennant races effected radically by their absence. With 4 teams in each division, teams are more likely to be in a race than they were in the old 8 team leagues. And intra-division games can be scheduled at the beginning and end of seasons, to allow for potential division race matchups. 3) Increases likelihood of a sub .500 winner? -- as i recall, this year's WS champion was one game over .500. Maybe if they had to play strong AL teams during the year (maybe if EVERY TEAM had to play every other team in baseball during the course of the year), they wouldn't even have made it to the post-season. And increasing the 5-game WC series to a 7-game series further lessens the chance of a bad team making it. 4) no to expansion? -- its purpose isn't to make allignment "prettier". Its to give both leagues the same rules and the same number of teams, and a presence in equivalent markets. Arranging divisions based on region and time zone also makes travel and broadcasting more sensible and efficient. There are a number of additional markets that can support baseball, and the additional income could subsidize alot of the other aspects of my proposals.

in a 4 team division, too many games in the division rewards a mediocre team in a weak division. having alot of games against every other team in baseball ensures that division winners will not just be the best of a bad bunch, but the best overall teams. It balances out the year to year vagueries of divisional weaknesses and increases the likelihood of the best teams in baseball advancing (and getting homefield advantage). furthermore, it gives fans an opportunity to see every team in baseball every year, nationalizing the game and, ultimately, internationalizing it. Declining TV ratings, and the move of younger fans to other sports, requires immediate action to save the sport from obselescence.

1) Expand and realign into 4 4-team regional divisions in each league: [u:95ee506566] AL East [/u:95ee506566] Boston Red Sox New York Yankees Baltimore Orioles Tampa Bay Devil Rays [u:95ee506566]AL North [/u:95ee506566] Toronto Blue Jays (realign) Cleveland Indians Detroit Tigers Milwaukee Brewers (moves from NL) [u:95ee506566]AL Midwest [/u:95ee506566] Minnesota Twins Chicago White Sox Kansas City Royals Texas Rangers [u:95ee506566]AL West [/u:95ee506566] Seattle Mariners Oakland Athletics Los Angeles Angels - Las Vegas (expansion) [u:95ee506566]NL East [/u:95ee506566] New York Mets Philadelphia Phillies Pittsburgh Pirates (realign) Washington Nationals [u:95ee506566]NL Southeast [/u:95ee506566] Cincinnati Reds (realign) Atlanta Braves (realign) Florida Marlins (realign) -Puerto Rico (expansion) [u:95ee506566]NL Central [/u:95ee506566] Chicago Cubs St. Louis Cardinals Houston Astros Colorado Rockies (realign) [u:95ee506566]NL West [/u:95ee506566] Arizona Diamondbacks Los Angeles Dodgers San Diego Padres San Francisco Giants 2) Schedule: -12 games against 3 division teams = 36 -6 games against 12 league teams = 72 -3 games against 16 other league teams = 48 (home teams alternate each year) -4 additional games (a double-header in each stadium) against city/regional rival Total = 160 games - with 2 rounds of 7-game divisional playoffs; 1 round of WS (home field goes to team with best record); - WS winner plays winner of Japan/Europe/South-Central American championship series 3) other rule changes: - eliminate DH - expand roster to 26 (can expand to 40 UNTIL June 1st; 26 thereafter thru end of season) - municipal funding for ballparks ONLY if municipality owns a majority interest in the team; - eliminate draft, arbitration and anti-trust exemption - 50% revenue sharing with visiting team; and 50% revenue sharing between players/owners (with a % off the top going to a fund for retired players in need); - requirement of at least 10% of each team's games sold to broadcast tv; - 7pm weeknite starts, 1pm on weekends (including post-season) - kids tix (3-12) 1/2 price for all games - Post-season awards: Ruth = best offensive player Cy Young = best starting pitcher Hoyt Wilhelm = best reliever Ty Cobb = best baserunner gg = best fielder at each position / ss = best hitter at each position + Robinson/Clemente citizenship award; and post-season MVP - with every award voted by a rotating panel of writers, scholars, statisticians, gms, managers, HOFers

The "1st ballot" thing is an effort by some voters to turn the binary nature of HOF membership (in/out) into something a bit more nuanced. "He's a HOFer, but he's not a 1st BALLOT kind of HOFer" seems to me a reasonable (if pointless) distinction. Ripken and Gwynn? 1st ballot guys. Gossage? Yes, i think he's a HOFer, just not a 1st ballot guy. A 2nd tier HOFer, if you will. Of course, there isn't actually a 2nd tier in the HOF, so the distinction only exists in the voters' minds and in the baseball public's consciousness (for about a week).

]I'm surprised you would take that position. Especially knowing how different agendas can affect the rumors and innuendos that may be prevalent. But different strokes, I guess. I do realize it is a bit counterintuitive to promote a "Just the Facts" approach to a process that is so subjective to begin with. I'm just saying I want my subjective opinions reached as objectively as possible. I'm not advocating that voters act in such a manner, simply recognizing that they not only DO so, but they're entitled to do so. Like Democracy in general, you hope the special interests, the hidden agendas, the stupidity and bad ideas sort of cancel each other out, and a sensible consensus emerges in the middle. Of course it doesn't always work out that way, but with 15+ years to get it right, i'm more hopeful that the HOF voters can stumble upon the proper course than we seem to have done as a society as a whole.

St.L thus reconstitutes the Angels' pepperpot Keystone Kombo of Eckstein/Kennedy. Not exactly Tinker to Evers, but not bad.

CF, you've approaching this issue from a formalistic legal perspective, and to that extent, i agree with you. If we were talking about governmental action (or even private action) that was denying basic civil liberties and due process to individuals, i would wholeheartedly support your position. But that's not what we're talking about. Membership in the HOF is a privilege, not a right. More than that, it's a privilege awarded to the privileged. The voting body for the HOF is obligated to take in a whole range of factors, not just career numbers. They have absolute discretion to consider and weigh those factors in whatever way they, in good faith, may determine. If a HOF voter wants to use unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo and circumstantial evidence to reach conclusions about a prospective candidate, he/she has every right to do so. If those conclusions are so biased, or otherwise unreasonable, they'll inevitably be diluted by more rational voters over time. 15 years is a pretty good amount of time during which rightous flames of indignation can die down, plus the veteran's committee provides a further safety net (in theory). There have been voters who withheld their votes for the stupidest of reasons. There is no reason why this shouldn't be among them. That Wallace Matthews is the leading exponent of exercising impotent outrage is not a surprise, nor does the appropriateness of the messenger for the message go totally unappreciated. But in this case, a voter could come to reasonable conclusion about McGwire, inasmuch as he already admitted to using the Andro that sat noticably in his locker during the 98 season, putting aside his non-responsiveness to congress. What a voter chooses to do about that conclusion is, appropriately, up to him/her. Personally, i think there's been a good deal of scapegoating over the whole steroids issue, and Selig's whole Captain Renault-style feigned outrage ("Rick, I am outraged to learn of gambling going on in this establishment!" "Here are your winnings, monsieur...") is of the most self-serving, hypocritical sort. Still, i'm okay with Big Mac being forced to endure his retirement in wealthy obscurity. If someday more is learned, and there is a reexamination of the issue (and who, if anyone, is really blameworthy, and of what), perhaps the tide will turn and he'll be invited back into baseball's good graces. and if not, fuck him.

[u:3e90f92855]My ballot: [/u:3e90f92855] Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Gossage [u:3e90f92855]on the fence: [/u:3e90f92855] Bert Blyleven, Jim Rice [u:3e90f92855]Close, but no cigar (for various reasons):[/u:3e90f92855]Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, Mark McGwire, Dale Murphy, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris

I could understand it going to Ortiz, Ramirez, Hafner or even Dye, if they were going on pure offensive production. And i could understand it going to mauer or Jeter, if one were to factor in defense, winning and "intangibles". But Morneau, while he had a terrific 2nd half, did not have the offensive numbers of the 1st group. His numbers were actually comparable to Jeter and Mauer, and so you'd have to go with an up-the-middle position player over a 1st baseman, if the numbers are the least bit comparable. I think its ok for writers to vote for awards... just not STUPID writers.

Are you free associating?

[u:c5f181622c]1st Ballot HOF:[/u:c5f181622c] � Cal Ripken (1) � Tony Gwynn (1) [u:c5f181622c]its about time:[/u:c5f181622c] � Rich Gossage (8) � Bert Blyleven (10) � Jim Rice (13) [u:c5f181622c]on the fence:[/u:c5f181622c] � Dave Parker (11) � Andre Dawson (6) � Mark McGwire (1) � Dale Murphy (9) � Alan Trammell (6) [u:c5f181622c]probably not:[/u:c5f181622c] � Steve Garvey (15) � Jack Morris (8) � Albert Belle (2) (Had a high peak, but lacked longevity. no defense and no intangibles on his side, either.) � Lee Smith (5) [u:c5f181622c]No, but keep them on the ballot:[/u:c5f181622c] - Harold Baines (1) � Jose Canseco (1) � Dave Concepcion (14) � Orel Hershiser (2)* � Tommy John (13) � Don Mattingly (7) [u:c5f181622c]one and done:[/u:c5f181622c] � Dante Bichette (1) � Bobby Bonilla (1)* � Scott Brosius (1) � Jay Buhner (1) � Ken Caminiti (1) � Eric Davis (1) � Tony Fernandez (1)* � Wally Joyner (1) � Paul O'Neill (1) � Bret Saberhagen (1)* � Devon White (1) � Bobby Witt (1)

i can't believe nobody has yet mentioned the all-time mediocrity for whom this forum is named... ladies and gentlemen, ED KRANEPOOL! ...or "Cesspool" as he was more commonly known in my house. Only a franchise like the Mets could've kept this guy around for as long as we did. A good-field, no-hit 1bman, he became a good PHer late in his career and established many Met offensive records, simply thru longevity.

the pic of the 2 of them in the hallway, holding bats, reminds me of the Baseball Furies from THE WARRIORS. Warrrrrrriors... come out to Play-yayyyyy! Warrrrrrriors... you are so gay-yayyyyy!

3 yrs at $6M+ per for a former closer / now set-up guy? This is not a good marketplace for Omar to try and fill holes. He's better off trading for guys.

either milledge or johnson will get farmed out. frankly, i'm hopint its milledge, because i'd like to see him tear up AAA and come back up when ALou (inevitably) goes down, rather than just have him sit on the Mets bench.

no, but i'm hoping they do, because I'd rather have another LH bat on the bench other than Chavez, who'll be used alot for defense and as a spot starter, than a 12th pitcher, like Standridge or Adkins, who'll hardly ever pitch meaningful innings. speaking of which, i'm hoping we can do better than Gotay in that slot. Its important to have a bat on the bench for late inning duty against good RHed setup guys and closers.

i just saw it on late night cable (uncut, no commercials). Maybe i was punchy, but i laughed alot. The cast is great, the characters unique, the situation ripe with real anger. When they destroy that machine, there is a palpable rage being vented. The movie feels like a postively Marxist response to the depersonalization of work in the industrial (and post-industrial) age. When Ron Livingston starts to literally dismantle his cubicle, tells the "efficiency experts" the truth, asks the waitress out, comes up with a scheme, and ultimately chooses to accept non-satisfying work that at least doesn't choke his soul (working with his friend, outdoors, with his hands), and to instead seek his satisfaction in his personal life, the story has lead us to an absolutely empowering and redemptive conclusion. It rejects all the basic assumptions of the modern world about our relationship to our work. The hypnosis bit is just the wacky mechanism by which he reaches his epiphany. It didn't bother me as a device because of how absurd it was. The notion that we can only really see the circumscribed world we live in and react to it appropriately, without fear or assumptions or continued inertia, is to be literally out of our heads is funny, sad and almost profound. I totally get why this has become a must-watch cult-comedy and i expect it will continue to touch a nerve in subsequent generations of 20-somethings blindsided by the awfulness of working in corporate america.

As it stands now: [u:57cb371421]lineup (8)[/u:57cb371421] 1) Reyes (ss) ** 2) Beltran (cf) ** 3) wright (3b) 4) Delgado (1b) * 5) Alou (lf) 6) Green (rf) * 7) Loduca © 8) Valentin (2b) ** [u:57cb371421]Bench (6)[/u:57cb371421] 1) Castro © 2) Franco (1b/3b) 3) Easley (IF) 4) Chavez (Of) * 5) Johnson (Of) 6) Gotay (Ut) ** [u:57cb371421]Rotation (5)[/u:57cb371421] 1) [Glavine * or Zito * - FA] 2) Maine 3) Hernandez 4) O.Perez * 5) Pelfrey / Humber / Bannister -DL: Martinez [u:57cb371421]Bullpen (6)[/u:57cb371421] 1) Wagner (Cl) * 2) Sanchez (s-up) 3) Heilman (s-up) 4) Feliciano (Loogy) * [FA?} 5) Adkins / Padilla / Standridge (Roogy) 6) Vargas (SP/long) * * = Lefty hitter / pitcher ** = switch-hitter

stop the insanity!

Can Abreu play LF? Is McGinley going to get a legitimate look next Spring?

getting Wells is a pipedream. why would toronto trade a 28-year old gold glove CFer, who was one of the top offensive players in his league last season (and in 2003 as well). Its not like they're unwilling to spend the money to keep him. He's the kind of guy you build around (same for Willis). You can only get guys of this age, and of this calibre if either the team feels they won't be able to re-sign him, or there is some kind of personal issue, or if the organization is stupid, or if the acquiring organization overpays for him. do you really think Milledge and Heilman for Wells is a deal any reasonably sane Toronto GM makes, assuming they feel they can re-sign him and there are no skeletons in his closet? (ditto Willis) Put it another way... what would the Mets demand for David Wright?

its about expectations. everybody picked the Mets to challenge for the division this year, and they were amongst the favorites to win the NL pennant. They actually fell one game short of most expectations, despite their huge payroll. Whereas the Marlins were expected to lose 100 games, relying heavily on many unheralded rookies, with the lowest payroll in baseball. That they played around .500 ball and were actually in the race for the WC fairly deep into the season set Girardi up to win the award. His getting fired after just 1 season actually added to his aura as a tough maverick. That being said, and my initial dislike for Willie's hiring (i was stumping for Leyland) and his game management style aside, Willie's team had a +6 above the W-L projection based on pythagorean projections, while Girardi was -2. Meaning Willie got a good team to win 6 more games than an analysis of their runs scored and runs allowed indicate, and Girardi lost 2 more games than his team should have, given their runs and runs allowed. Not that that's the only basis for picking a MOY, or even a good basis, but i don't think payroll or pre-season expectations by the media (which can simply be wrong) is any kind of basis at all.

Now that 2b is settled (more or less), we can turn our attention to LF. 1) Soriano - best available, but 6 yrs/$90+m is just too much for a guy in his 30s, with absolutely no control of the strikezone and no defensive position, and not a great rep in the clubhouse. 2) Carlos Lee - long term megabux deal for a DH in waiting? 3) Moises Alou - he can still hit, but brittle and old. 4) Milledge - not ready for prime time? 5) a RHed FA from amongst the following: -Phil Nevin -Shannon Stewart -Jay Payton -Mark De Rosa -Preston Wilson -Pedro Feliz -Jose Guillen [on edit: - Craig Wilson (for some reason i thought he was a LH hitter)] YIKES! It's beginning to look like it will be Milledge's job to lose.

i really hate this kind of stuff. It doesn't make me laugh, it makes me cringe... and a little nauseous.

Aurilia is a signficant upgrade over Woodward, and good insurance against Valentin's inability to repeat last year's performance, or at least a good platoon partner. His contract, together with Valentin's, would still be less than a mid-level type salary. Plus Rich is a NYer. Sign Aurilia NOW!