Tracer Bullet

So are you saying that since you think other defenders aren't good, it doesn't matter if yet another defender isn't good? It's gonna take a minute to wrap my head around that one.

the problem with comparing Hendry to other GMs in the game is the bar is so low

Yes, very much so.

"sack up" - he's not man enough, that's why he's struggling? Boy is this kind of talk annoying.

That makes sense and he should play the percentages. But that doesn't really answer the Q of whether Blanco should be playing SS. Does a SS with better range get to that ball (whether due to better range or b/c they wouldn't be cheating to one side b/c they didn't have to)?

So far, he's not even close. Sample size. yeah - 40 innings at 3B. For the record - this is exactly what I wanted the Cubs to do. Put him at 3B and hope he hits a ton while not killing us defensively. But the point wasn't to do that so the Cubs would hold on to him. We've got nowhere to put him. Soriano and Lee aren't going anywhere. I don't think Hendry is looking to move Bradley (and Fox in RF would be a disaster). When ARam's back, he's not getting traded. So Fox has nowhere to play but corner utility player/PH. If Hendry can trade him to an AL team looking for a DH that can maybe play 1B/3B in a pinch and get something valuable back, it makes sense to do that soon. Even more so if ARam can be back in 2 weeks or less.

A run prevented is as valuable as a run scored, isn't it? By all accounts, his D is so bad that he's likely to cost more runs defensively than he produces offensively. There's no reason to trade ARam and it's going to be impossible to trade Lee or Soriano. If you can trade Fox and improve the team overall, why wouldn't you? I'm not saying it's necesssarily possible, I have no idea what's really available. But if he can tear up the league for a few weeks, I really hope Jim's fielding calls for him, rather than saying he's untouchable.

Guy can't field. When ARam comes back and all corner positions on the team are full, Fox is likely to be most valuable for what he can bring back. It's going to be tough to improve this team offensively, unless some great offensive 2B is out there waiting to be acquired for Jake Fox and a mid-level prospect. But I can always hope.

Exactly. Milton is no saint and his performance this year has been frustrating to say the least, but this seems like a load of crap. Dempster and especially Zambrano had what sound like much worse dugout tantrums. Hell, Marmol capped his disaster today by tossing [expletive] around the dugout. With Dempster, it was an isolated incident, however, I agree about Z. I think it might really be to try and light a fire under Milton. If so, Lou's a moron. Milton really strikes him as the kind of guy who needs to be motivated? He looks geeked up every time he steps on the field. At least until he trips over the chalk line and snaps his arm at the elbow.

Losing the game sucked, but I was down the LF line at Comerica on Thursday and it was awesome when half the crowd erupted in cheers when he ripped the HR in the first. Hopefully he boosts his stock enough so we can trade him for something really useful when ARam returns.

Makes perfect sense. This is exactly how Lou handled Z after he beat the crap out of the Gatorade machine, right? ummm...

those offspeed pitches (which I think are all some sort of change up) that were almost above the umpires head were a little ridiculous. I can't believe his mechanics are so bad that he's missing his spots by 4-6 feet. That's why I'm guessing something's hurt.

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly. Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal? The hypothetical I'd put out there to the people determined to railroad steroid users is whether or not they'd be OK with PED's down the line that work in effect like the banned substances do (increased power, less DL time, etc.) but are ultimately not as harmful as they are now, if at all, and are legal. Would those be OK or would those be tainting the game? Let's say the health risks have been lowered to the point that they're legal if a doctor approves their use. Not all athletes are able to or willing to use them, but they're out there. Should those be allowed? HGH is legal by prescription now, in some form. There was a guy in my grade school that was on it b/c he had mild dwarfism. If you have a valid prescription for HGH but are good enough to play MLB, then you should get an exception. I hate to fight the hypo, but it seems far fetched.

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly. Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal? Yes, I meant against baseball rules. and if it's the harmful argument...if sometime in the future, steroids become as safe as lasic surgery, should they then become legal in baseball? I know. I was trying to be cute. Those things are illegal (without a prescription) thus they are against baseball rules. Seems like a pretty easy distinction. As to whether they should be allowed if they become legal, I guess. Though I struggle to see a need for HGH in the world other than by prescription.

I'm guessing he's hurt, but I have no basis for that guess other than poor performance and history.

the transaction is that he retired.

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly. Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal?

I'm not asking you to. Feel free to get your panties in a bunch about today's players while romanticising the past, you're a movie guy so that sort of myth making is probably endearing to you. who's romanticizing?

no, I randomly quoted some words. what does it say? grassbass seems to agree with my interpretation of what you wrote, btw

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok. I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies. I'm struggling to see how that could be true. The evidence seems to suggest that, at a minimum, some PEDs were really effective at making really good players, really really great. Also - that seems to be your issue. You seem to have an issue with people thinking one kind of PED is worse than another kind of PED. Others don't seem bothered by such a belief. What don't you know? Abuck is wrongly accusing people of pretending they don't help. We agree they help. But so did stuff back then, and if they had the stuff they have now back then there is no question they would use it. It is completely naive to pretend the "anything to get ahead" mindset was more ethical back then than it is now. They just didn't have the access. You're saying PEDs aren't any more helpful than greenies and I think that's bats-it insane. abuck doesn't seem to be wrongly accusing anyone of anything. It's pretty clear he's saying PEDs helped Clemens and Bonds immensely. You seem to be suggesting that you disagree. Other than that, your knowledge of what players would have done in the 50s and 60s if these advancements were available is pretty astonishing to me. In addition to the fact that it's speculative, there's also evidence that some roids were available, and not nearly as large a % of players took them at the time (for I assume many reasons, but I really don't know).

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok. I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies. Who is saying that? This is just on the last page and one I remembered.

The only reason those earlier eras were "more open" about their drug use in the clubhouse was because they were exremely confident it would stay in the clubhouse and they would suffer no repercussions. The concept of "one of their own" ratting them out to the public was not considered, and the media would never consider touching those stories. Drug testing became a huge issue in sports in the 80's, probably starting with Olympic competition but continuing into high school and college sports and then pro football. Tell-alls were very common and guys could no longer be confident that their bending of the rules would remain quiet from the public. They were forced to be more secretive, but a hell of a lot more people were aware of what was going on than want to admit it now. Really? My recollection is the spiked coffee pots being clearly marked and open in the clubhouse ran right through the 80s and maybe even later than that. I might be mis-remembering.

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok. I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies. I'm struggling to see how that could be true. The evidence seems to suggest that, at a minimum, some PEDs were really effective at making really good players, really really great. Also - that seems to be your issue. You seem to have an issue with people thinking one kind of PED is worse than another kind of PED. Others don't seem bothered by such a belief.

Who is saying they didn't help? They still competed against other players who took the drugs. Sammy never would have hit 60 if he didn't start being more selective at the plate. All the roids and power in the world wouldn't have made him layoff the low outside slider. The elite players got more elite with some roids, but a whole hell of a lot of guys stayed mediocre with steroids. Stayed mediocre? I think a whole hell of a lot of guys went from not good enough to make it, to good enough to play/start in the majors because of PEDs. How effective they were is going to be difficult to determine, given how little we know about who was taking them, how rigid they were in taking them, and exactly what they were taking. [Have to wonder how much better Sammy's eye got when pitchers started throwing pitches even further off the plate b/c he'd gone from hitting 20 HRs to hitting 40 HRs. might be a bit of chicken/egg at play, though my memory is he did lay off pitches better eventually] BTW - I also wonder if taking PEDs would eventually have a negative impact on a pitcher. Seems like the ability to recover from throwing a lot of pitches really hard would be great until your body finally breaks and the strings holding your shoulder and elbow together snap. Your shoulder might not be as sore until you finally can't lift your arm above your head anymore.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. The fact that they kept their cheating a secret makes it worse? Drinking a cup of coffee clearly labeled as spiked with greenies isn't the same as having a personal trainer shoot drugs into your ass. Yes, when you're trying to decide which is worse, going to great lengths to hide what you're doing suggests strongly that you think what you're doing is wrong. The guys knew they were drinking coffee that was designed to make them more focused and it was handed out by team trainers, in coffee pots, known by literally everyone involved in the game and accepted as part of baseball by those in the game. As bad as the steroids era was, the culture wasn't quite like that. And even to the extent there was general knowledge of some of the roids being taken, the real good stuff was kept under pretty wraps pretty well. Add that culture to the extreme difference in the effectiveness of the drugs (at least imo) and I think one is much different than the other. I'm not saying all steroids era players should be kept out of the HOF. It's become such a joke to me anymore that I really don't care.