goonys evil twin

Whether or not it does, has no ramifications for the baseball discussion. Baseball is nothing like war. You have to trust the man next to you with your life in war, not in baseball.

Damn, that is a classic Wish I had come with that one. I remember this one, and it is clearly the best option. Not that it is in any way related to the actual player (although I do enjoy envisioning Pierre as a crazed, tyrranical, murderous frenchman). I am an idiot. When I saw the "robes"pierre note I thought of Robeson.

Well, you are going to be very unhappy then. IF Dusty wants to stay, he will. It really will be up to him. That might be true, but it's really a dumb move by the organization if it is. Nobody should be allowed to stay just because they want to. Brett Favre gets that treatment in GB because he was a savior. Dusty has done nothing to earn such treatment in Chicago.

Coors, Citizens, US Cell and RFK were not listed as stadiums that were not given their due. They are stadiums that if you catch a glimpse of them on TV, you don't automatically know which park they are. Coors and CBP are the same thing. While both are talked about a lot, they aren't very distinguishing. RFK is a generic stadium, and US Cell is generic as well. When you catch a couple seconds of airtime of a game in Wrigley, Fenway, or Pac Bell, they stand out immediately. If you catch a yankee stadium game, it can be confused with US Cellular at first glance. I was saying that depending on what you mean by unnoticed, I would have different answers. Overlooked, as in doesn't get any attention, would have to be Kaufman. Although Comerica is not talked about much either. In the big market category, I'd say Dodger Stadium fits the bill. I never hear anybody talk about that place, other than the occasional discussion about pitcher's parks. I never hear people say they want to see a game there, and I never hear about it being either a great place, or bad place to catch a game. Prior to their recent success and renovation, Angel Stadium was the same way.

It's not for the players. It's for all the cities like Cincy where the fans only care on Opening Day and if it rains out they can play the next day and all those fans can still use their tickets for "Opening Day." I hate it too, but I would do the same thing if I was in their place. The off day after opening day doesn't bother me much. My problem is with the off day after the 2nd game. That's just dumb. I liked the Sports Guy's idea of having opening day for everybody be Sunday afternoon. You can have an opening night game on ESPN still. There's nothing going on between Final 4 Saturday and Championship Monday. More people could avoid conflicts with work to attend games. More people could catch the games on TV. You could also schedule the occasional 4 game series that first week, which would help deal with some of the odd quirks with the varied divisions.

Sure. Although I still don't see the problem with allowing people to make changes whenever they want. We don't all have the same internet usage patterns. And I don't have Bonds on my team. because while you may have irregular access on certain sunday/mondays, others may not have daily access to manager their teams. Which would make daily lineup changes unfair to them. Well I know for a fact I'll never have it on a Saturday or Sunday during the summer, and I won't complain if others use it then. Besides, it's much less fair to not allow people to make a change for 2 or more weeks in a row than it is for some people to be able to make a change everyday and others to have to wait a day. The point is you still have the right to make a change when you have access. With weekly change if you aren't at your computer during the arbitrarily assigned time limit, then it's tough luck. I don't do much fantasy stuff, but every league I've been in has allowed for changes whenever you want (outside of waiver pickups, trade deadlines and in-game moves). And the participants have had a wide range of how often they check. Some go on all day. Some go on once a day, some check it once or twice a week. But the point is you give people the choice to manage however they choose.

But why would a big league manager twice, not just once, preface a player in the lineup by saying "young"? I'm not trying to read into it, I'm just looking for an explanation I guess. I've never heard a manager do that before and I think it's kind of odd. One of our two chairmen routinely refers to people in our office as the "young Mr. Smith" or the "young Ms. Smith". The cynic in me believes it's pretty clear that Dusty was trying to emphasize that he has young players in his lineup, not that he was criticizing those guys for being young.

Yes, it's been pointed out a couple times. But CubsWin is trying to say it wouldn't have been a bad move had it not been an error.

Sure. Although I still don't see the problem with allowing people to make changes whenever they want. We don't all have the same internet usage patterns. And I don't have Bonds on my team.

People have been throwing stuff on the field since fans started attending games. I don't see how this situation changes anything in terms of it becoming endemic or not. If it starts happening more often, step up enforcement.

This is an arbitrary call. I would argue that throwing crap on the field after a bad call is much more about tradition than throwing back homerun balls.

That's a perfectly fine rule in general. And I agree, but it's not regularly enforced (homeruns balls thrown back, trash on the field after a bad call, little child who gets a foul ball and throws in in the field not knowing better, man in the front row jumping up and down after a big homer who accidentally drops his souvenir cup on the field). There are lots of exceptions. And I agree it should not be allowed. That doesn't mean it's not funny in this case. Cork was annoying, but funny. If it starts happening en masse and frequently, it's a problem, but I think it's perfectly fine to look at this incident and smile, even while saying "No throwing stuff on the field". If you're sitting next to me and pull that trick, and somebody rats on you. I'll be sure to say I was sitting right next to you and you didn't throw it. You can have a policy that says anybody who is caught throwing anything on the field will be thrown out, but fail to enforce in this situation without falling into a situation where anarchy reins.

If Daily gets 3 votes, weekly gets 4 votes, and option 3 gets 2 votes, what will be the decision? Depends on who offers the biggest bribe. :D I guess it would be weekly in that case. Well, this seems unfair. It's like splitting the vote of people who think weekly is unfair. It's the summer, there are a lot of Sundays/Mondays when I will be unable to access a computer to make a move. I would rank them daily, option 3, then weekly if there was a ranking. And I'm guessing those people who voted daily to start would do the same. Clearly weekly is the less desirable option if the majority is voting for some sort of daily opportunity to make changes.

But because they didn't have to add him, this is exactly why you wouldn't add him, and why adding him would be stupid. You don't make a move before you have to, unless you're getting some kind of discount for making the move early (like signing a pre arby player to a deal, etc). You don't set your 25 man roster on March 1st, and you don't add a guy to the 40 man until there is a drawback to waiting.

If Daily gets 3 votes, weekly gets 4 votes, and option 3 gets 2 votes, what will be the decision?

That's a pretty arbitrary decision. Their injury riddled 3B will be injured again, ours will be just fine.

You draw the line where it makes sense. I'm not worried about burning through relievers in short stints. I just don't see the point in extending Eyre unnecessarily. Oh give me a freaking break. When I first brought this up yesterday I said, I know it sounds nitpicky. I've added that nitpicky footnote in several of my posts in regard to this situation. Don't freaking tell me I'm talking about it retroactively. That's BS. There was absolutely no justification. There still is no justification. It's not the worst sin Dusty will commit, nor would he be the only manager to do it. But it's still a stupid and pointless decision. Oh, the ever popular fallback. Dusty himself uses this one a lot, usually when he burned through a guy unnecessarily a day before. Williams has been slotted as the long man for over a week now. If he wasn't ready to go yesterday, then he shouldn't have been on the roster. Why is his track record not applicable? Who cares about the spirit of opening day. How about the spirit of not making the same mistakes you've made in the past? This is similar to all the "well it's still early, let's not worry" talk from the past couple years when the team looked sloppy, ill--prepared and uninspired. They talked all spring about being focused and sharp right from the start. Foolish managerial decisions are not justified because of the pomp and circumstance of opening day.

Well, seemingly you wouldn't be the only one able to do that, so the market should balance that out. But with negative points for bad things, there's not really a benefit from constantly starting reserve pitchers, who presumably won't be that good. And couldn't you put a reasonable limit on total innings pitched from your team by the end of the season?

So Hendry didn't have enough of a back-up plan last season when unforeseen injuries/failures happened to his bullpen and he got criticized for it. Now he goes out of his way to have what looks like a guy who can be effective against lefties at the major league level placed on the 40-man roster just in case one of the lefties in the pen goes down or fails to perform well and he is paranoid. Interesting... But it's all probably an internet mistake anyway. If this were true, the point was there was no need to place him on the 40 man roster. If a need arose down the line, they could put him on then.

The size of the lead is what led me to lodge my complaint in the first place. It's not just about strategy in this game. If he leaves Zambrano in to throw 150 pitches in a game they win 15-3, the result doesn't negate the stupidity of the move.

I'm really confused now, can't tell who is quoting whom.

Yes, this is true, but so do mediocre front office and coaching talents. And I don't see the point in aggressively pursuing either group. Why not wait to see if the work brings about results? You don't have to sign Greg Maddux today, why Hendry? I don't see the point in getting locked-in to an extension with a guy (and then probably two guys) who hasn't done anything to make people think this team is better off than they would be with anybody else at the helm. What is the point of pretending he had to earn an extension in the offseason, then signing him to an extension a week into the season? If he earned that extension on the offseason, the deal could have been done long ago. If you wanted to wait and see how things turn out, then you better wait until July at the earliest.

Agreed. Anyone have any ideas as to why they waited until now? To give the impression that Andy sat back and studied the offseason moves, and came to the conclusion that Jim did a really good job?

combined with the comments about the Texas league, it seems you were talking about a lateral move. I thought you were the one who brought up the Texas league, and AA in general. I don't think he brought up anything about lateral moves. But when I first read it, I assumed he was talking about an A's team in the Southern League.

Lots of GMs like throwing other people's money around.