Clem Fandango

Curious question... I've been kicking around the idea of turning the league me and my friends do into a dynasty league. Is there any online leagues that allow this capability? As far as sleepers go... well... I don't know how much of a sleeper he'll be after his playoff performances, but David Price might be able to be had in the middle rounds I would assume considering he was reliever in his call up and people who don't know much about him or don't pay attention to small market teams might think that's all he is EDIT: Oh yeah... Joey Votto. That's another one of my sleepers. His overall numbers will, probably make him a mid to late round pick since 1B is a deep position, but he finished the year incredibly strong and if he continues that into next year he could put up huge numbers. Jay Bruce as well. Bruce really sucked most of the year but that last 2 months or so his power woke up in a big way. He put up 14HR in August and September. If he could put up 6 or 7 home runs each month over the course of a season like he did in August and September, and hitting in CIN he probably could, then he could have a 35+HR season easily. Too bad he can't take a walk for crap

Ludwick obviously won't hit like he did in St. Louis again. Ludwick benefitted from hitting around Albert Pujols. I remember looking up a while back that in the two weeks Pujols was injured, Ludwicks batting average dropped about 20-25 points and was slumping bad, and when Pujols came back he picked it right back up and stayed consistent with where it had fallen to. I think Ludwick is a good candidate to hit another 30HR potentially. He's always had a lot of power. But I think his numbers are going to come out looking something like Troy Glaus' averages. Low AVG, decent OBP, acceptable SLG. An OPS+ anywhere between 115 and 125. Acceptable, above average, but not stupendous like he was this past season. I think not having Pujols around him is going to be the cause of that. Atlanta is expecting him to be their Pujols, their big fearsome slugger to replace Mark Teixeira, but he's not ever going to be anything like that. If Chipper could stay healthy and they still had Teixeira he might be able to put up similar numbers, but those days will be over if he moves to a team without that type of Pujols-ian slugger.

I seem to recall reading or hearing something about the Cubs offering Blanco a job as their minor league catching coach? Was this someone's suggestion or was this actually in the papers a while back? Or am I just imagining things again?

I can't imagine someone holding all the records Rickey Henderson has could miss the first ballot. That said, I'm sure there will be writers who don't vote for him because he played in the steroid era/if Babe Ruth wasn't unanimous no one should be/he talked in the third person. I doubt more than 25% of the writers will use that reasoning though. He played for a quarter of a century, and his prime was not in the steroid era. Not to mention his numbers began to decline when this began to pop up more. I don't think this is even a thought for anyone with a vote. Do we even really know for sure when the steroid era was? No but I base it on when the stats began to really be impacted. Even if steroids were used in the late 80's I don't think we saw the same impact we had in the mid-late 90's. 98-02 specifically. So many nobodies and platoon players were hitting 30 or 40 bombs a year during that time

ESPN does

That was posted on here a page or two back, except instead of Marquis having to be traded it was the sale of the Cubs needing to be taken care of as the hold up

What a douche. If they get A-Rod, we get to take Aramis away form the Dominican team

But the question is would he have won 355 games if he remained a Cub?

Ooooohhhhh, you just committed one of the cardinal sins around here. If others belittle your statement about the lead off hitter, don't let it get you down, roll with the punches, and keep on keeping on or what have you. But seriously, discussing the importance of "a real lead off hitter" around here will not win you many brownie points, so just giving you a heads up in case you get ridiculed for bringing up the subject and are confused as to why, since you're new here.

Didn't Canseco say a crap load of players juiced in the late 80's/early 90's when there wasn't any testing being done and it wasn't in the rulebook? (was it in the rulebook then? I don't remember)

Don't forget about Kevin Hart, he's the secret weapon (to failure)

So it's all just a big, flukey coincidence that he's pitched so above-averagishly on the road and awesomely at home. roy halladay's road ERA is 0.05 better than peavy's marcum, this stud who is comparable to zambrano, peavy and harden? 4.11 litsch? 4.00 They pitch in the AL East, so a 4.11 road ERA there is like having a 0.67 road ERA in the NL, because the NL is a cake walk of a league

Unlike most of our players, I actually hope this one came with a full no trade clause. [/corny baseball contract joke] This is good news

I read this last night when searching around for specific stats and information as well. I dismiss this for several reasons other than it's some guy giving his opinion on his fantasy blog This is a dumb dumb argument. Want to talk about sticking around into your twilight years to achieve impressive numbers? If Rickey Henderson hadn't stuck around for 25 seasons, two more than Raines, he never would've achieved 3,000 hits. He got to 3,000 hits in his 23rd year (infact his last hit of his 23rd year was his 3,000th). I mean if you're going to discredit a guy for sticking around well past your time to get impressive numbers, look no further than Rickey Henderson HARDLY IMPRESSIVE!?!?!? 354 stolen bases alone still puts you in the Top 100 of all time stolen base leaders. This guy acts like "Eh, big deal". So getting 354 stolen bases over a 17 year period isn't impressive, but you're also going to dismiss that he got 454 stolen bases within a 6 year period? 454 would put you in the Top 50 all time. And Raines got that in 6 years. This guy is trying to diminish what Raines accomplished by compiling his twilight year stats into the stats that mattered, his stats during which he was a dominant player in the 80's This is one of those comparisons where in 2006 you would say "Albert Pujols just scored 100 runs for the 6th time in his career" and someone would respond with "So, Brett Butler did that too, Pujols isn't special" Uhhhhh.... Rickey Henderson not only did that, but when he was cut from the major league team, he played baseball in the independent leagues. "Oh well he just has a passion for the game, that's different". Why? Because he's Rickey Henderson? Tim Raines didn't play 23 years because he loves the game? He did it because he wanted to beef up his HOF credentials? Henderson didn't do that by sticking around to get 3,000 hits? Here' a fun fact, Rickey Henderson played in 500 more games, yet had only 2,000 more AB than Raines, and had only 3,055 hits, 450 more than Raines had. Had Raines stuck around for two or three more years past his need, perhaps he could've finagled a a few 100 hit seasons and reached 3,000 hits, too. Or maybe if he hadn't been colluded against in the 80's, or played his rookie year in a strike shortened season, he wouldn't have had to. Then we wouldn't be having this debate. So many things worked against Raines' career numbers that should make what he accomplished even more impressive. Between the collusion, the strike, the Montreal turf, his cocaine addiction, and so on and so forth... the guy still put up pretty incredible numbers, and I don't think he should be discredited for that

http://itsmeyou.ytmnd.com/ (NSFW - Language... 2 mf'ers)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but how was Tim Rains a POS? Was it the cocaine addiction? Was he rude to the media. I seem to recall him being a fan favorite. Not trying to belittle your argument, I'm legitimately curious. Also, I think a case can be made for Lofton, though I don't think he'll get in In an obsessive effort to compare Raines to Molitor that I now have, I compiled their numbers between the years of 1980 and 1990, the decade where you have claimed Molitor was the other premier lead off hitter, and also the decade when Raines got his start (technically his rookie year was 1981, he only had 20AB in 1980). I compiled all their offensive stats and averaged out all their math stats as well starting with 1980 and ending in 1990. Which was also the last year in which Molitor was primarily used as a defensive player. In 1991 he switched over to DH which allowed his career to be extended longer and keep him fresher. Here are their stats. I bolded the stats which each player had more or was better at Tim Raines 5305AB | 1598H | 931R | 273-2B | 81-3B | 96HR | 552RBI | 632SB | 775BB | .301AVG | .392OBP | .438SLG | .830OPS | 2321TB (7 All Star Selections, 3 Top 10 MVP finishes, 1 Silver Slugger) Paul Molitor 5041AB | 1540H | 892R | 284-2B | 46-3B | 116HR | 519RBI | 299SB | 538BB | .305AVG | .374OBP | .449SLG | .823OPS | 2264TB (3 All Star Selections, 2 Top 10 MVP Finishes, 2 Silver Sluggers) By this information you can determine a number of things. 1) Both players were very good. Don't get me wrong, Molitor was good. 2) The stats that Molitor was better at than Raines, he wasn't better by a staggering amount, whereas Raines trounced him in a few stats inversely speaking. 3) Otherwise, the players were very similar. Different styles of play, but similar offensive output in most instances. With Raines having a clear advantage in most areas. Now if it were 1980 and you had to choose one player to be your leadoff hitter for the decade, I don't think you could make an incredibly wrong decision between the two. Both actually wound up in similar situations. Where Raines didn't start playing in full until 1981, leaving his 1980 year very small in sample size, Molitor missed in 1984 when he only had 20 or so more AB than Raines had in 1980. So the missed years almost equal out. Ironically, both also had cocaine addictions in the early 80's, and both kicked the habit shortly after getting addicted. Molitor was an injury risk in the 80's though, he missed a lot of time. He average 115 games a season during that 11 year span, while Raines averaged 127. The reason Raines' average is so low is because of his 1980 season where he played 15 games and his rookie year where he played 88 games. Between 1982 and 1990 he average 144 games played per season. After 1990 though, Molitor's average games played per year when he became a DH till the end of his career was 143 games a season. Clearly, the DH having an effect on his health. Raines on the other hand, having played a decade on turf, average 99 games a season from 1991 till the end of his career. Raines could've been a first ballot HOF'er if Montreal didn't eff up his body. In my opinion he was a better lead off hitter than Molitor in the 80's, and I think voters should take that into account when considering him for the Hall (they won't). If it weren't for Henderson and a small market team, Raines would be the premier lead off hitter of the 80's. Hands down. Raines was awesome. Whew, done.

*cough* Peter Angelos *cough*

Paxil?

Paul Molitor was a coke head, too. Should we relinquish his plaque?

Most definitely. I would think that had Rickey Henderson not existed Tim Raines would be the premier lead off hitter of the 1980's and a case to be made for him entering the hall would be much easier to make. Really if you think about it, Rickey Henderson's excellence is what might keep Tim Raines out of the HOF. He would've been 4th all time in steals instead of 5th, and it would've been a difference of 131 steals instead of 598 between him and first place. Raines does, however, hold the record for the highest stolen base percentage amongst retired players at 84.7%. Beltran currently has a SB% of 88%, that's why I worded it as "retired players" since Beltran's career is far from over and things could change... although he's got 275 steals compared to Raines' 808. To steal 808 bases and be successful roughly 85% of the time is unreal. It's a tough call. He did however score more than 1,500 runs and while some people might think that feat isn't anything that should be hall worthy, take a look at the list of players who have score 1,500 runs or more... http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/hiruns3.shtml You'll find some of the best players in baseball history on that list, even near the 1,500 mark. Raines is one of those personal decision HOF votes... not really a guy who clearly should be elected, but more a guy that most people would be willing to listen to arguments for his case to get in the hall in a chance to persuade voters. That kind of guy. He's iffy. Me personally, I want to see him in there.

Absolutely. But, it wouldn't hurt to ask. The Giants front office could probably use a good laugh about now. Good call. They're gonna need to get their laughs in before the season starts Nah. They'll still be able to laugh at the Padres. Zing!

please, please, please tell us that you were joking around here. Sarchasm. Funny comparison though...if Soriano had a little more discipline at the plate, his ceiling probably is near what Rickey's career looked like. Leadoff hitter with good power and speed. He wouldn't rack up the SB numbers because no one plays the game that way anymore, but if he walked enough to maintain a .400 OBP, he'd be a pretty similar player. That, and quit doing the stupid hop every time he catches a ball. Back to the original question, if Henderson isn't a 1st ballot HOFer but Ozzie Smith was, then the HOF is a complete sham. The Wizard of Oz stole 580 bases. Hahrumph!

Absolutely. But, it wouldn't hurt to ask. The Giants front office could probably use a good laugh about now. Good call. They're gonna need to get their laughs in before the season starts

Wouldn't Sanchez + Alderson/Bumgarner be a bit one sided for Lee? He's an aging first baseman with only one $13M year left on his contract. I think that's a bit ambitious for Lee, wouldn't you think? But while we're at it with SF prospects, what about Nicholas M. Noonan?

+1. I thought it was an old thread that someone bumped