17 Seconds

can the players just refuse to come out for the 3rd period and forfeit like the mighty ducks?

Well it's possible that the back issues caused the change in mechanics....and once you mess with mechanics it can be game over really quick I don't think that's it though. I think he just went back to his horrible control that he had most of his life

somebody tell VDN that you don't get free points by calling timeouts

good thing they pulled huet for no reason whatsoever

is huet hurt or something? if not, that's really dumb. not one of those goals was his fault.

the new del negro face. that was awesome

lol you might want to not leave a guy wide open over there with a 3 point lead

how many open nets does ladd plan on whiffing on this game?

glad i was looking forward to this garbage all day

good game boys

nice dive

First off, you know the NL Central was a really really good division last year, right? Also, the reason why those guys (Braun, Wright, etc) hit there is because they've proven they're successful at it. Soriano has not. In fact, Soriano has shown time and time again that he significantly worse while batting in the middle of the order.... and this is backed up with huge sample sizes and full seasons. I don't know why you ignore it. Why else was was he significantly worse in those 2 seasons with Texas? The 2 years before that and the 3 years after that he was basically the same hitter....but the 2 years with Texas sandwhiched in between, he was a completely different hitter. If it's not because he was in the middle of the order and not leading off, then what was it? A 2 year slump? You have a point with Lou being stupid about the late inning defensive replacement stuff, but that's a completely different argument. He hits him leadoff because that is where he performs the best. Isn't that what you want a manager to do? Make the players perform the best? Even though it didn't last long and it was probably pointless since Lou didn't give it a real shot, at least he's tried to move him out of the leadoff spot... which shows it's not just him coddling him. He wants him to hit... and he hits when he's batting leadoff. Would you really be more happy batting him 3rd even if it means losing like 70 OPS points? I wouldn't. Also the media/scout stuff is a big time copout/excuse and it's hurting your argument anyways. You keeo harping on it and it makes it sound like you can't defend your arugment well enough on your own. It's no surprise that either of those groups are saying it anyways. The media is the media (c'mon, are we really even talking about the media?) and scouts are all old fashioned guys who think anything SABR related is pure evil. Of course they're saying this stuff. Too bad it's 2009. Scouts should stick to what they do...scouting and evaluating talent. Since when are they in charge of things like managing players and in game strategies anyways? Shouldn't they be in coaching if they want to do that?

In the context it was raised...yes. Soriano leading off is an issue because so many bring it up all the time. I hear it constantly in the media & by analysts...so yes. Finishing first in runs is here nor there as you are not playing your watered down division in the playoffs. Let's flip it around. The Cubs have been dead last in runs scored the last two years in the playoffs. How's that? I still don't understand how the media bringing it up constantly means it's actually a problem. Like I said, if the media is harping about something, there's a good chance it's [expletive]. It's the media. That'swhat they do. The same media that keeps talking about Aaron Miles leading off. As for "analysts" (I'm assuming you're talking about jokers like Steve Phillips, Buster Olney, etc.)..... it's not a surprise some of those guys say that. Most of them are old guys and old-fashioned baseball guys. They still think things like that are important, when really they're not. This is 2009. It's okay to accept the fact that things like leadoff aren't really important. I don't know why you refuse to accept it when it's been explained/proven over and over. You have to open your mind and accept it. Stop being so stubborn. As for the playoffs.... like I said.... unless the rules are different in the playoffs, I don't see your point. So they were a powerhouse offense in the regular season against EVERYBODY, but as soon as the playoffs start, their fatal flaw of Soriano leading off is exposed? That's really what you want to argue? If nobody in your lineup hits, you aren't going to score runs, period. Nobody hit. I don't know why you're acting like we would have scored runs if we had a leadoff hitter. Would a leadoff hitter have made everyone else in the lineup rake for some reason?

Do you really think you should be using baseball "analysts" and the media to back your argument? I think that would be a better backing argument for someone arguing the opposite. Either way, first in the NL in runs last year with Soriano leading off. Unless the rules change in the playoffs, I don't think this should even be an issue anymore. Last year should have squashed that.

Well the Giants are in on him

When they are statues with gloves in left and make 20+ million, yes. Are we talking about Manny or Dunn here? Manny.

When they are statues with gloves in left and make 20+ million, yes. Thank you

Did I say that? I'm saying I wouldn't want to pay 3/75 or 4/100 for a .900 OPS corner outfielder was terrible defense. With that money you're paying for 1.050 OPS Manny and I don't know if you're going to get that from him once he gets paid.

How do you miss that badly on a first overall pick?

Manny >>>>>>>>>>> Dunn, and I like Dunn yeah, you can definitely go get dunn instead of manny if you want, but signing a lesser player is hardly giving manny the finger. Preach it. People need to realize just how good Manny is and has been. The team picture of the most dangerous hitters of the last twenty years unquestionably includes him. If he gets paid how do they know he's not going to turn back into the .900 OPS hitter he was for the 1 and 2/3 seasons he was in Boston when he stopped caring? Plus he's 36. If he gets like a 3 year deal or the 4 year deal he's holding out for, that's probably the last significant (to him) contract he'll get for his career, so what is going to keep Manny from being Manny as soon as he gets paid?

While I agree the odds of Hill finding his control in time for the regular season are extremely slim, it's not THAT unrealistic, considering Hill has already done it once in his career. Hill walked 36 in 29.1 innings in A ball in 2003, then 72 in 109.1 innings in 2004. Then in 2005 he suddenly found his control and carried it through 2007. Now he's lost it again. It's not like he's always had good control and has suddenly fallen apart. He had terrible control for his entire college/pro career until 2005 when he found it, and now it's gone away again. That makes it highly unlikely he siddenly finds it in time to allow us to put him on the opening day roster, but it's not out of the question.

I don't get this reference Hendrys Untouchables. Hes the last of his kind. People on the internet overvaluing Fuld = Hendry making him untouchable? I don't get it. Was there ever anything about Hendry not wanting to trade Fuld?

As a pitcher or a hitter? Hamilton was always good.....he just had issues. Matt Bush flat out sucks and was drafted way too high to begin with.

I feel this should be posted again. What is new there? I think everybody understands they were out of options and had to be traded.

Well I think in the long run, what we got for DeRosa will end up looking a little better then it does right now. I know alot of scouts are pretty high on Archer, but he still has a long way to go. I guess I don't understand it being a salary dump, when were only saving 3.3m. Especialy when the payroll was suppose to be between 140-145m, and is only at 137m right now. If we keep DeRosa our payroll would still only be at 140m right now. But who knows maybe Hendry is still gonna make another move. Did we even get a top 15 prospect in the Indians organization? The best prospexct in the deal is a 25 year old reliever. Unless Hendry and the FO think that this is an outstanding package that they couldn't pass up, I don't see how it can be qualified as anything other than a salary dump. Teams that are in "all out win mode" don't just trade away valuable and proven players like that so they can give a few more at-bats to a guy like Fontenot. I could maybe see if if we had some stud Evan Longoria type guy, but Fontenot isn't that (not bashing Fontenot). I think it was a combination of a salary dump to prepare for Bradley and possibly Peavy, and that Hendry thought they could get by without him.... which I think is a mistake. I think he was too focused on "getting more left handed" instead of just keeping/getting the best players. If Bradley stays healthy then the loss of DeRosa shouldn't hurt much, but the odds are heavily against that.