Friday links!

Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com is following the story of Mark Buehrle, who has decided to live in Toronto alone, rather than separate his family from their pit bulls, who are banned in Ontario. “We’re not trying to make people feel sorry for us,” said Buehrle. “Obviously they’re going to say, ‘You make a lot of money. Boo hoo.’ I know it’s a part of baseball and every person deals with it, but this is our first time being away from each other all season…those nights when we have a Sunday day game and I can go home and have dinner with the family and give the kids a bath and put them to bed, that’s what I’m going to miss.”

At FanGraphs, Dave Cameron looks at the ten best transactions of the winter, which includes a lot of Jays content: the acquisition of R.A. Dickey at number 10, the Mets’ acquisition of Travis d’Arnaud and Noah Syndergaard at number five, the Jays’ side of The Trade at number three, and their signing of Melky Cabrera at number two. Apparently none of the clubs moves were quite as good as the Nationals’ pick-up of Denard Span, which… actually was a pretty good deal.

Shi Davidi of Sportsnet goes through several burning questions as the Jays inch closer to maybe finally embarking on the 2013 season, while at BlueJays.com, Gregor Chisholm has a season preview post up as well.

Bruce Dowbiggin of the Globe and Mail talks to the Jays’ new radio analyst, Jack Morris, about… whatever.

At Getting Blanked, Drew breaks down the three-year, $35-million extension that the Diamondbacks have reportedly signed Aaron Hill to. I’d say something like “good luck with that,” but these are the ridiculous Diamonbacks we’re talking about, so fuck ‘em.

John Lott of the National Post looks at the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame’s 2013 class, made up of Tom Cheek, Tim Raines, George Bell, Nat Bailey and Rob Ducey, which was released yesterday.

Dave Perkins of the Toronto Star has won the Ontario Sports Hall Of Fame’s Sandy Hawley Award for dedication to the community, thanks to his work with the Star’s Santa Claus Fund, which he’s been running since the passing of Jim Proudfoot in 2001. Nice.

Jays Journal, in two parts, looks at whether the Jays might have another splash still in them, either in the form of Kyle Lohse (as a swingman??) or Michael Bourn. Given the draft implications and the current low ebb of the farm system, I’m going to go ahead and say no.

The Hardest Working Man In Show Business, Jordan Bastian of MLB.com, writes about ol’ Rusty Canz, and how the player the Jays briefly held has been passed around this winter, finally seeming to be settled in Baltimore.

Baseball Prospectus jumps in the wayback machine and looks at what PECOTA was saying about the American League heading into 2003. I’m thinking they might want a mulligan on the 190 innings and 4.33 ERA for Roy Halladay– though Nate Silver at least acknowledged it was “about the nastiest projection for him that you’re likely to see.”

Jeff Sullivan of FanGraphs wonders whether James Shields might be breaking down, because… the Rays dealt him, so of course he is. Meanwhile, Bradley Woodrum thinks about how to predict stolen base talent.

Elsewhere still, our friend Craig Robinson, along with Eric Nusbaum, has been at the Caribbean Series in Hermosillo, Mexico, covering the event for Sports On Earth, and the pair shows up with Carson Cistulli on the FanGraphs Audio podcast.

Lastly, the Baseball Today Podcast went out in about as good a way as possible, as far as I’m concerned: with Keith Law, near the end of the show, ripping the “Toronto reporter” who decided he had to “ask the question” when it came to Jose Bautista and PEDs.


Image via ESPN.com.

Comments (178)

  1. How about a little pity, we’re apparently on par with a goddamned dog. Just when you thought white trash americans couldn’t set the parenting bar any lower.

    • I’ve thought the same thing, it is weird that he’s avoiding his kids on purpose because of a dog right?

      • I would agree, but it sounds like his wife is completely on board with this. I don’t get it though. Lewiston is 90 minutes away and there’s a bridge to Canada in your backyard. He should talk to Jack Armstrong who does the commute for every Raptors game and event and it works just fine for him.

      • dogs are family, you obviously have never owned one.

        • I own a dog. I understand it completely.

          Buehrle will likely lend his voice to opposition of the ban, which could help the cause. And good for him if he does that.

        • Can we please cut the “you’ve obviously never…” shit as some kind of argument-ender. Try, y’know, explaining things.

        • It’s got nothing to do with dogs not being family, when you have to make a decision prioritizing the two most people who don’t eat paint chips before major decisions or come from the Joe Jackson school of parenting rank their kids first.

          • Unless, y’know, the kids love the dogs too, and don’t want to be separated from them either, and you’re a millionaire ballplayer who can bring the family to visit whenever you want and can charter flights and own multiple houses and don’t have to live here in the off-season. Y’know?

            • It sounded like they were going to move here year-round though, if it wasn’t for the dog. That’s what they did in Miami. Unless I read it wrong and they were living in Missouri in the winter.

              Fuck it’s so slow that we’re arguing about dogs and shit. I miss real baseball talk.

            • Wife in the interview said it would be like leaving their daughter behind. Most kids would rather be separated from their dog for 6 months than their Dad. But ya they can come visit lots I guess. And their daughter is either going to really fucking love dogs or y’know, have daddy issues.

          • I know that the ‘you obviously don’t have dogs’ argument is a bit of a strawman so I’ll go one step further and say that I feel safe assuming that the people who advocate giving up one of their dogs when not being forced to likely are people who fit into the “I don’t walk my dog; I have a big backyard!” group. Moreover, I’ll bet they all read this and think “that’s me but there’s nothing wrong with that!”

            Honestly these replies make me sick, I sincerely hope no one who made these replies is a pet owner.

        • I love dogs, have always had at least one, have kids…and with all the wonderful dogs out there, would NEVER consider a pit bull. Also, no vacation in Afghanistan, Mali, no swimming in beautiful shark infested waters…and not drafting any Astros in my Roto league!

          • Their were 18 dogs in all and they were about to be put down in 24 hours. Buerhle adopted 4 of them including the pit bull. Since then the pit bull has been converted to a community service dog, visiting schools and terminal care facilities. Buerhle and his wife and kids consider the dog (in fact all their dogs) family members.

        • Depends on the dog. If it was a poodle or a purse dog, fuck off…

    • This is what doesn’t make sense to me. His kids need their father a LOT more than they need their freaking dogs. bring the family, leave the animals with friends or a professional. yeesh.

      • Scott you are acting as though he would be around a bunch and as if other athletes actually live here. They don’t. Half the season they are on the road. When they are here, it is busy anyway. Then all off-season they go off wherever they want. Buehrle is not complaining that much. The ban is dumb. How he deals with it, it his choice.

        • The ban is a convenience for Burehurle – he wouldn’t move his family here anyway, so the Dog ban gives him a platform. All I want is for the guy to win baseball games. Get ‘er done Mark

  2. I hope Buehrle doesn’t just say “to hell with it” and retire. I know he contemplated as much a couple of years ago with the White Sox.

  3. Yea fuck Damien “Troll” cox and his biase journalism

  4. He has two options: 1. Leave dog behind for season or 2. Leave dog and family behind for the season. Either way the dog stays behind. So he is choosing to be apart from family. Then he whines about it.

    • Throwing money aside, it has to be very difficult to be uprooted like that very suddenly. Imagine if your boss announced you were being transferred to a different country with no warning, and you had no say. Maybe there’s a promotion involved, but it’s still very jarring to have to just uproot your family like that.

      Of course Buehrle could have avoided all of this by not trusting Jeffrey Loria’s word.

    • Seriously?

  5. I think Buerhle walking away from the monstrosity of a contract would be a good thing for the Jays.

  6. How can the Jays have a splash left if they can’t afford $900,000 for Brandon Lyon?

    • Do we know that they really wanted to get him? Do we know that he didn’t choose New York because there’s more opportunity or for other reasons?

      • We don’t know that, or any of the details. But I find it hard to believe they have any money left, and if they dId the bullpen is the biggest weakness right now.

        • Not sure about that.

          Janssen and Oliver are as solid as they come and I’m sorry but a blind man can see that Delabar is going to dominate out of that pen. Santos if healthy should be just fine.

          And with the upgrades to the rotation we should only have to rely on our mop up guys every 5th day when Romero pitches.

          • And once Strohman is up he should be lights out as well.

          • Dont forget what Farrell ultimately landed: Esmil Rogers. And The Jeffress deal (a long shot I know) could return big dividends if he can figure out how to hit the strike zone at 100+ mph.

      • Regardless. Jays spent more than that on on their 25th man slash player coach. Lyon would have been a much better option

    • It’s only 900k if he doesn’t pitch very much. The incentives bring the contract to 2.4M

      • AA doesn’t do incentives so the base would have to be much higher than $900K. Assuming the Jays signed him to the same contract, they would have to pencil in his salary for the full 2.4M. The mets have the luxury of being okay with Lyon pitches like trash, at least the GM can go to the owner and say we are paying him peanuts. If Lyon pitches like that here it could cost us a playoff spot and the savings on the contract aren’t worth it.

        He’s also out of options which means that the already full bullpen gets more full. Which means another guy they have to DFA or subject to waivers that may be good enough to pitch in the bullpen. I’m guessing theyr are giving Santos the role that Lyon had at the end of last season. Late inning guy before Jansen closes things out.

  7. @scottyc he”ll probably get more work and opportunities with the mets anyways

  8. Well, that’s not going to do wonders for the ol’ “no one wants to come to Toronto” trope. Not the best publicity, but I guess we couldn’t grant an exception to the 5th stupidest law in the province just for Buehrle. Maybe for Dickey, but not for Marky Mark.

  9. I think the Hill deal is a good one for Snakes.

    Despite his shittiness in t.o. I don’t see much regression next year.

    He had a better offensive year than Dustin Pedroida has ever put up. While that doesn’t necessarily mean much it is tough to fluke out that type of year. I am thinking the .290-.300 wOBA he put up at the end of his toronto run will turn out to be the fluke. Arizona seems to really favour those fly ball hitters. And it’s not like Hill hasn’t hit 30 dingers in a season before last year.

    But that’s just me, Tilson Brito….what do i know?

  10. Ya honestly fuck Buehrle and his dumb c**t of a pit bull. The guy needs to stop his fucking whining.

  11. I know a lot of things would have to break right to sign Bourn, which likely also includes a willingness from him to take a one year bridge contract, but I could see a scenario where the total value is a pretty big positive for the Jays.

    For example, let’s concede that the Jays are near the payroll limit, but there is a little room to stretch it for a significant upgrade. AA has always maintained the idea of a fluid payroll in the past.

    And let’s also say that Bourn/Boras decide it’s better to go for a one year $12 million bridge contract and re-enter the market next offseason.

    The Jays were forced to take on Mark Teahan’s contract to acquire Colby Rasmus in addition to giving up a number of B-type pieces in Stewart, Zep, Dotel & his draft pick compensation.

    Even with Rasmus’ value lower than it was 18 months ago, would a team such as the Mets or Mariners be willing to take the $7 million remaining on Adam Lind’s contract to acquire Rasmus? I definitely think it’s possible, espescially if it’s a straight up salary purge without giving up any prospects of significance.

    Either David Cooper or Jim Thome for $1 mill could adequately make up for Lind’s contributions.

    Not only would this improve the Jays’ 2013 outlook by at least 2 wins without significantly increasing payroll, it would also give the Jays a solid chance at recouping a draft pick for 2014.

    A lot would have to break right, but the Jays could take big advantage of their protected first rounder.

    • Well said

    • Don’t be a greedy little piggy.

    • Why would anyone give up a draft pick for a guy is will likely turn out to be Juan Pierre with triple the strikeouts??

      Would be huge waste. Especially if you’re getting him for one year.

      • Because based on how Michael Bourn has played the last few years there is a very low probability he turns into Juan Pierre in 2013.

        I’m not sure why you take issue with the fact it’s only a one year deal. That’s the best part. And Gose will hopefully be ready to take over in 2014.

        • Plus, Bourn would be type A again next year, and if he signed with a better team than us we’d basically be trading a second round pick for a year of Bourn and a first rounder. Now THAT’s a market inefficiency…

          • Don’t really get the benefit here.

            If we really want more speed in center and think we should give up on Rasmus, just push Bonifacio over there and trade Rasmus away. Bourn is good but I don’t see a huge difference between him and Boni.

            Plus Rasmus was cheaper and had a lot more value when the Jays got him. Shipping him off with Lind would be more difficult now.

            And if Bourn does have a down year he’s not going to get a qualifying offer…. So there goes your comp pick.

            Ima pass on this idea.

            • I think that’s putting too much emphasis on a 2nd round pick. Here is one study on the value of draft picks:


              I just don’t see a 2nd round pick and the bonus pool money being worth more than another couple of wins and the potential of those wins generating more revenues.

              Sure, Bourn could have a down year. But there is a much better chance of Rasmus simply being mediocre again.

              There’s no certainty in baseball. But based on their track records there’s a better than average chance Bourn is a fair amount better than Rasmus in 2013.

              • I’d suspect the bonus pool money changes the calculation, given the way the Jays were able to use their extra funds to add more high end talent than they would have otherwise last year.

                • The bonus pool money for the 2nd rounder would change the calculation which is why I mention it

                  But it wouldn’t be significant, espescially with the bonus pool money associated with the Jays’ first rounder. That 10th overall pick is going to be the key for AA if the Jays go with the same strategy as last year.

      • didn’t you actually PLAY for the blue jays in the 1990′s and you were a star in korea and taiwan?

    • And then if Bourn helps you for one year that turns into a comp pick in the 2014 draft.

      I don’t see it happening, but it’s a decent thought.

      • I guess for one year and no draft pick surrendered it wouldn’t be too bad.

        At the end of the day there really isn’t such thing as bad one year deal.

        But really this team should be just fine without him.

        Better to wait until the deadline to actually see what this team needs if they are indeed in contention at that point. I would spend it on a starter but once again that’s just me – Tilson Brito….and what the hell do i know?

        • But if it doesn’t really affect payroll, what is the downside of making this type of move now?

          I’d rather the Jays have 64 or 65 wins instead of 63 wins at the deadline and THEN consider making an upgrade or two if necessary. That is a much stronger position to be in.

          During the current collective bargaining agreement, how many times are you going to see one of the best teams in the league with a protected draft pick?

          It’s such a rare occurance to improve this dramatically in one offseason that it would be another cherry to take advantage of the protected pick, gamble on recouping a 2014 pick, improve the 2013 team and not significantly affect the 2013 payroll while maintaining the farm system.

          Regardless of how good the team is, this type of move should always be aggresively explored imo.

          • How does it possibly not affect payroll except in your dream scenario where the Mariners decide to take two 2014 non-tender candidates off the Jays’ hands in exchange for nothing?

            • With the tools Rasmus still obviously has, is it so ridiculous that 1 out of 29 GM’s might be willing to pony up some cash to roll the dice on him without giving up any assets? It’s not a sure thing by any means, but do you really think it’s that ridiculous a proposition?

            • @Stoeten

              Rasmus & Lind are owed a guaranteed $11.7 million. To simplify, let’s consider Adam Lind to be worth $700,000 for 2013.

              Would a team be willing to pay Rasmus $11 mill for 2013 with an inherent team option at an unknown amount for 2014?

              We saw a team desperate for pitching agree to pay Ervin Santana $11 million.

              Would a team such as the Mariners, who can’t find a premium position player to save their life, agree to pay the same $11 million amount for one year and an option on Rasmus?

              In my opinion they would. In a vacuum, I would much rather have Rasmus than Santana on similar terms and I’d expect that to be the prevailing opinion in the industry.

              To conclude, I qualified my post since I don’t work in a major league front office and do not have an accurate gauge of the trade market. No need to be a parochial dipshit by pretending you definitively know the trade market any better than I do.

            • Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you Andrew. These dumb Jays2010 sermons always carry on way too long.

              • How convenient that the voice of reason is one that agrees with you Mark. Stoeten has a good blog here. But there’s no need to appeal to his “authority”.

                There is no evidence that a team wouldn’t gamble on Rasmus for $11 million. The projection systems I have seen predict 2-3 wins in 2013 for Rasmus.

                Even with the conservative prediction of 2 wins, $11 million is pretty much what teams pay on the open market.The fact it’s merely a one year commitment with an inherent 2014 option is good value added.

                A voice of reason would be much more substantial if it was backed up with evidence as opposed to pejoratives.

                • Tough talk, but this is way off base, I’m afraid. The Mariners will pay $1-million less that what you’re suggesting the Jays sign Bourn for in order to take on a worse player in Rasmus and contractual dead weight in Lind (especially given the current composition of their roster)? Seriously?

                  • Tough talk, but this is way off base, I’m afraid.

                    1. The Mariners do not have a protected first round pick so a bridge contract makes little sense for them.

                    2. The Mariners are having a very hard time signing position players (including Bourn). The best players don’t want to sign in Seattle at the moment. A point you used to justify the assets given up in The Trade by the Jays a few months ago.

                    3. While Rasmus is likely the inferior player for 2013, he also comes with an extra year of team control. A project like Rasmus is a better fit for the 2013 Mariners, just like he was for the 2012 Blue Jays. Again, this is moot because Bourn may very well not want to go to Seattle like virtually every other good position player.

                    If you want to shit on someone’s hypothetical scenario, which was full of qualifiers, come up with something better than this champ.

    • Not a bad idea. Basically trade for certainty (in baseball terms) at CF in 2013 at the cost of losing the potential of Rasmus putting it together. Essentially flipping a second round pick for a sandwhich pick doesn’t hurt either.

    • Jays2010: Never Happy With Our Roster Ever No Matter What Ever Always Keep Making Moves

  12. Looks like Buehrle is already a fan favorite! I wonder if they can fit “White Trash American” on the back of a jersey.

  13. If it’s protected its better….but Bourn will eventually become Juan Pierre with triple the strikeouts.

    I think it’s highly telling that the Braves surrendered a draft pick so that they could pay BJ Upton $75 million rather than keep the pick and sign Bourn (likely for less money). And that’s not a knock on BJ Upton

  14. KLAW is the man! ESPN has about a thousand shitty podcasts and they cant find space to keep Baseball today? BS!

  15. He should just live at the airport where he can have his dogs/family with him. Remember that movie with Tom hanks lol

  16. I am so fucking tired of the offseason!

  17. RE: Jays Journal asking if AA can make yet another splash (Part One – Lohse):

    Loss of draft pick, Scott Boras, soft-tosser, TMM (too much money), pitching staff pretty much set.

    A big no I would say.

    (Part Two – Bourn):

    Loss of draft pick, Scott Boras, speedy CF with contact issues (Gose has more power and says hello), TMM, crowded outfield.

    Another big no I would say.

    I think the real story about making any splashes is one guy. That guy is already on the 25 man roster. That guy’s name is Josh Johnson.

    Do you extend Johnson? That is the 64 million dollar question.

    • 64 million? Over how many years? Is there an option?

      • Trading Johnson isn’t of question years into his new contract

        • @jays2013
          What the fuck man? I can’t figure if you have sticky key problem or were kicked in the side of you head on the playground. How the fuck is it that none of your posts are coherent?

      • It wouldn’t matter. Johnson wouldn’t sign for 64 mil on a 1 year deal.

        But other than that, I agree with this thread. Extending JJ would be the splash I’d be happiest with.

      • Ever see the game show called $64,000 question?

        That is where the figure of 64 comes from.

        I dunno, if we are hell bent on keeping the number 64 in the discussion, why not a 3 year deal at $64M with a team option?

        Much of Johnson’s value will shaped by how well he pitches in 2013. If he comes out blazing and mowing everyone down, his asking price might be out of reach by mid-season. Not the end of the world as the Jays can make a qualifying offer and retrieve at least a draft pick out of him.

        But if Johnson starts the year slowly, as was the case last season, maybe there is a chance that both parties can assume some risk in a deal and come to a reasonable extension deal.

        I think AA and Johnson will keep the communication channels open.

  18. I cant argue with Buerhle. I’m absolutely an animal rescue enthusiast. That he rescued those 4 dogs makes him a minor hero in my books.
    I’m wondering if there’s any daylight in the cross breed percentages he can wiggle through. I’m also wondering if AA can get some managerial assistant on the Jays staff to look into his problem and find some kind of loophole.
    AA is big on being seen as a pretty good manager to work for. Helping Buerhle could go a long way. Even if there’s nothing he could do in the end, it’d be a nice gesture to reunite the Buerhle Family (including dogs) at 1 or 2 points during the season. Hell, AJ Burnett got limos to and from Flrida didnt he?

    • I’d imagine the issue has been beaten to death byt the family’s lawyers, advisors, animal groups, etc… Now if someone were to lobby Wynne directly, that would be another matter. Any Liberal party staffers post here?

    • It’s a fucking dog. It’s his life, and if the dog’s important, great. But it’s just a fucking dog. He can deal with it as he wishes. Did I mention it’s just a fucking dog? The GM of the team doesn’t need — nor should want — to deal with whether a player can bring his fucking dog to the stadium or not.

  19. 50-odd million dollars over the next three years buys him a lot of plane tickets back and forth.
    He can keep his kids in school – without all that metric system stuff, and that alternative Canadian history (to quote a certain ex-Toronto Raptor, whose name rhymes with Samtonio Bavis)

    Fucking Canadians/Torontonians are so thin-skinned, it’s embarrassing.
    “Oh, God – please like us!!! We need to feel the love!”

    • WTF Fastball – I could care less what his kids learn. You might like Imperial measure but the rest of the world operates on that base 10 crap we call metric. Pull that straw from between yer teeth and tell the guy playing the banjo to stop!

      • Uh birdawg. You been going a bit overboard with the sauce recently or something?

        • The ‘bird’s spring training regimen is somewhat sadly lacking.
          He’s not one to apologize for said failures.

          He may hork a lung or two out in the next while, but just wait ’til it’s ‘showtime.’
          (Personally, I believe his inner core is suspect. Just sayin’.)

      • Birddawg – If you bothered to read past the first line or two, you’d have noted that I used the famous line that Antonio Davis used to rationalize his leaving Toronto…namely that his kids were “forced” to learn the metric system and all that Canadian history.
        Jesusfuckingchrist…either change your meds or get better ones.

        • Soory Fastballo, my error. I get pretty emotional on Weights and Mesures. The periodic table of Elements is a no go zone too!

          • My turn to apologize ‘dawg–you’re in mid-season form.

            Pace yourself, mind.
            This season is shaping up to be longer than we’ve become accustomed to.
            Save some for the finishing grace.

  20. No, Keith. Reporters don’t ask the question because a player adds five feet to their home runs.
    They ask the question because players are getting popped left and right.
    Reporters would be irresponsible to pretend nothing is going on. They took enough heat for turning thier heads when the likes of McGuire and Sosa were hitting everything out of the park.

    • yea!
      they owe it to the public to start dragging names and reputations through the mud with no proof cuz this is merica!!!

      • @David
        Asking questions does not equate to dragging names through the mud.

        • Asking questions doesn’t; writing those questions on the internet when you are a prominent sports reporter does.

          Is that hard to grasp?

          • Who are you referring to?

            • He’s referring to the person who is pretending to know how journalism is supposed to work, I assume.

              • Who?
                I’m sorry if I missed something, but I’m genuinly curious to know who the reporter is and what s/he wrote.

                • http://thestar.blogs.com/thespin/2010/08/gotta-at-least-ask-the-question.html

                  If I had a contributor to this site who wrote and published a post like that steaming pile of horseshit and tried to pass it off as some form of “journalism,” they certainly wouldn’t be invited back.

                  • Well, thanks for allowing me to say that I agree with Cox.

                  • Damien Cocks.

                    Someone needs to tell him to go eat a bag of dicks.

                    • I don’t know what “eating a bag of dicks” will accomplish, but whatevs.
                      Accusing a player of doping is one thing. Asking a question about PED use is another.
                      Cox did the latter. If he went ahead and accused Bautista of doping, he more than likely would have been served with a liable suit the next day.
                      I much prefer journalists who acknowledge the fact that doping in sport is rampant than those who pretend that it doesn’t exist.

                    • Right, because it’s either behave like Cox here or you’re pretending doping doesn’t exist. *EYE ROLL*

                      Read the piece again; Cox is not innocently asking a question at all. If he wants to write about doping in baseball, there are appropriate, ethical ways to do so. Singling out a player having an outlier season, mocking all other possible explanations for his performance, and suggesting it reminds him of Brady Anderson (who wasn’t in the Mitchell Report has never been formally linked to PEDs– though Cox certainly wasn’t pointing that out) is not one of them.

                      Here, you don’t even have to click on the piece to see what a tremendous load of shit it is– this is all you ought to need:

                      As of Sunday morning, he had 38 homers, six more than the great Albert Pujols, seven more than Miguel Cabrera and Adam Dunn.

                      Really? Quite a story, huh?

                      Makes one remember Brady Anderson, who went from 16 homers to 50 and then back to 18 right smack dab in the middle of baseball’s steroid problem.

                      Things happen in baseball, I guess.

                      The great news for Bautista is that these numbers will surely net him an enormous increase on his current $2.4 million salary when his contract expires. That would motivate any player to find a way to improve his stats.

                      The Blue Jays, we know, have quietly become known as a bit of a nest for alleged steroid abusers over the years. Clemens played here. Gregg Zaun has been implicated. Ditto for Troy Glaus.

                      And now comes Bautista. …

                      The Toronto Star should be ashamed.

                  • I’m not going to bother reading Cox’ article as I probably despise him as much as any journalist in North America. Sadly, he has his hand in every sport I follow (MLB, NHL, ATP) so he can’t be avoided.

                    But there was this article which “asked the question” on Raul Ibanez in a completely acceptable way, imo:


                    This blogger did nothing wrong as far as I’m concerned as it was merely a footnote in his post; Ken Rosenthal, among others, were mocked on this site for their BS attempts to discredit the blogger.

                    Did Cox really do something substantially worse than Jared? I’m legitimately asking since all I remember is the “asking the question” line. If all Cox did was suggest every homerun spike deserves to be questioned based on the era we live in, it’s pretty much what Jared suggested.

                    It’s just that, you know, Cox is a tool.

                    • er, “libel.” duh.

                    • The difference, for me at least, was that Jared went through actual data to see why Ibanez’s HR totals were spiking (and found that, in addition to moving to a friendlier ballpark, had been successful on the road against bad pitching, and in a few instances in notorious hitters parks) before pointing out that because of MLB’s history, the possibility of PED usage was a question that was going to be asked. Looking back at it, he definitely indulged too much in that kind of stuff, and I don’t think the second half of the post was particularly well written– it rambled too much about the PED stuff and wasn’t firm enough in what he’d been saying off the top, nor did it acknowledge nearly enough the smallness of the sample size or the fact that sometimes shit happens that simply can’t be easily explained (even though we often like to invent things like “great chemistry” to keep our brains from contemplating such stark randomness at the core of our meagre existences ;) )– but at the heart of the piece he was digging into the data and presenting plausible reasons why PED suspicion was baseless, while acknowledging that in this era such speculation will naturally take place.

                      Cox’s posture, on the other hand, was to mock any reason besides PEDs for Bautista’s surge in power.

                      “When it comes to Jose Bautista, how is it exactly that at the age of 29 he’s suddenly become the most dangerous power hitter in baseball? Chance? Healthy living? Diet? New contact lenses? Comfortable batting gloves?” he wrote. Then later: “As of Sunday morning, he had 38 homers, six more than the great Albert Pujols, seven more than Miguel Cabrera and Adam Dunn. Really? Quite a story, huh? Makes one remember Brady Anderson.”

                      He claims he’s just “asking the question,” but he’s really not– certainly not in subtext, but more overtly than that, even, I’d say. That he attempts to pass it off as some kind of journalistic exercise is as laughable as it is fucking disgusting.

  21. Can the whiz bang Jays marketing team do something with this music and thematic video for the Miami-to-Toronto storyline for Sportsnet promos. On days like today, I love hitting replay and replay and replay and replay . . .


    PS AA, would it have killed you to throw in a few more prospects to get back some of this Miami talent (albeit Jersey Shore wannabes)??

  22. Feeling pretty good after reading the write-up on the Cabrera signing.

  23. The only think this thread is missing is a big fucking fat…

    Suck it Farrell.

  24. 2 more days!!

  25. I keep having this argument with Stoetes about how chemistry matters.
    Anybody, in any line of work, will tell you that they’re more productive in a happy and supportive work environment. When you hate your co-workers you don’t want to be there and your performance suffers.
    Here is another quote and an example of how those who actually play the sport realize chemistry does matter:
    “You can have all the talent in the world but if they’re not on the same page, you have people scratching their heads wondering, ‘What’s wrong with this team?’ Look at the Lakers. Perfect example… but there is no guarantee that a talented group is going to win anything. There’s that other something that you have to have … call it cohesion or a catalyst or what have you. It’s all a feel thing. I just hope we have the right guys, the right mix.” — Manager John Gibbons on optimism surrounding the Blue Jays after the offseason moves made to put them into a contending position.

    • Right on

    • Let’s not confuse sports like basketball, hockey, and football, where the success of a team is predicated on how the individuals are able to play with each other and success of an individual is largely influenced by what a player’s teammates are doing on the court/ice/field at the same time. With baseball, it’s more or less individual units combining their individual efforts. Baseball is far less of a team sport in terms of chemistry and cohesion influencing the performance of any given individual player. Virtually every other team sport has individual performance derived from the team concept, whereas baseball does not. Baseball is more of a “team sport” inasmuch as something like Davis Cup tennis is a team sport.

    • Baseball chemistry can’t be proven or disproven.

      From the outside, I think it’s safest to just accept it may be a thing but we don’t know for sure. Hence, no need to pretend we know it’s affect.

      From the inside, I accept chemistry and other intangibles as things major league teams value to a certain degree.

      I can accept that Mark Derosa may provide a little more value to the team beyond his stats and he is fine as a cheap 25th man.

      I couldn’t, however, accept paying a player $10 million/year more for good clubhouse presence.

      • I agree.

        Barry Bonds (reportedly) being an asshole didn’t affect how he played. Did it have a negative effect on any one of his teammates over the years? Anyone upset, pissed off, distracted, unfocused, or in any other way prevented from being their absolute best on any given at bat or fielding attempt over the years as a DIRECT result of Bonds being an asshole? Could very well be.

        But we’ll never know without a time machine or access to some parallel universe. To say that chemistry has no bearing on MLB players is ridiculous. To say that it has a measurable effect is also ridiculous. But when baseball professionals overwhelmingly agree that they prefer “character guys” over non-character guys, I’m more likely to believe that it has merit, even if I cannot utilize it in any way as a fan/outsider/interested observer.

        To say that they’re MLB professionals and therefore above being less than their best at all times regardless of their surroundings or their teammates is a sillier narrative than saying that chemistry doesn’t matter because they’re all pros, and therefore not like the rest of us.
        Better to say that it isn’t a measurable effect (which pretty much everyone agrees upon) than to say that it’s just a misguided or wrong-headed viewpoint when the majority of MLB pros themselves appartently believe it has value.

        • Fucked up the last paragraph. Should be “a sillier narrative than saying that MLB pros have been kidding themselves or lying to others when they claim that chemistry makes a difference to the on-field product.”

        • Well, of course they’re going to say they’d rather work with people they get along with more than they would with assholes. I can’t blame them for that, but that doesn’t at all mean it has an actual impact on results.

          • Andrew, the point isn’t whether they’d prefer it, it’s whether it makes any difference. They think it does, you think it doesn’t. When Beeston makes a statement about how character is 40% of what makes a player worth having (and ability is the other 60%) and AA buys into that specific narrative, either they’re bullshitting us or they’re bullshitting themselves…and there’s no good reason for them to be bullshitting us. They don’t have to talk to us at all about this sort of thing.

            The part of your argument that I absolutely agree with is that we, as outsiders looking at the on-field product, can’t determine what difference it makes at any given time. Did someone boot a ball because of an argument he had with a teammate? We’ll never know. Did someone strike out because he was still thinking about the asshole at the next locker over? How could we ever tell?

            Saying the impact can’t be measured and therefore shouldn’t be speculated on for any given play is a reasonable position. Saying that the impact doesn’t exist at all isn’t reasonable. Saying that people who believe the impact exists are somehow stupid or naive or gullible (if they’re fans) or bullshitters or delusional (if they’re pros) is unreasonable.

            It’s like speculating on how much influence everyday aches and pains plays into on-field performance. It has to make SOME difference, no matter how good the player might be. But there’s no way we can ever know if any particular outcome was a DIRECT RESULT of how the player was feeling, so why bother to wonder how the guy was feeling when he played the game.

            Averaged in, it HAS to make a difference. But in any specific instance, we can’t ever know what that difference is.

            • You don’t think they’ have reason to be bullshitting us? Look at how angry it gets people when I suggest that this stuff doesn’t matter. Think of the PR value of paying lip service to character, which enables you on the other end of the spectrum to better get away with signing a Melky Cabrera because, ultimately, he helps the team win games.

              I’m sorry, not compelled.

              • I think people are getting angry because you’re saying this doesn’t exist as a factor, despite the fact that people who have been very successful in baseball are saying that it does exist as a factor. I think that’s why so many posters have been asking you if you’ve been involved in baseball – because they can point to people who HAVE been involved in baseball who disagree with you on this.

                If Beeston said that “character” is accountable for 40% of the worth of a player and you said the value was closer to 20%, or 10% or whatever number, that might be different, I don’t know. But you seem to be saying it’s at 0% of the worth of the player, and I think that’s what most posters here are railing against. Because the choice comes down to either believing that a bunch of baseball pros are wrong, or you are. Occam’s Razor.

                My guess is that a lot of the anger directed at you is out of frustration, because people think you’re mistaken in your belief, they’re trying to convince you that you’re mistaken, and you’re not changing your mind in the face of what they think are compelling arguments.

                Like I said upthread, my own belief is that it matters in the same way the players’ nagging aches & pains matter – we can figure it has some effect, but there’s no way to judge how much. That means it has no predictive value for us as observers, but it doesn’t mean that it has no predictive value for trainers or coaches or managers or scouts.

      • +1

    • Agreed Looper. Good Chemistry is very important in any working environment. Now, baseball may be a more individual performance sport than hockey, but if a player hates all his teammates, he may stay on the DL longer than necessary or take it easy on the field instead of going all out to catch balls.

      I don’t think Sabermetrics accounts for any factors like chemistry.

      • I truly don’t mean to pick on you Oakville69…well sometimes I do, obviously.

        But this line “if a player hates all his teammates, he may stay on the DL longer than necessary” is completely ridiculous.

        There are plenty of incentives for MLB players to stay on the field, regardless of whether or not they like their teammates.

        For example, Colby Rasmus might have hated his teammates in 2012; but he may very well have played through an injury to get a bigger arbitration settlement.

        To use a “real world” experience, an office worker has plenty of incentive to not take sick days, espescially if they aren’t employer-paid, even if he/she does not get along well with his/her coworkers.

        Don’t even get me started on the insinuation that players may put less effort to catch the ball…

        • Cemistry is extemely important for Catchers and Pitchers. Catchers can absolutly have a negative impact on the game if he can’t get inside his pitchers head

          • Agreed chemistry is important to an extent but isn’t the deciding factor when making decisions. On players

            • Unless someone is so fucked their character deficiencies force the issue. John Rocker could be throwing 100mph smoke and I wouldn’t ;et him within 100 metres of my ball club…

        • @Jays 2010.

          I don’t believe that every player gives a “100%” every game.

          As for Rasmus, he was pretty banged up in the second half & I don’t know why he was playing with a sore hamstring.

          His numbers in the second half were horrible & I don’t think it helped his arbitration numbers.

          If Rasmus had had a 6 year guaranteed contract, would he have played?

          I think hemistry will be a more important factor this year than last year. This team has to get along in order to win the AL East.

          • No, they absolutely do not. They have to play baseball well. The two things operate independently of each other.

    • Looper, we’re not having an argument, because you’re not actually digesting anything I’m saying.

      And even if we WERE talking about office work (we’re not), it’s hilarious that you think you can simply spout things that you think seem to be true, without evidence, and expect us to accept them as fact. “When you hate your co-workers you don’t want to be there and your performance suffers”– really? That’s a verifiable fact?

      And that Gibbons quote? One, he’s talking about a basketball team, which certainly requires more interplay on the field/court than the sport we’re talking about. Two, he’s a manager, so of course he’s going to believe in this stuff. His, or anybody else’s, belief in it doesn’t make it real. Show me some evidence. Tell me how many fewer games the Nationals would have won without the super magical powers of Mark DeRosa’s chemistry.

      • I think it’s perfectly acceptable for smart men running major league franchises to value things which cannot be quanitifed or, at the least, easily quantified from the outside.

        Virtually all baseball scouts seem to place a high premium on makeup. Perhaps you roll your eyes when you hear such musings, but they are a big part of the scouting information you cite here regularly. I’m sure you remember comparing Brett Cecil’s minor league numbers to David Price and getting excited, but obviously those numbers held little meaning.

        We can continue to say MLB players are “professional athletes” and such things matter less to amateurs. “If they couldn’t handle pressure, how did they make it to the majors?” is a regular quip.

        All this does is set up a false dichotomy. “Pressure” is on a continuum and it’s not as though a switch is flipped when a player turns pro. By the same token, a player’s development is on a continuum.

        It’s easy to gloss over the value of major league coaching because these are “professionals”. But it’s just another example of ignoring that which cannot be quantified. After all, if one were to suggest coaching is worthless for children & teenagers because we can’t put a number on its value, one would be considered a fucking idiot.

        We are in an age where most front offices incorporate scouting, statistics, makeup and other qualitative data into their decision-making process. We also consider this to be an era where the majority of old school, narrow minded general managers have been weeded out from the industry, though there are a few exceptions that remain.

        We can’t quantify chemistry, makeup and other intangibles. But instead of starting from the premise that these things do not exist, I think it’s more useful to ask why smart men running major league franchises value them to a certain degree.

        • Makeup is different, because you’re talking about the willingness to learn, and the willingness to put in the kind of effort necessary to succeed at the elite pro level. It’s not quantifiable, but it’s not hardly as ridiculous a concept as good or bad chemistry being some kind of force that exerts itself on whether a ball is fielded or a good pitch is swung at or not– again, at the elite pro level.

          Why do smart men running these teams believe in them? One, we don’t know if they really do. Two, people in the game tend to believe them, so there’s value toan outsider GM, for example, paying lip service to the concept while not really believing in it in practice.

          • @Stoeten

            I don’t give a shit if you’ve ever played on a baseball team. Obviously there is a difference between a peewee team and professional baseball.

            What I disagree with, though, is your continual insistence to speak authoritatively about something with which you do not have experience.

            As an example, Keith Law spoke about how he was parochial in his acceptance of scouting when he was first hired by JP Ricciardi. He didn’t concede as much as Michael Lewis suggested, though I’m sure Lewis has the transcripts from the Moneyball days if he actually wanted to show Keith’s disdain for scouting in more detail.

            Keith was trained as a scout and obviously he has evolved in his thinking on baseball. I think there’s a good chance he would evolve further if an MLB team hired him as a manager and he was in charge of a clubhouse on a daily basis. Not that it will ever happen, of course.

            As another example, in my opinion, your views on journalists such as Richard Griffin has evolved since you started this blog a few years ago.

            I remember arguing with you in the early days of his hijacked mailbag on the fact he has an audience to cater to and this audience is what keeps him employed. You weren’t particularly receptive to that idea then, though I think you would be now.

            Just my opinion, you may disagree. But to your credit, I think your views have progressed as your blogging career has improved and you have gained experience.

            Since the Escobar eyepatch incident, you and Parkes have mentioned how you would like to evolve from the early DJF days when both of you engaged in heternormative and misogynistic commenting. Heck, it wasn’t too long ago during ESPN’s Man in White story where these types of ideas were promoted.

            Whether your evolution is merely lip service or a job requirement, you have at least acknowledged that you would like to improve on this which is to your credit.

            You may disagree, but I think it would be beneficial to your evolution to consider the limitations of your job and experiences. You and I do not work in major league front offices or clubhouses and, hence, there are simply things we will never understand that people on the inside can understand and seem to value.

            And if you disagree, just consider your experiences in the last 5 years. Can you not think of a number of instances where your opinions have changed and evolved based on experiences you did not have in the past?

            • Your condescending, hammy comment and silly little highfalutin words can’t mask the fact that you’re telling me that I need to evolve to the position you agree with JUST BECAUSE and not providing any whiff of evidence why I should. Nor can it mask the fact that you’re creating a false dichotomy by saying that as outsiders we can’t possibly understand everything on the inside, ERGO if insiders say they believe in this stuff it must be real.

              Of course there’s stuff we can’t quite understand, but the first statement being true doesn’t at all validate the second.

              Take a look at not their empty words, but their actions, before you tell me again how much you think these inside folks really believe in any of this nonsense. Would Melky Cabrera, Yunel Escobar, or Colby Rasmus ever have been here if they didn’t very obviously believe that talent alone outstrips any of these other silly notions?

              I’m not going to “evolve,” by your definition and in some kind of warped world where you have all the answers and I’m always lagging behind, just because you ask me to. Give me an actual reason. You think I’d never considered that my experience is limited before saying any of this? Piss off. I could just as easily ask, why don’t you “evolve” to my view that decades of lazy invented-narrative analysis and cheap armchair psychology have combined forces to get a whole lot of people believing in a phenomenon for which there is scant, if any, evidence?

              • @ Stoeten. We know that Escobar & Rasmus have excellent talent but were traded by their previous teams because they couldn’t perform consistently & were loosely defined loosely as” head cases”.

                Could the” head caseitis “be a result of lack of chemistry with their teammates & coaches?

                Rasmus didn’t get along with the vets on the Cardinals & the Manager. He said it affected his performance.

                Isn’t AA’s strategy trying to get high talent/ head cases at a discount.? It didn’t work out in 2012 for Escobar, but Colby, Bautista, & Edwin, Morrow have all done much better as Jays.than with their previous teams.

              • @Stoeten

                “You’re creating a false dichotomy by saying that as outsiders we can’t possibly understand everything on the inside, ERGO if insiders say they believe in this stuff it must be real.”

                This is clearly a non-sequitar as well as a strawman. And you might also consider looking up “false dichotomy” either again or for the first time.

                As an example, Jack Morris is an insider who believes in pitching to the score. That has been proven false so obviously his insider status doesn’t protect him from being completely off base.

                Where did I suggest everything someone on the inside believes must be true? That is your invention, nothing more.

                “Take a look at not their empty words, but their actions.”

                Omar Vizquel & Mark Derosa are two examples of AA arguably willing to sacrifice talent for those magical clubhouse powers of which you often speak. Two years in a row he has been comfortable going with a 25 man “mascot” to use your words. You have hated both signings, but it fits the “action” example you want.

                No shit AA has acquired a bunch of misfit toys. But based on the acquisitions I mention, he clearly places some value on intangibles.

                “I could just as easily ask, why don’t you “evolve” to my view that decades of lazy invented-narrative analysis and cheap armchair psychology have combined forces to get a whole lot of people believing in a phenomenon for which there is scant, if any, evidence?”

                I pretty much already have this view. But my view would be similar to Drew’s in that I’m open to the idea of GMs placing a small value on intangibles. Nothing more.

                Let’s not limit valuing qualitative data to MLB GMs. Across North America, owners/managers ask potential employees about “positive attitudes” and “teamwork”.

                Do we consider these people, many of whom are extremely successful, to simply be idiots? Or do we acknowledge that these people can place a value on non-quantitative character traits in their evaluations and be perfectly intelligent people?

                For both MLB general managers and manager in general, Occam’s Razor will suffice. There isn’t a conspiracy. People in charge of these decisions, knowing that these decisions directly affect their careers, place a value on these things for a reason. I’d rather work backwards from that premise than assume they are all idiots.

                • Sorry, but I’m not getting into some semantic debate about how much you were insisting that as a clubhouse outsider I needed to cede my opinion to those insiders who believe in a phenomenon and can cite nothing more than a handful of anecdotes as evidence. You can have it your way if you really want to.

                  More importantly, let’s hold the phone here on a couple of points: one, we’re not talking about regular companies with regular employees, so anything about that is worthless here– it’s a completely different dynamic with completely different performance incentives, job securities, apprenticeships, etc.

                  Two, again with the setting up of a false dichotomy trick (look it up), suggesting that one must either accept what you think is obvious here or believe GMs to be idiots. I’m not saying that at all, and I’m certainly not throwing out all non-quantitative character traits– this is a discussion about one in particular: the mythical notion of chemistry. I’m also hardly ready to concede this stuff that you believe to be obvious.

                  Yes, I disliked the Vizquel signing, but I think his role was much more instructional than as some kind of good luck charm or team-bonding chemistry guru, so holding him up as an example that AA must believe in it doesn’t work. Maybe DeRosa has been held up more as the latter, but even still he has some utility on the field (he’s still better than Adam Lind at hitting LHP, and is two part-time seasons removed from being pretty close to excellent against them). I also would suggest that it’s entirely possible that a GM might burn a marginal amount of value on the last spot on the club– the minuscule difference between DeRosa and McCoy– in deference the “chemistry” notion for the sake of a manager or players who believe it, or even to the fans or to “positive branding,” while not necessarily believing it will produce any kind of additional on-field value himself. Maybe he thinks it does, but I don’t think it’s as obvious as you say, and I certainly think his committing big money to core players– not just back-end mascots– of the opposite reputation speaks volumes.

                  • @ Stoeten

                    “I’m not getting into some semantic debate about how much you were insisting that as a clubhouse outsider I needed to cede my opinion to those insiders who believe in a phenomenon and can cite nothing more than a handful of anecdotes as evidence”

                    Again, you’re putting words into my mouth. I am not turning this into either/or. I am simply willing to accept that the career of a GM is affected by his decision making. And if he is placing a value on things we cannot see, I am more curious as to the “why” more than anything else.

                    What evidence could I cite? By the same token, you cannot prove that this phenomenon does not exist (which was the premise of my original post in this thread). You seem to think the onus is on those who place a value on the non-quantifiable to “prove it” which is impossible.

                    The same goes with “makeup” which you acknowledge is a thing. I think it is a thing too, but why don’t you provide some proof for those who do not believe in it? Obviously you can’t.

                    MLB is not a regular company with regular employees. There are similarities and differences to our every day working environments. But, for example, you have already acknowledged the similarities in the Darren Oliver saga with the “if it was your career” line of thinking. I agree with this. But you can’t pick and choose when MLB is and isn’t comparable to our own environments to suit your argument.

                    “Setting up of a false dichotomy trick (look it up), suggesting that one must either accept what you think is obvious here or believe GMs to be idiots”.

                    Your false dichotomy accusation is laughable. You put words in my mouth (strawman), take a giant logical leap (non-sequitar) and THEN suggest it is me creating the false dichotomy?

                    Re-read what you wrote:

                    “You’re creating a false dichotomy by saying that as outsiders we can’t possibly understand everything on the inside, ERGO if insiders say they believe in this stuff it must be real.”

                    The 2nd claim does not follow from the first and you keep coming back to it under the impression that it is my argument.

                    Finally, you and Looper might have been speaking only about “chemistry”, but I mentioned “makeup”, “pressure” and the value of coaching among other things we cannot easily recognize. I have always been talking about the non-quantifiable in this thread.

                    To be clear I don’t agree with Looper’s anecdotal little league example as relevant just as I don’t agree with whatever horseshit Oakville wrote.

      • I want desperately to believe in the super magical powers of Mark DeRosa’s chemistry.

      • Stoeten, not being a smart ass here but have you played on a team before?
        When I played ball (granted, not pro) I was on a team of all-stars. We hated each other. We had runners try to steal when our clean up hitter, a masher, told them to stay still on the basebaths because he found them distracting. They ignored him, wanting to jack up their SB’s and it fucked up his hitting. I played third base, if I made one error they would bitch and lay blame. With that team of jerks I never wanted the ball hit to me. You Can’t field when you don’t want the ball hit to you. You get so nervous about making an error that you wind up making an error.
        That great team finished in fourth place even though we lead the league in individual stats. The next year I played on a different team, On a less talented team we played like a unit, was supportive of each other, and when an error was committed, we’d hope the ball would be hit to that player again to redeem himself. We were positive and believed in each other. We won the championship.
        The mind is powerful. No the impact can’t be measured, but I’d take a group of players who support each other over a team of talented jerks anyday.
        San Fransisco had the best player in baseball and didn’t win. As soon as he’s gone they win 2 within 5 years. (yes, room to argue the emergence of the freak)

        And when discussing the 25th man, you want a good guy and not some ass, bitching about playing time and disrupting the team.
        That is all.
        Ask the 2011 Red Sox “best team ever” how much team chemistry matters

        • Well said Looper.

          • Well said? Yeah, they’re charming anecdotes, but they tell us absolutely nothing. Correlation does not imply causation. The Giants went to the playoffs three times in four years with Bonds, and you really think it was “chemistry” at the root of the Red Sox collapse, and not, say, their pitchers’ 5.84 ERA in September? Or is this lack of “chemistry” the cause for that? Either way, it’s pretty preposterous to say, unless you want to cite some evidence.

  26. Feb 9, 1971
    Satchel Paige becomes the first Negro League star to be selected to the Hall of Fame. The right-hander, the oldest player in the majors to make his big league debut, became a legend during his professional career, which lasted from the 1920s until 1965, playing in several different Negro Leagues and with the Indians, Browns, and A’s.

  27. @Stoeten. It is impossible to determine what quantitative effect ,chemistry has on a team’s performance. Players & coaches aren’t honest with the media as to whether or not they get along with their teammates & whether or not they are playing at 100% of their capabilities..

    No player would admit to being lazy , & when one does admit in a roundabout way that he doesn’t give 100% like Adam ” I work out 20 minutes a day” does, he is villified.

    The 2011 red Sox collapse was made worse by a pitching staff that preferred to drink beer & eat fried chicken during games rather than cheering on their team mmates.

    This is a constant theme in sports of teams overperforming WAR or underperforming WAR.

    It seems only logical that a team that gets along will do better than a team that hates each other.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *