Daily Facepalm 2.1.12

In Facepalm by berselius145 Comments

Garza arbitration hearing set for Friday

Matt Garza's arbitration hearing is set for Friday. The Cubs offered $7.5m and Garza asked for $12.95m. We haven't heard any rumblings about a settlement, but that doesn't mean much given the Cubs reporters' access to this front office. No word from ace Cubs reporter Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe either.

Image of the day

Comment of the Day

Read the first 56 comments of this tedious thread about reliever usage. Then read comment 57 and laugh. Then come back here and tell me not to tell you what to do.

Fireworks factory update

When are we going to get there? As soon as the Theo compensation is worked out, which could be "any day now"

Is there a Cubs game today?

No

Who owns the Cubs?

Is that like the Executive Chairman?

Share this Post

Comments

  1. Mish

    [img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/425213_10150579517396122_606106121_9255789_1918705636_n.jpg[/img]

    (dying laughing) (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  2. Author
    Berselius

    The Fresno Bee put the word out Tuesday that the 2008 AL championship ring belonging to Matt Garza was stolen from his home in Fresno County, Calif.

    This breaking-and-entering news comes less than a year after criminals burglarized the spring training Florida residence of Evan Longoria, David Price and Reid Brignac, stealing (among other items) Longoria’s AK-47.

    What is it with Rays players and burglaries? Perhaps the Hamburglar was denied entrance to the stadium in 1999.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. mb21

    GBTS wrote:

    I humbly request another “Bottom of comments” button.

    You see those little arrows next to reply/quote? If you’re at the top hit the >> button. If you’re at the bottom hit the << button. To move up the page hit the buttons.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  4. mb21

    So it’s $7.5 million and $12.95 million now? What’s it going to be next week? $4 million and $130 million? Last I heard it was $7.95 million and $12.5 million.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. mb21

    Read the first 56 comments of this tedious thread about reliever usage. Then read comment 57 and laugh. Then come back here and tell me not to tell you what to do.

    That completely ruins it. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. mb21

    @ josh:
    If you go straight to the comment you miss a couple things. First, you miss the in depth analysis and I really enjoyed that. It’s why I was reading the thread to begin with. Second, you’re only reading that one comment and it’s just not as funny not having read the deep discussion that took place before it. I love that Tango/MGL didn’t delete it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  7. WaLi

    @ mb21:

    Colloquially, it’s a rebuilding effort, but in Epstein’s mind it’s not.

    “I don’t agree with the word ‘rebuilding’ ever,” he said. “Because, for one thing, it denotes that you’re building something that already existed,

    Slam!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Dr. Aneus Taint

    http://www.maxpreps.com/blogs/MaxWire-National-Blog/WeSC1dUcdEiS5ZD1jTlUdA/texas-aandm-recruit-matt-davis-blasts-texas-on-twitter.htm

    “They [Texas] have a pre-meditated roster…,” he tweeted.

    Do other coaches draw names out of hats?

    The opportunity to play against Texas was one of the big reasons that Davis chose to sign with Texas A&M.

    “It’s not necessarily I don’t like them. I’m not saying I do. But I want to play them. I’ve always wanted to play them,” Davis told MaxPreps in the fall.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. Author
    Berselius

    mb21 wrote:

    @ josh:
    If you go straight to the comment you miss a couple things. First, you miss the in depth analysis and I really enjoyed that. It’s why I was reading the thread to begin with. Second, you’re only reading that one comment and it’s just not as funny not having read the deep discussion that took place before it. I love that Tango/MGL didn’t delete it.

    Also that no one on the following 50 posts even acknowledged it (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. Author
    Berselius

    mb21 wrote:

    @ josh:
    If you go straight to the comment you miss a couple things. First, you miss the in depth analysis and I really enjoyed that. It’s why I was reading the thread to begin with. Second, you’re only reading that one comment and it’s just not as funny not having read the deep discussion that took place before it. I love that Tango/MGL didn’t delete it.

    I think you can get the gist of how tedious that thread was before the comment just while scrolling down. I’m probably just assuming everyone is as impatient as I am though (dying laughing).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. josh

    Berselius wrote:

    mb21 wrote:
    @ josh:
    If you go straight to the comment you miss a couple things. First, you miss the in depth analysis and I really enjoyed that. It’s why I was reading the thread to begin with. Second, you’re only reading that one comment and it’s just not as funny not having read the deep discussion that took place before it. I love that Tango/MGL didn’t delete it.

    I think you can get the gist of how tedious that thread was before the comment just while scrolling down. I’m probably just assuming everyone is as impatient as I am though (dying laughing).

    I read about about ten of the comments. I was more looking for the funny one, so there was a degree of suspense there, and my brain kept trying to make out if one comment or another on ERA+ was intended to be a joke, so that when the real joke happened, it was all the funnier for being so brainless.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. AndCounting

    mb21 wrote:

    @ Berselius: This is why I miss comment ratings. (dying laughing)

    I miss them because now I have to actually read them to find which ones to include in the next day's Facepalm.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. Mish

    As I’m sure most of you know, Colin Cowherd is one of the ass-hattiest of the ass hats on ESPN. I’m sure one of your GIF guys can put good use to this.

    [img]http://raysindex.com/GIFs/Herd.gif[/img]

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  14. AndCounting

    I decided I’d abuse admin privileges to make my own comments look popular. (dying laughing)

    I guess it really only looks like my grandma highlighted them.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. GBTS

    MB while you’re at it I’d like a special “Refresh page” button, as well as links to all my personal bookmarks.

    And before you all make jokes, yes, they consist of a fair amount of various types of pornography.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. Aisle424

    [img]http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-z5HATJf9oX4/TylpiVoaJmI/AAAAAAAAB1Y/v1FERlGqwIQ/s800/gammons%2520tweet.JPG[/img]

    Huh.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. Aisle424

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but we don’t have that many A-level prospects, right?

    If Gammons is right (and I’m not saying he is), that would pretty much mean Brett Jackson, right?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. Aisle424

    It would be hilarious if Rizzo ended up back in Boston after all of this. Of course, that means the Cubs get Theo for Cashner, which I probably would have been fine with.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  19. Aisle424

    I’m bracing myself for the worst. This is the sort of shit that never goes the Cubs way. I’m half expecting Bud to somehow declare the whole Theo signing null & void, making Todd the interim GM.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  20. Author
    Berselius

    Aisle424 wrote:

    I’m bracing myself for the worst. This is the sort of shit that never goes the Cubs way. I’m half expecting Bud to somehow declare the whole Theo signing null & void, making Todd the interim GM.

    [img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnso4wu4S51qd50vc.gif[/img]

    WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO GET TO THE FIREWORKS FACTORY

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. pinetar

    @ mb21:

    I’m with you. I still don’t see how Rizzo can be part of the compensation when he wasn’t even part of the Cubs organization when Theo came over.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. mb21

    @ pinetar:
    Not only that, but where’s the precedent that a team has sent top prospects to another for this type of compensation? It doesn’t exist. I’m guessing anyone on the 40-man roster is off limits. That takes care of Rizzo. I’m also guessing that Brett Jackson and any 2011 draft pick is off limits. That takes care of Baez and some of the other draft picks that are worth watching that we drafted last year. I doubt the Red Sox want Szczur because of his contract. I’m going to guess it’s Trey McNutt and I think that’s too much all things considered.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  23. mb21

    Most of Big Ten now giving 4 year scholarships. OSU, PSU, NW, MSU, and UW confirmed to be giving 4yr scholarships. Purdue the only school confirmed not to be giving 4yr scholarships.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  24. pinetar

    mb21 wrote:

    @ pinetar:
    Not only that, but where’s the precedent that a team has sent top prospects to another for this type of compensation? It doesn’t exist. I’m guessing anyone on the 40-man roster is off limits. That takes care of Rizzo. I’m also guessing that Brett Jackson and any 2011 draft pick is off limits. That takes care of Baez and some of the other draft picks that are worth watching that we drafted last year. I doubt the Red Sox want Szczur because of his contract. I’m going to guess it’s Trey McNutt and I think that’s too much all things considered.

    Can’t trade last years draft picks for the first year I believe is the time frame.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  25. Pezcore

    Sawx running out of options for rotation looking for OF and SP, Compensation decided Friday, Garza going to Arbitration Friday…

    Any way something is under wraps and we just haven’t heard about it yet? Seems awful convienient if Garza isn’t shipping up to Boston. Or the talks went on hold when Compensation issue came up.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-64CaD8GXw

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  26. josh

    What happens if Selig hands over B Jax? I mean, in terms of the Cubs watchability this season? It reduces to zero, right?

    I know, what if Marlon Byrd Muay Thai fights someone every night.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  27. Pezcore

    josh wrote:

    What happens if Selig hands over B Jax? I mean, in terms of the Cubs watchability this season? It reduces to zero, right?

    I know, what if Marlon Byrd Muay Thai fights someone every night.

    We still have Scurzzur to play Left or Center eventually. Brian LaHair is going to see if he can cut checks in Left during Spring Training. This may open up room for Rizzo the Rat or Josh Vitters if either gets hot and bothers the PCL. We also get a full year of the new, bulky, Tony Campana who, if nothing else, will be funny to watch in Left or Center.

    Question: Watchable Team or Better Draft Pick?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  28. WaLi

    If Bud is like “Brett Jackson is the compensation” Couldn’t the Cubs just be like “nevermind, keep Theo”? Then we could just sign him next year. I mean we already have like 5 other GM’s on the team and it isn’t like we will win this year.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  29. josh

    Pezcore wrote:

    We still have Scurzzur to play Left or Center eventually. Brian LaHair is going to see if he can cut checks in Left during Spring Training. This may open up room for Rizzo the Rat or Josh Vitters if either gets hot and bothers the PCL. We also get a full year of the new, bulky, Tony Campana who, if nothing else, will be funny to watch in Left or Center.
    Question: Watchable Team or Better Draft Pick?

    Scurzzur, Rizzo and Vitters aren’t even MLB ready, are they? I can’t hang my hopes on Brian LaHair.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  30. mb21

    Rizzo played in the big leagues last year so yeah, he’s big league ready. He’ll go to AAA to begin the season, but if he hits as well there as he did last year he’ll be up pretty soon. Vitters will begin the year at AAA. If he has a hot start and there’s an injury to a 3rd baseman he could get called up. He’s not too far. He’s not too good either. Szczur is further way.

    Regardless of that, I just don’t want the Cubs farm system to get much worse. Taking Jackson or Rizzo out of it makes it pretty bad again. it’s about average as it is right now.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  31. mb21

    I tend to think so too, but did the Cubs really agree to send something significant? If so, they’re fucked. I don’t see the Cubs lying and pretending they didn’t say it if they did. I think it all comes down to that. If they agreed to send something significant then I expect Brett Jackson will go to Boston.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  32. mb21

    And if that happens the Cubs farm system is no better than it was a few months ago. That would be very disappointing and only prolong the “building” process yet another year.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  33. Rice Cube

    josh wrote:

    Rice Cube wrote:

    What did the Marlins send to Chicago to get Ozzie Guillen? Maybe that is the precedent.

    Didn’t Ozzie resign from Chicago?

    I don’t think even Ozzie knows what he did (dying laughing)

    I’ll look it up. I do recall the Marlins sent some prospects back.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  34. josh

    Looks like the comp was a C+ minor league pitcher and a utility infielder. I guess they fired him, but still had him under contract, and so could bar him from taking another job, or something like that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  35. WaLi

    @ josh:
    But that is also a lateral move, right? Theo had a veritical move so the compensation should be less IMO. Hopefully Bud sees it that way.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  36. Rice Cube

    Right, but it comes back to the deal where the Red Sox even let the Cubs talk to Epstein before compensation parameters were set, and also on the interpretation of “significant”. I’m sure the Red Sox can use the “significant” as a bargaining chip but you’d expect people to at least be reasonable.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  37. mb21

    @ WaLi:
    It should be, but I think it all comes back to whether there was an agreement to send something significant in return? If the two sides agree to that then Selig is obligated to award the Red Sox a player or players based on that agreement.

    If the Cubs agreed to that then they messed up.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  38. josh

    So was it worth it to lose B Jax, if that happens? I mean, the org is definitely changing from the inside-out. That’s something, even if this ends up being a setback.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  39. Rice Cube

    @ josh:

    I think the Cubs could bounce back okay from giving up Brett Jackson, and if that’s what they have to give up then I’d be annoyed as hell but I think the Cubs with Epstein and Hoyer can work to replace that level of prospect in a couple seasons. If that’s what it amounts to, that is.

    The more pertinent question is whether the Red Sox deserve Brett Jackson, and I’m leaning in the direction of “no” here. I think that level of demand is unreasonable whether the Cubs promised substantial compensation or not. That goes way beyond substantial…it’s ludicrous.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  40. cdw

    Rice Cube wrote:

    @ josh: I think the Cubs could bounce back okay from giving up Brett Jackson, and if that’s what they have to give up then I’d be annoyed as hell but I think the Cubs with Epstein and Hoyer can work to replace that level of prospect in a couple seasons. If that’s what it amounts to, that is. The more pertinent question is whether the Red Sox deserve Brett Jackson, and I’m leaning in the direction of “no” here. I think that level of demand is unreasonable whether the Cubs promised substantial compensation or not. That goes way beyond substantial…it’s ludicrous.

    This ludicrous? Another problem I have with losing a BJackson, besides the point of appropriate compensation, is this team so far away from contending that I need to hold on the belief that guys close to the majors (Brett, Rizzo, McNutt?) could actually speed along the process. I don't want all my hopes in guys that are 4-5 years away from their cup of coffee.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  41. cdw

    Not sure how to embed the youtube linke/too lazy to google the html code. Also, I’m not sure why my comment got lumped into the link reference above.

    Nice diggs.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  42. mb21

    @ cdw:
    I agree with this. There’s just no way that the Red Sox deserve to get someone like Brett Jackson. Theo took a promotion. The Red Sox chose to let him talk to the Cubs. They chose to allow him to accept the offer. The question is what kind of agreement did Ricketts make?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  43. Rice Cube

    @ mb21:
    Depends on if it’s written down in legalese, caught on tape or just a *wink wink nudge nudge*. I think it was probably as simple as Ricketts saying “We’ll try to make it worth your while” and now the Red Sox are just being dicks.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  44. Aisle424

    mb21 wrote:

    The question is what kind of agreement did Ricketts make?

    Therein lies the rub. We also know Crane was involved, so maybe he thought he could bullshit his way out of lying about “significant” compensation.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  45. Aisle424

    The Cubs don’t want to get blackballed over this either. If they told Lucchino they would get “significant” compensation and there isn’t a good faith effort to meet a reasonable standard of “significant,” then the Cubs are going to have a hard time finding people to agree to deals with them in the future. Even if it isn’t something Bud can hold them to, word gets around when people are lying assholes who can’t be trusted.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  46. Rice Cube

    Aisle424 wrote:

    The Cubs don’t want to get blackballed over this either. If they told Lucchino they would get “significant” compensation and there isn’t a good faith effort to meet a reasonable standard of “significant,” then the Cubs are going to have a hard time finding people to agree to deals with them in the future. Even if it isn’t something Bud can hold them to, word gets around when people are lying assholes who can’t be trusted.

    If I recall correctly, the sequence of events was…

    1. Cubs asked Boston for permission to talk to Theo Epstein

    2. Epstein accepted job

    3. Cubs and Red Sox started negotiating compensation

    So somewhere between 1 and 2, someone (don’t know which side) said something but did not establish the parameters of reasonable compensation before Theo became a Cubs employee. I think the Cubs had one standard while the Red Sox were looking to swindle the hell out of Chicago– which is what they’re supposed to do anyway, but is probably unreasonable.

    So at that point, whose fault is that? Did Crane Kenney actually say flat out that he’d offer Brett Jackson on a silver platter and that’s why Boston expects it?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  47. cdw

    It does seem the Cubs wanted the Sawx to believe they viewed significance on the same order of magnitude and then use a difference of opinions on what is significant after they landed Theo. Aisley makes a good point about negotiating in good faith and the repercussions if the Cubs don’t deal in such a way. My guess is Theo’s reputation from previous dealings with other GMs would offset most of the I don’t want to deal with these lying assholes ramifications. Especially since he and Hoyer were not the onces that made the promises of significance.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  48. Aisle424

    cdw wrote:

    It does seem the Cubs wanted the Sawx to believe they viewed significance on the same order of magnitude and then use a difference of opinions on what is significant after they landed Theo. Aisley makes a good point about negotiating in good faith and the repercussions if the Cubs don’t deal in such a way. My guess is Theo’s reputation from previous dealings with other GMs would offset most of the I don’t want to deal with these lying assholes ramifications. Especially since he and Hoyer were not the onces that made the promises of significance.

    yeah, I think that will help, but if Crane or Ricketts bold-faced lied, or used their corporate speak and linguistic gymnastics to purposefully make Lucchino and Henry think one thing, while meaning another is going to have a repercussion. Whether Theo and Jed are innocents won’t matter, because they are working on behalf of Ricketts.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  49. Pezcore

    Give them Ryan Dempster. That’s 15 million freed up and a bunch of corny story-lines. Plus, I’m sick of his ugly mug.

    I’d rather they take Garza than Jackson.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  50. ACT

    Carlos Pena laid down 10 bunts last year. 8 were hits, and 1 advanced a runner. That’s in addition to the benefit of forcing opposing infields to alter the shift, which helped when he swung away.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  51. mb21

    The bottom line is this: you have to bunt. If you don’t, the defense plays exactly where they want rather than playing at a position in which they can field against the bunt.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  52. Rice Cube

    @ ACT:
    I agree, I think if they lay down the bunt in the right situation to catch the defense off guard, that’s a great play.

    Conversely, I wish they’d teach pitchers more often to pull the bat back and slap it over the head of the charging 3B.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  53. ACT

    Rice Cube wrote:

    Conversely, I wish they’d teach pitchers more often to pull the bat back and slap it over the head of the charging 3B.

    Agreed, though I suspect many managers like to keep things as simple as possible for pitchers, since their main job isn’t to hit.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  54. Rice Cube

    Special top of comments link for GBTS. The rest of you should just use the arrows next to reply/quote.

    I just noticed this (dying laughing) (dying laughing) (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  55. Rice Cube

    ACT wrote:

    Rice Cube wrote:

    Conversely, I wish they’d teach pitchers more often to pull the bat back and slap it over the head of the charging 3B.

    Agreed, though I suspect many managers like to keep things as simple as possible for pitchers, since their main job isn’t to hit.

    I don’t think one should equate “simple” with “giving up an out” though. But that’s just me, I know that managers for the most part don’t seem to mind.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  56. Mish

    @ mb21:
    The Book basically says you have to keep the defense honest. So the bunt (or threat of it) is necessary.

    In terms of sluggers bunting, I have no problem with them doing it if the get on base consistently. I usually have no problem with players bunting for hits, it’s the sacrificing with quality hitters that annoys me.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  57. mb21

    @ Mish:
    Sacrificing in most situations is dumb, but there are some in which the win expectancy increases. Those are the situations in which I like a bunt. It’s just that managers bunt far too often in situation in which the WE does not increase, but rather decreases.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  58. mb21

    @ Berselius:
    The bottom one is. There was already an existing anchor tag for #respond so I used that one and then added the #GBTS one. Hey, it’s specifically for him so it ought to be personalized. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  59. ACT

    mb21 wrote:

    @ Mish:
    Sacrificing in most situations is dumb, but there are some in which the win expectancy increases. Those are the situations in which I like a bunt. It’s just that managers bunt far too often in situation in which the WE does not increase, but rather decreases.

    I’m not so much concerned about players/managers bunting too often (I’m not even convinced they do) as I am that they bunt too predictably. I’d like to see more mixing strategies to keep the defense guessing. Nothing is more boring than a sac bunt when the opposing team knows it’s coming.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  60. WaLi

    Do the comment numbers not show up fully for anyone else? The frame is cut off for me. I only see 30. instead of 130.

    Again, internet explorer so not a big deal at all since I’m probably the only one that uses it (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  61. mb21

    @ WaLi:
    The comment numbers only work properly in some browsers right now. We’re going to switch back to the theme we initially tried to launch with WordPress soon so that problem will be fixed. We’ll also have a different mobile detector so problems with the mobile version should also be fixed. The site here won’t look any differently than it does. The mobile site will. It’s just something I’ve not wanted to fuck with right now.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  62. Mish

    @ Mish:
    FTR, I don’t care about Cashman’s sex life, or anyone’s other than mine. But if there are legs to the story, I’m assuming it will be blown up due to it being about a) someone with the Yankees and b) sexy time.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  63. mb21

    Out of curiosity, why do people still use IE? Here’s our browser stats:

    [img]http://s50.sitemeter.com/rpc/v6/server.php?a=GetChart&n=9&p1=s50ovblog&p2=LMQLMZK[QL&p3=13&p4=0&p5=68.102.149.69&p6=HTML&p7=1&p8=.%3Fa%3Dstatistics&p9=&rnd=62885[/img]

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  64. Mish

    My two bosses and I work mostly with Microsoft products (Visual Studio, SQL Server, Silverlight, etc), and they are both married to IE as their internet platform (both are over 50). Most of our staff under 30 (including myself) use FireFox, with a few people using Chrome.

    My boss has a printout outside his office about all the Features IE 9+ has over FIrefox/Chrome/Safari, but I tell him that no one cares. More than half are features that no one who simply browses would really care about.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  65. Mucker

    @ mb21:
    I actually have to use IE because I’m at work and it’s the only browser I can use here. But I use Firefox at the house. Trust me, I hate IE so if I could, I would use something different.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  66. Mish

    Mish wrote:

    More than half are features that no one who simply browses would really care about.

    Reminded myself of this.

    [img]http://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tumblr_ll592ia5uw1qzp1zzo1_500.jpg[/img]

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment