MLBTR must be reading our comment section
They posted a "Where are they now" of everyone involved in the Matt Garza trade with Tampa. I forgot that the Cubs threw in Chirinos and Guyer, unfortunately for them they've both been plagued by injuries since moving to the Rays.
This Jorge Soler guy could be pretty good
JD Sussman at Fangraphs wrote a glowing evaluation of Soler, and pointed out that he seems to be coming on strong after being out of the game for so long. Still, you'd think it would take less than a year to figure out how to hit a breaking ball when you're playing baseball almost every day.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves with Brett Jackson's new swing
Keith Law saw BJax the other day ($) and said that his swing is different, but it might not necessarily be better. The bat speed and his batting eye and the rest are still there, but it's not likely change his contact issues.
Castro out until the weekend, at least
Meh. I don't get too worked up about position players in spring training, aside from an odd mechanics change (Jackson) or a position battle (Stewart). Spring Training is all about getting the pitchers up to speed. And bunting. We can't forget bunting.
Speaking of bunting
The following have advanced in the bunt tournament
- Blake Parker
- Michael Brenly
- Edwin Maysonet
- Logan Watkins
- The video guy
Of those remaining in the bunt tournament, only Edwin Jackson and maybe Watkins are the only guys who a) will/could be on the team and b) it is reasonable that they might bunt in a game situation. Strength coach Tim Buss is still in the tournament. I'm rooting for a final between the trainer and the video guy (laughing)
Prospects in spring training
Javier Baez hit a home run in Sunday's game, while Jorge Soler struck out in his only PA. Dan Vogelbach worked a full count before striking out with the bases loaded in his first PA, but managed to draw a 4-0 walk in the ninth inning. Sveum was very impressed with his approach. So far Brett Jackson has 3 BB and 3 K in 16 PAs.
Comments
test comment.
MylesQuote Reply
Peasants! Thou may commence conversing!
Aisle424Quote Reply
I forgot what I was going to say now, but I’m sure it was insightful and not at all bullshit.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
(dying laughing), I have no idea why comments were turned off. I did lose half the post at one point due to internet connection issues while saving a draft, so maybe that caused it.
BerseliusQuote Reply
BerseliusQuote Reply
By the way, B-Ref has a pretty cool page for Spring Training stats for teams.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2013.shtml
I like the column where it indicates the level of competition the player has faced to achieve their numbers.
Aisle424Quote Reply
BerseliusQuote Reply
Reading Baseball Between the Numbers still. My question about some of these analyses on, for example managers, is that I wonder how, if at all, team failures (i.e., playing below projections) plays into this. Maybe the teams that fail to meet expectations are more indicative of manager talent (or lack thereof). In other words, maybe the manager keeps teams playing to their full potential across an entire season.
A similar approach might be used for catchers, though I think their approach in this book covers that to a certain degree (if AJ was significantly worse at managing pitchers, he’d make Matheny look good by comparison).
joshQuote Reply
In a related note, Brian Bogusevic has retired from baseball and shot himself in the head.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
I like this part:
Pitchers are worse batters than 17 year olds (dying laughing)
WaLiQuote Reply
I don’t know if anyone here likes The Walking Dead, but I started a forum topic for the hell of it.
http://obstructedview.net/forum/topic/the-walking-dead-season-3
Aisle424Quote Reply
You get suspended 50 fucking games for marijuana? Wow.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ WaLi:
They’re almost as bad a tee baller at this point.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
It’s a “performance” “enhancing” drug.
Remember a few years ago when that snowboard guy got his Olympic medals back after losing them for smoking pot? He argued that pot actually inhibits physical activity. The committee agreed.
joshQuote Reply
Why did the Brits make a map of all of the baseball statues in the US?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2013/mar/05/us-baseball-stars-statues-interactive-map
WenningtonsGorillaCockQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
I haven’t caught this week’s episode yet, but we’re big (late adopting) fans.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Cool. Don’t go to the forum quite yet then since I mentioned a couple of things you might not want to know going into the episode.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ josh:
i remember the snowboarder thing being a character issue though. maybe that’s how they’re trying to spin the singleton suspension? although that would definitely conflict with my understanding of the CBA.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Just finished Friday Night Lights and will be looking for another show to catch up on. Might have to be The Walking Dead.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Aisle424:
If you’re looking for a show to scratch a Whedon-y itch, BBC’s Being Human is fantastic. I’d stay away from the US port of the show.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
I think drugs and steroids both fall under a general antidrug policy, but it’s not like I’ve read the thing. I don’t actually think it qualifies as a PED, though one might argue that PEDs are really the only thing it is fair to MLB to test for. But they sneak it into the PED policy to appease…. I don’t know, Congress I guess.
joshQuote Reply
(dying laughing) (dying laughing) You can still wait for awhile for teletubbies.
1. Can’t watch certain shows until the kids are asleep.
2. Have to keep the surround sound down so not to wake them up if they are light sleepers
3. When you sit down to relax, you just fall asleep anyway, so you don’t actually see what’s on the TV
4. Don’t you even think about touching her chest, even if for an innocent cuddle
5. Certain shows may now be off limits because they elicit new emotions. (No more SVU, if that’s even still on. You get the idea…) I think the one I imported this quote from will be OK though, except maybe episode 11 or 12.
I’m sure the other guys can pitch in too. (Re #4: Sorry Mrs. WaLi).
SVBQuote Reply
@ josh:
If that logic seemed a little circuitous, it’s probably because I’m sooo high, man.
joshQuote Reply
Baseball’s drug policy is a joke.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ SVB:
By “certain shows” you mean porn, right?
joshQuote Reply
@ josh:
(dying laughing)
Actually, no. Porn can probably still be watched after the kids are asleep, unless she is still so sore from birthing that pains her. Ask Mish. He should know for sure.
I meant shows like Law & Order SVU that show/imply violence against kids. For us, we never really watched them anyway much, but they are definitely off limits now. And my tolerance for shows with outright gruesomeness, like Bones, has diminished quite a bit too–even though I don’t automatically equate the half rotten corpses of Bones with kids. I’m just not all that willing to see that stuff anymore.
SVBQuote Reply
Yahoo Headline
Dusty Baker won’t shake Kirk Gibson’s hand
I assumed it was because Gibson has Moises Alou coaching this spring. But no. It’s an argument about the DH. For those of you who like the DH discussion, the spring training DH rule is one that certainly should change. I agree with the POV in the article.
SVBQuote Reply
I don’t care how transient or ephemeral it is, I’d be way too scared to see the forest gif exhibited in an actual forest.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
(dying laughing) I’m still trying to wrap my head around a 50 game suspension for pot.
MLB is worse than the fucking government.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ SVB:
I figure it is just tv. As long as people aren’t actually killed or assaulted, I’m ok with it. I used to hate watching violence toward animals, especially dogs, in tv shows and movies, but that too is just tv.
That said, some things just aren’t on when the kids are up. They don’t need to see or even hear it.
dmick89Quote Reply
What if Singleton was living in Colorado or Oregon and has a prescription?
I agree with dmick and josh. This is stupid.
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
On the other hand, maybe they should test Garza for pot after every time he fields a ball. That might explain a few things…
SVBQuote Reply
Wait. But see this on Singleton. Maybe there is more to the story….
SVBQuote Reply
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/03/05/breaking-bad-ending-final-episodes_n_2812484.html?icid=hp_tv_art_more
dmick89Quote Reply
@ SVB:
Rules are different for players not on the 40-man. They do test for pot.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
But they aren’t supposed to get a 50-game suspension, or did I misread the BN article?
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
Tim Beckham was suspended for 50 for weed. Jeremy Jefress was suspended 50 and then 100 games the 2nd time. It just always amazes me how fucked the policy is.
dmick89Quote Reply
I think it’s pretty funny that The Americans has brought back one of the biggest TV stars of the late 70s to be in the supporting cast. Also, I didn’t realize John Boy was so short.
SVBQuote Reply
Interesting point of view. I sort of get what he’s saying, will need to think a bit longer to see whether the analogy was appropriate.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Depends entirely in how you view the issue. Is it one of fairness? Is it one of health?
I figure shit ain’t fair. Never has been and never will be. And I don’t give a fuck what someone does to themselves.
I’m more inclined to care about the health because the fairness of the sport is already unfair.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I agree with him up until the last sentence. Ad time has nothing at all to do with it, in my opinion. MLB is so worried about “the integrity of the game” as it relates to PEDs that it has tunnel vision and ignores other, more important issues.
Ask Nick Adenhart’s family if they think alcohol or steroids are the bigger problem.
I’m not a pot guy, but have no issues with it, I’ve just never touched the stuff. It seems ridiculous that the league suspends guys for smoking weed, but seemingly ignores drunk drivers.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy:
Did you mean Josh Hancock? Adenhart was killed by a drunk with no connections to MLB.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Joe’s original comment was talking about societal issues and not specifically MLB issues, so no, I was speaking of Adenhart.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
really fascinating conversation on NPR right now about how maybe it’s time to scrap the constitution. i’m posting a link because i remember a lot of these issues coming up in the gun control forum.
http://www.wypr.org/podcast/time-scrap-constitution-wednesday-march-6-12-1-pm
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy:
I minus 1’d myself for not taking the two seconds to read what you were actually responding to.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
And I plus 1’d you because who cares. 🙂
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ SVB:
I stopped watching TV on TV a few years before Jr arrived, but if anything, I like horror even more now.
joshQuote Reply
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/53174/the-new-springfield-nine
MishQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Maybe, but the players agreed to it. The logic, from a financial point of view, could be that pot smoking causes lung damage (worse than cigarettes thanks to no filter and that it could earn the player jail time (and probably just that whole image thing. People tend not to respond well when athletes are above the law). Whatever the reason(s), they agreed to it, so they should abide by it. If you take a job where they drug test, you agree that if they catch you, they fire you. I don’t think pot is a big deal, but this is a contract issue, not a legal thing per se. The at large legal issues of why pot is illegal may have many root causes: racism/classism (it’s long been seen as a poor person’s drug, and a lot of minorities are poor), economics, medical science (some of which is outdated), and so forth, but the fact is that most people at the moment either agree that it should be illegal or that there are more important things to worry about. Even if it were legal, though, MLM can still ask players, via the CBA, to refrain from using, and can still fulfill agreed upon punishments, no matter how unfair it seems in the moment.
I would say that it’s not unfair, just silly, as is the overall attitude toward pot in our country (and in most of the world).
joshQuote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
here’s his op-ed piece in the NYT that i think more or less summarizes the interview
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
I don’t trust our current Congress or the American public to put on their own pants, much less erase 200+ years of constitutional history and start our nation from scratch.
GBTSQuote Reply
Listening to Takahashi face 3 consecutive lefties, and every one is an extremely loud THUD followed by a base hit.
Ladies and gentleman, your LOOGY for 2013
MylesQuote Reply
@ josh:
I agree. Players fault for agreeing to it. To be fair, minor league players didn’t agree to anything.
dmick89Quote Reply
MishQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
They agreed to it when they dared put on a uniform of America’s Greatest and Purest Game. If one single fan demands a public blood test in between every half inning, they should say Thank You Sir, May I Have Another.
GBTSQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
I think we need to switch analogies for you because given I trust Congress .000001% as much as you do, I don’t know what kind of analogy I can make. (dying laughing)
MishQuote Reply
@ Mish:
Back, and to the left.
WaLiQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
that’s not at all the point he’s trying to make though. he’s just saying that if we’re talking about (for example) gun control, it makes way more sense to talk about possible solutions than to try to decipher what the intent of long-dead white guys was. i guess it’s kind of a fine line before that turns into tearing up the constitution and starting over, though, which is where a lot of the counter-arguments to that op-ed piece begin. i think that’s really missing the point of what he’s saying though.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
I forget what happened in that thread; am I the only one mostly okay with the Constitution?
MishQuote Reply
@ Mish:
I don’t have a problem with it and personally, I’m glad this Congress can’t agree to anything.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Mish:
i don’t remember exactly, but i remember at least a few people pointing out that “well, the constitution says X so you can’t take that right away EVER” is a bullshit argument, because the constitution is supposed to be a living document that should be subject to change.
seidman’s point is that it is so difficult to change the constitution (through amendments), and also that people are constantly hiding behind the “it’s in the constitution so end of discussion” argument, that we might be better off if we could philosophically get rid of it.
seidman goes on to talk about how the intent of the framers of the constitution is totally irrelevant, because they were just a few random white dudes who weren’t representative of society back then, and sure as fuck aren’t representative of today’s society. so why the hell do we care what they wrote about gun control 250 years ago (even if we knew exactly what their intent was, which of course we don’t)?
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
@ Mish:
put another way, i don’t necessarily have a problem with it, and neither does siedman, but it makes WAY more sense to discuss the pros and cons of obamacare than it does to have a supreme court ruling on whether or not the constitution allows for such a thing w/r/t the interstate commerce clasue. who the fuck cares? those guys could have been blackout drunk when they wrote the part about the interstate commerce clause. and they sure as shit weren’t thinking about it in terms of how, 225 years in the future, it would affect health care legislation. so why bring it up?
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
(i think the interstate commerce clause was the main focus of the obamacare supreme court case but i’m not positive)
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
It’s in some ways similar to the Cubs fans who have hated any change to Wrigley Field. It’s silly and the same is true for arguing that because something is in the Constitution that it can’t be changed. I’m very hesitant to add further restrictions to gun control as I mentioned in the forum awhile back, but it’s an issue for me that is way down the list of things I care deeply about.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Yeah, I’m a huge fan of gridlock, in earnest.
MishQuote Reply
I might respond more later, but Constitutions SHOULD be hard to change.
MishQuote Reply
@ Mish:
You, and I, don’t, often agree, but, on this, we do. They should be hard to change to protect the substantive provisions, like due process, freedom of speech, equal protection of the laws, etc.
Seidman’s first argument in that op-ed is that the Constitution arbitrarily requires revenue measures to start in the House, and this is dumb. Then fucking change it! That’s procedural, who cares? If everyone agrees its dumb, amend that one sentence! Little stuff like that is easier than scrapping the whole document because it’s too hard to fix.
GBTSQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo wrote:
That debate of the pros and cons of Obamacare did happen. In Congress, when they passed the legislation. But that’s not the end of the story, obviously, as the courts determine whether Congress can even pass such a law. Congress could also debate the pros and cons of whether government should censor the internet, and it could decide the internet should be censored to protect the children. But ultimately it can’t do that because of the Constitution, even though the founders had no clue what the internet would be 225 years in the future.
For what it’s worth, in college I used to share your ideas. I thought why are we hamstrung with an archaic document that talks about quartering of soldiers, or originally endorsed slavery? But over time I’ve come to appreciate the values within the document, which really are transcendent. (Minus the slavery bits, but we got rid of those.)
GBTSQuote Reply
EnricoPallazzo wrote:
I tried to make this point, but then MB banished me from the forum and sent me to the Gulag.
GBTSQuote Reply
GBTS wrote:
It might just be the drugs, but the Yellon commas threw me off so much I couldn’t get past this sentence. (dying laughing)
MishQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Me and GBTS, while probably sharing some very core moral principles, probably couldn’t be further apart on matters of policy and law; yet his post above re: the Constitution, I couldn’t agree more. I actually do think the Constitution, as the enumeration/limitation of the federal government’s powers, does a mostly fantastic job, and I can’t really find any issues that are just so far beyond anything in the Constitution (of course it helps when you believe in a much less powerful gov’t).
All that said, me and GBTS would probably find a million disagreements from our separate readings of the Constitution.
MishQuote Reply
@ Mish:
You’ve been suspended from OV for 50 days. Drugs are against the rules here.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Mish:
GBTS disagrees.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
(dying laughing)
MishQuote Reply
That said, I don’t think the Constitution is sacrosanct.
MishQuote Reply
Mish wrote:
The constitution was so bad that we amended it 10 times in the first 4 years (the Bill of Rights). It first limited the jobs that women could hold (they also couldn’t vote). In fact, only white male landowners could vote. There are term limits in 2 of the 3 branches of legislature, but Supreme Court Judges are not only not elected by the people in any way, and they serve for life.
The Constitution really used to be a living document. It’s been changed 27 times in it’s lifetime. However, it hasn’t been changed since 1992, 21 years ago, and all that did was basically ensure that we can’t reduce the pay of our senators or representatives (to be fair, we can’t give them raises either…until Boehner v Anderson, where Cost of Living Adjustments continually increase their rate). Before that, there was an amendment in 1971 regarding voter age (it can’t be higher than 18).
Basically, we haven’t amended our constitution in 50 years. In the last 50 years, basically everything in America has changed. The internet was invented and became wildly popular. We had another attack on foreign soil. We invented GPS, cellphones, and unmanned assault drones.
Instead of having a reasonable debate to establish laws with respect to all these unique problems that the USA has, we instead have to interpret an inherently flawed document whose founders could not even begin to fathom the problems we have. What would Benjamin Franklin have to say about stem cell research? What does John Hancock have to say about SOPA (and lets remember, both of these charming men (women politicians? as queer as a homosexual, who can’t get married under our rule of law in nearly every state) decided that blacks shouldn’t be able to vote)? We can try to guess the vague interpretations of these flawed men, OR WE CAN DECIDE FOR OURSELVES.
I’m a fan of the Constitution, in principle. It’s a much better code of law than basically every other. However, to say that is anything but in need of renovation is not only deluded but against the actual document’s purpose. We should consult the past to deal with present, but not live in it.
Also, Hisanori Takahashi blew today.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Amusing, but wrong. (dying laughing)
MishQuote Reply
I’d give you an honest response, but I honestly don’t know where to begin.
MishQuote Reply
I can at least tell you that I don’t necessarily need the Constitution to specifically address stem cells, gay marriage or cell phones. I think when those issues broach into broader topics on liberty such as privacy, speech, religion etc the Constitution handles them insofar as allowing for various legislative and judicial processes to take place regarding them.
MishQuote Reply
Myles wrote:
BerseliusQuote Reply
Seriously though, I’m mostly fine with the Constitution too. The whole “framer’s intent” shit is a red herring. We’ve got a system, the problem is actually sticking to it.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Mish:
This.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I don’t see how the Constitution limits our abilities to address topics specific to today or tomorrow. I think it’s well written so as to allow us to freely address these issues.
dmick89Quote Reply
That said, I’m not necessarily opposed to tossing the current document in favor of a newer and better one. I just doubt that can be accomplished and would rather the government waste money in other areas.
dmick89Quote Reply
This is fun discussion.
In the past, many of the amendments to the Constitution were passed in under a year. It isn’t so hard to do when there is widespread public support for it. I suspect that we could pass some amendments on electoral reform and personal privacy without too much trouble in terms of public support. For example, something about a right to privacy would probably pass. Possibly also having independent redistricting commissions and something that repeals CB United. Maybe also clarifying the use of eminent domain. However, the reality may be a little different based on who has the money to rule the airwaves.
In terms of more explicitly protecting civil liberties and human rights, most scholars that I’ve heard suggest that our Constitution is not really the model anymore. South Africa does a good job, I guess: See their Bill of Rights here If our description of civil liberties was more clear, the drone and the cell phone tracking issues would be answered already.
@ Myles:
Franklin actually fought to have slavery banned in the Constitution, but Madison out-maneuvered him. It was Franklin’s last major policy battle. Madison recognized that including an outright ban on slavery would doom the document, so, as I recall, he included the importation clause and kicked the can down the road for 40 (?) years.
SVBQuote Reply
“Framer’s intent” doesn’t definitively answer questions, unless you’re a Justice Scalia style originalist. It should be used as general guidance. The question isn’t “what would Thomas Jefferson think about online video piracy,” the question is “how do the freedom of speech principles derived in the last 225 years apply to online video piracy?”
The Constitution is obviously silent regarding the internet. Does that mean the first amendment doesn’t apply to the internet? That it’s an open question that we can “figure out ourselves” with “reasonable debate?” That if our lawmakers decide it’s good idea, the internet can be censored? I’d rather start with the presumption that government has limits enumerated in the Constitution and then debate the bounds of those limits as applied to the modern world. And I’m not even some Cato superhero like Mish who thinks government has no right to install stop lights at intersections. (dying laughing)
GBTSQuote Reply
I would be much more receptive to a “we can figure it out ourselves” argument if I had any faith in the electorate to hold elected officials accountable. But our electoral system is broken because of money and apathy, and many times I feel our adherence to our constitutional values is the only thing actually keeping this thing afloat.
GBTSQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2013/03/cubs-sign-cuban-fireballer-armando-rivero/
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
You inherit a system. We all do. You can’t expect humanity to reinvent the wheel for every new generation.
joshQuote Reply
@ josh:
And I’m not sure the drug policy is any less fair to minor leaguers, unless you factor in a general “playing in the minor leagues sucks more” constant, in which case they should be allowed extra pot leeway?
No, but they did agree: the day they signed their contract they agreed that they had read the CBA and would abide by it, as a term of their compensation. If you don’t agree with the policy, you can either sign anyway and try to change the system from within, or refuse to sign in protest. But you can’t really fault MLB for enacting a punishment you agreed to.
That said, if the rule was unfairly administered (so that it targeted black and Latino players, for example), then I think you as a player have cause to object, because MLB isn’t living up to its half of the bargain.
joshQuote Reply
I’m unclear if I started this constitution discussion or not. I was talking about baseball, not the constitution. I apologize to those, like me, who have no interest in a political debate.
joshQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
If you click through the link to AZ Phil’s post on AAA and AA camp reportings, you see this juicy tidbit:
Even if Rivero never throws an ML pitch, I like this signing. It’s basically a no-lose chance because it doesn’t count against any other flexibility or cap.
SVBQuote Reply
@ josh:
You’re off the hook Josh, it was Enrico responding to a old Forum debate. I’ve heard the guy he referenced on the radio too. It’s an interesting thesis that he’s put out there.
What we need is some more football talk in this thread, that way we can make sure we have hit all of OVs primary topics.
SVBQuote Reply
Ha ha ha
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/424346/march-04-2013/the-enemy-within—dr–skylar-bayer
Back in a former life, I also did research on scallop gonads….
SVBQuote Reply
1971 is a recent amendment I enjoyed
MylesQuote Reply
@ josh:
I’m not saying that. They signed contracts and that’s the rules. I’m saying despite that, the policy is stupid. I’m not saying they shouldn’t abide by it. Just that it is stupid to have the same penalty for steroids. This country’s drug policy is stupid, but that doesn’t mean if I get caught with an ounce of crack that I should just let off.
dmick89Quote Reply
GBTS wrote:
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
Well they don’t! (dying laughing)
MishQuote Reply
For any music enthusiasts out there, any of you have Spotify Premium? I’d like to know if it’s worth it (vs. iTunes or pirating).
JonKneeVQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
Isn’t spotify like Pandora?
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
MishQuote Reply
Holy shit… NIce potpourri of conversations. To hit the other topics, what type of pots and pans should I use to cook food during my NFL draft party. during which we will be playing board games?
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
I did a trial of Spotify Premium, and if I remember correctly, you could play full albums of music instead of the misc. stuff that Pandora plays, but I could be misremembering.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Well, it has radio stations like Pandora where it plays a genre for you. But you also create a library of songs and playlists that you listen to on demand (rather than not picking your songs like Pandora).
Spotify is free on a PC, but on your iPhone/iPad/smart device, you have to have the Premium version to listen to your songs on demand. Premium also allows you to download some of your playlists (I believe) so you don’t have to use data by streaming the songs. The free app does allow you to use the radio feature like Pandora, though.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
I’m sorry, everyone, I just don’t see what any of this has to do with the proper seasoning of a cast iron skillet.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ Mish:
Someday Mish and Garret Hardin are going to have a helluva chat. (dying laughing)
mobile svbQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I agree it’s irrational.
joshQuote Reply
@ mikeakaleroy:
Depends on what you’re cooking. Also, Ticket to Ride or GTFO
joshQuote Reply
josh wrote:
I’ve actually never played Ticket to Ride, it’s one of the few major games that our group never bought.
Dominion is an excellent deckbuilding game, Settlers of Catan is a really simple bidding game that’s fun, Dixit is a great party game, as is Cards Against Humanity. If you have 7 or more players, you should play The Resistance, it’s the most fun I’ve ever had playing a party game.
MylesQuote Reply
@ josh:
I started with Ticket to Ride but quickly outgrew it. Our go-to game seems to be Pandemic, but I have enjoyed Twighlight Struggle or War of the Ring. Unfortunatley my wife won’t play me in those 🙁
WaLiQuote Reply
@ josh:
I got ticket to ride for xmas but haven’t had a chance to play it. I play Catan a few times a month and am a big fan. I played a 6 player C+K game the other day and had to place first. I ended up with 12 VPs so I consider it a win with that handicap.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Dominion is definitely my favorite board-ish game though
BerseliusQuote Reply
WaLi wrote:
My wife refuses to play Settlers because when we used to play it years ago with one of our roommates, he won every. damn. game. She vowed she was done and stuck with it (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ josh:
Yeah, do the players in the minor leagues under 21 get suspended 50 games for drinking? Alcohol is worse for you than marijuana and under 21 it’s illegal. It’s illegal in all 50 states. Marijuana is only illegal in 48 states (though the age is the same).
Not to pick an argument with you or anything, but I don’t buy that they agree to it when they sign a contract. I get what you’re saying and it’s a rule as I said. They should follow it, but unlike players on the 40-man roster, they had no say whatsoever. MLB players don’t give a shit about the young guys in the minor leagues so they bargain only for themselves. The good news is that the players will be paying for it in terms of money because of the silly CBA they signed. The bad news is that those who never were allowed to negotiate will also be paying for it.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I think it’s a dumb policy, but I don’t think there’s anything technically wrong with it. I’m one of those guys who doesn’t have a big problem with employer drug testing in general though, having worked in security conscious places.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
I think for some things it’s fine. School bus drivers? Air traffic controller? Hell yeah. I could maybe even be convinced any employee of a K-12 school. Baseball player? That’s crazy.
dmick89Quote Reply
EnricoPallazzo wrote:
this should’ve been a fanshot.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
It doesn’t really matter if it is entirely consistent with the US law, since players are still subject to those laws (and there are probably established rules in place for situations like if you are convicted and sentenced to jail time). Maybe minor leaguers should get representation, but in the system that they agreed to participate in, they are in a weak position, since most of them will never actually get promoted. From a purely economic position, it makes sense. Their “say” until they get to a place where they have bargaining power, is to not participate.
That said, minor leaguers should be allowed, legally, to form their own union. If they aren’t allowed, that is unfair and should be corrected, under the laws of…..the US, I guess. If they are allowed and haven’t done it, then they are tacitly agreeing to whatever the MLB players and owners want to do to them. They probably view it as paying their dues.
Do we know for certain that minor leaguers don’t have representation at those negotiations?
For people coming in, you inherit the rules of the system. If you find them oppressive, use your athletic talents to make money some other way, or work from within to change them. As far as consistency of the larger laws, I basically agree. But I don’t see things changing until the Baby Boomers die off, honestly.
joshQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Are you perceiving that they are being pressured to adopt these rules?
There probably is pressure, but you have to figure, too, that owners see some of this as protecting their investments.
joshQuote Reply
@ josh:
Baseball players? No, they weren’t really pressured unless you consider public support for “cleaning up the game” pressure.
I think minor league players could form a union and they should. Even the head of the MLBPA admitted recently that they have no problem shorting the minor leaguers because they don’t represent them. There have been pushes to organize a union in the minor leagues, but I imagine it’s very difficult and I also imagine players don’t want to rock the boat and put their own futures in jeopardy. My guess is they are being pressured not to do so and life in the minor leagues sucks. You get paid 6 months out of the year and you get paid shit.
What bothers me is that you have MLB players negotiating for themselves at the expense of amateur players. Amateur players can no longer even seek the highest offer possible and are instead bound to the silliness of the CBA in which they did not participate. People from other countries not represented in the MLBPA have put up with the shit the MLBPA has agreed to.
I’m also someone who hates the MLB Draft. It was also agreed to by the MLBPA and not the amateur players. The amateur players should, like you and I, be free to seek employment wherever they want for how much they can get. They shouldn’t be bound to an organization for potentially 16 years before they can seek an employer on their own. It’s nonsense.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
It’s dumb to test baseball players, but I don’t think that employers should need to follow some set of guidelines to justify whether they should be allowed to drug test. If it’s something truly dumb/egregious there’s an avenue for filing labor complaints, though I’m sure it’s not as strong as it was in Marvin Miller’s day/
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I agree with you, but who would represent the future draftees anyway? A current minor leaguers union would have just as much incentive to screw the unsigned players.
edit: never mind, I should have read your whole post before responding (dying laughing). But with mlb’s antitrust status it would be in their interest to negotiate amongst themselves to set up an international draft and keep all the bonuses down.
BerseliusQuote Reply
If Marvin Miller couldn’t topple the anti-trust exemption for MLB, I don’t know who will. It’s safe to say that labor advocacy in this country is not nearly as strong as it was in the Messersmith-McNally days. Free agency only came to be in the first place because of how vague the reserve clause in the contract was. When it was all falling apart, Charlie O Finley was the only owner smart enough to see that the best way to screw the players was to make EVERYONE free agents and drive the pries down.
BerseliusQuote Reply
josh wrote:
Yes. They are not represented in any way.
I have no idea how they have no obligation and can be allowed to make decisions that affects so many other people. There are 1200 people on a 40-man roster. There are 8000 or more professional baseball players and 1500-2000 amateur players who will soon be going pro. The MLBPA represents less than 13% of players who are or will be playing professional baseball within a year.
It’s entirely possible the new CBA further kills baseball, especially in poorer countries.
dmick89Quote Reply
(dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
Dock Ellis tends to think these illicit drugs are performance enhancing, particulary LSD:
WaLiQuote Reply
Berselius wrote:
For sure. I don’t see things changing anytime soon. That’s especially true with the recent popularity of the MLB Draft. Hell, the NFL Draft is probably watched by as many people who watch a World Series game. So no, I don’t see anything changing and probably only see things getting worse, but it’s still bullshit that the MLBPA makes decisions for thousands who aren’t represented. The worst thing that happened to amateur and minor league players in baseball over the last 10 years has been the growing popularity of the draft. Prior to that I thought there was a chance it could be eliminated, but now there’s big money in the draft that MLB is raking in.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Adding Puerto Rico to the draft certainly killed it there.
BerseliusQuote Reply
josh wrote:
The reason why baseball is different is that it’s the only profession I can think of where new entrants are subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by a labor union and yet they aren’t even members of that union . CBAs shit on new entrants at the expense of its more senior members all the time, but at least those new entrants ARE members of the union and can begin their climb towards seniority. In baseball, amateur draftees are hamstrung by the terms of a CBA bargained for by a labor union that, for 99% of them, will never actually represent them. In football or basketball, once you’re drafted and you sign, you’re in the player’s union. Your salary is non-negotiable, but you’re in the union.
GBTSQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I don’t have a problem implementing drafts in sports for competitive balance purposes, but I agree that in baseball players are trapped with zero negotiating power for too long. Players should be allowed to arbitrate a salary with their team much, much sooner.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
@ dmick89:
To me, then, this is the minor leaguers own fault for not organizing themselves, to some degree. You can’t expect a bunch of rich assholes (i.e., players and owners) to do anything but preserve their own status. Is the solution to have the government intervene?
As far as I can tell, the draft rules were put in to help maintain competitive balance. You can and have argued that doing so is pointless, but the fact is that without it, people lose interest in baseball, which is just as bad for the Yankees as for the Royals. I prefer balance to a Harlem Globetrotters style Yankees league, personally.
joshQuote Reply
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjkiebus/remember-that-time-ichiro-met-michael-jordan-in-1995
MishQuote Reply
josh wrote:
for what it’s worth, i would watch the shit out of this.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
It’s really hard for me to give a shit about what minor league players have to go through. They obviously don’t give a shit, so why should I? They want to play because of the potential for making millions of dollars. If the cost of that is “lay off pot during the season” Boo fucking hoo if you can’t control yourself.
joshQuote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
Lots of people like the Harlem Globetrotters. But the financial rewards of playing for the Globetrotters aren’t quite the same as playing for the NBA. The Globetrotters owners aren’t burning cash for fuel like the MLB owners.
Then again, wrestling is pretty popular.
I really don’t give a shit. If that’s what baseball became, the audience would shrink, I suspect, but I really don’t care. It would just leave me more time to do other things.
joshQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
That would kill team’s like the Royals and A’s ability to compete. You’d have to draft an entire team and have them reach at the same time to even have a glimmer of hope.
I see it as an evolving system. If players get too greedy and reaching the majors becomes too hard or nets you too little money (especially for low shelf life players like pitchers) then the talent pool will shrink. Players could just as easily kill baseball with unmitigated greed as owners.
joshQuote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
I have been envisioning a more exciting version of baseball played in doors where there is more emphasis on hitting and scoring, but the focus shifts to precision hits rather than distance. Like Arena Football, but for baseball. I think that could be fun.
joshQuote Reply
@ josh:
I believe you have found the new slogan for MLB.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/07/carl-crawford-on-the-boston-media-they-love-it-when-youre-miserable
/CrawfordWatch
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ josh:
Would you say the same thing about what is essentially a sweatshop that mlb is running in places like the DR, Venezuela, Mexico and elsewhere? They’re minor league players.
dmick89Quote Reply
josh wrote:
WenningtonsGorillaCockQuote Reply
josh wrote:
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Is that Dan Cortese?
To anybody who is interested, I just bought MLB 13: The Show and it came with a free movie pass to see “42”. So if you were thinking of getting the game, that’s a nice little extra.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
Yes, and a fairly young Jon Stewart, but how they got me in that picture with them I don’t know. FYI, Dan now pronounces his name Court-a-z with a long a… He’ll always be a Mimbo to me.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
Bunting tournament —–> Elite 8
Video guy ——> Still alive
(dying laughing)
GBTSQuote Reply
Chris Sale ———–> 5/32.5 from the White Sox
BerseliusQuote Reply
The Big Ten is leading the way in coming up with dumb conference names
BerseliusQuote Reply
Marmol in, so are Baez and Soler.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Dammit. Now I can’t win a mug. Stupid Valbuena.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Anthony Rizzo > Mexican defense
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Hey speaking about dumb sports rules:
The NCAA has decided NOT to implement a rule that says a team’s uniform cannot have both pants and shirt the same color as their playing surface. Boise St, Oregon, Marshall, Sparty are happy. Eastern Washington is happy too, but no one cares about them.
SVBQuote Reply
josh wrote:
Baseball was just fine before they instituted a draft. Some might even argue there was more parity in baseball back then. I’m more than OK with the idea of letting teams buy whatever players they want without being restricted. If some team can’t compete, they can move to a different market or they can close shop and call it quits.
As it is right now, there’s no chance of a third team in New York City even though they could easily support an additional team. The Royals could move there. It’s probably large enough to support 4 teams like it once did. Los Angeles could probably support another team. Chicago probably could as well.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, and ????
Guess my Ben Franklin history is better than my NY Baseball history
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
I’m sure the Giants would rather stick around in SF. They’re doing quite well there. I was thinking more along the lines of some of the teams that might be struggling financially. Teams like the A’s, Royals, Pirates, Twins, Rays and Marlins.
It’s not going to happen anytime soon. The Yankees and Mets would never agree to it. The Red Sox probably wouldn’t either. Same with any other team relatively close to New York. I don’t know why teams aren’t free to move where they want. They should be, but they’re restricted right now in that they have to have approval in order to do so. So there are only a few limited areas in which a team could realistically relocate (Vegas being the top one).
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
I forgot to add the quote to my question above….@ dmick89:
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
3 teams. Sorry. Not sure why I wrote 4. Pretty sure Mets didn’t come around until after relocation.
dmick89Quote Reply
Boston and St. Louis had 2 teams.
dmick89Quote Reply
So did Philly.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
yeah, definitely the Mets were after the others moved west. But I figured there was some other team I’d barely heard of like the New York Sausagebeaters or something.
I sort of vaguely remember Baltimore having a couple teams too, but maybe its just that so many of the others passed through there….
SVBQuote Reply
Doesn’t Chicago barely support 2 teams? I thought the white sox attendance was shitty. I guess they have good tv viewership though. I think a team in the NC tri-city area would work though
Mobile WaLiQuote Reply
Maybe Chicago couldn’t, but I’d think location has a lot to do with the White Sox attendance.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Mobile WaLi:
@ dmick89:
Well, I guess the tri-city does OK with the Hurricanes. Charlotte has the Bobcats, but it’s hard to tell how much their issues are poor management vs poor support. My guess is RDU would be better. At least Durham as a fabled baseball history.
I seem to remember 424 posting a lot about the White Sox’s attendance issues toward the end of last season. The pub discussion in Gary or Michigan City, etc. From what I remember, the issue wasn’t just location, but that people feel alienated at the park…
I guess the Cubs’ troughs are more welcoming, but I’d think the women find them damn uncomfortable to use.
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
I love the Durham Bulls’ facility.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
SVB wrote:
Which is why I just ordered my wife this
http://www.amazon.com/Freshette-LIB355500-by/dp/B005SRVAS6/ref=sr_1_1?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1362711604&sr=1-1&keywords=freshette
WaLiQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
In the 29 years preceding the first Rule 4 Draft the Yankees won 22 pennants.
GBTSQuote Reply
http://www.flipflopflyin.com/flipflopflyball/info-mlbrelocations.png
GBTSQuote Reply
@ WaLi:
Along with this for the back end?
And this for the kids:
SVBQuote Reply
WaLi, SVB, I didn’t know you served together in the Civil War.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
In fact, just the other day we were reminiscing about the time we’d just finished our induction training and you came by to review the troops. Man, your beard was fantastic back then. I remembered wishing I could shave so I could grow one like that!
SVBQuote Reply
SVBQuote Reply
New Shit
MylesQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
That’s 7 times they didn’t! (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply