Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

In a move that was widely expected, the Jays have picked up the option on catcher Rod Barajas for next season. 



Rodrigo had his good and bad moments with the twig.  He hit .189 in April but was smoking in May with a .370 mark and a decent .265 in June.  He alternated bad and good months with a .179 July, a. 279 August and a .162 September before tearing his hamstring and missing the last two weeks of the year.  He did alright against righties with a .270 mark but struggled with lefties by hitting just .204.

Now the question is, who is going to back up B.A. Barajas?  It's not expected to be free agent Gregg Zaun, who might be looking into a career changeCurtis Thigpen, Brian Jeroloman and J.P. Arencibia are the other contenders.

Meantime, former Jay Carlos Delgado will be back in the Big Apple next season but quite a few players are in a hurry to leave their clubs.  Oh, what else!  Oh yeah, the city of Philadelphia had some big to-do about something today.

If you have any other tidbits, pass them along here.

Happy Halloween, ghouls and goblins!

 

Barajas Back For 2009 | 90 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Kelekin - Friday, October 31 2008 @ 07:36 PM EDT (#193713) #
Out of the catchers you have mentioned, Thigpen is the most likely to play back-up.  Jeroloman needs to prove himself at AAA, and personally I think Arencibia should be back at AA to start the year.  They are our future and one if not both will get a shot this year, but Thigpen is the guy who has the best chance to start as the back-up.  I'm not really looking forward to a year of Barajas.

In free agent news, Monday will be a very interesting day as we will know the fate of Burnett.  I'm certain he'll opt out, and I do hope he does.  While certainly we could use him on our team, the money we would've given Burnett could go to a better cause - Ben Sheets or Derek Lowe get my vote.  Also, will the Jays go after an every day left fielder or DH?  Pat Burrell is my vote there, and he may only require 3 or 4 years.


Chuck - Friday, October 31 2008 @ 11:00 PM EDT (#193715) #
I'm certain he'll opt out, and I do hope he does.  While certainly we could use him on our team, the money we would've given Burnett could go to a better cause

Burnett opting out of his contract and returning to the Jays are mutually exclusive. He will opt out, no question. Whether he resigns with Toronto thereafter is another matter entirely. I doubt he will as I imagine he'll get a more lucrative offer from someone else. There are two pitching hungry teams in New York, for example.
brent - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 12:07 AM EDT (#193717) #
I hope JP has learned from Mench, Wilkerson, Zambrano, Stewart, Thomas, Thompson etc., and just goes with the kids from the beginning of the year. McGowan, Litsch, Janssen, Purcey, Marcum should be enough to prove that whatever young players are "close" to the big leagues will be better than the re-treads. If I had to give advice to JP this offseason, it's to play the kids. Besides, for the fan experience it is better to live and die with the prospects coming up compared to Armando Benitez
TamRa - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 01:23 AM EDT (#193718) #
Signing folks like Sheets or Lowe is a BAD BAD idea. Tying up a rotation spot and an eight figure obligation for the next four or more years would be a stupendiusly bad move.

The ONLY pitcher we should sign this year would be one that we can get for only one guaranteed year.


TamRa - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 01:25 AM EDT (#193719) #
On the back-up catcher question...I could be interested in Josh Bard or David Ross, particularly if we could get them on a minor league deal as a safety net for Thigpen being a total failure.


John Northey - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 08:08 AM EDT (#193720) #
A minor league AAAA catcher is a very likely signing, as is a pitcher who is recovering from injuries/off season thus willing to take a one year deal.

If Pedro Martinez is willing I'd chase him for a one year deal after his injury filled 2007 and poor/injury filled 2008. If fully recovered he'd be an ace, if not he could be punted. $11 million last year, might get for $5 million depending on how most GM's feel about his recovery. Negatives though are 4+ runs in each of his last 4 starts and July 12 was his last time without allowing a run (4 innings) - the only time he did that all year.

Catchers listed at Cot's Contracts are...
Brad Ausmus
Josh Bard
Michael Barrett
Henry Blanco * CHC
Johnny Estrada WAS
Toby Hall * CWS
Paul Lo Duca
Adam Melhuse TEX
Doug Mirabelli
Chad Moeller
Guillermo Rodriguez
Ivan Rodriguez NYY
David Ross BOS
Javier Valentin CIN
Jason Varitek BOS
Vance Wilson DET

Have options...
Mike Redmond * MIN
Gregg Zaun * TOR

Lots of choices. Depends on health, defense (two things that are hard to measure for catchers) and who is willing to be a backup.
#2JBrumfield - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 08:17 AM EDT (#193721) #
John Parrish has decided to test the free agent waters.  I guess that's one less pitcher for Scott Richmond to compete against in the rotation.
Petey Baseball - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 10:29 AM EDT (#193722) #
Out of all those back up catchers, Pudge is an interesting case for the Blue Jays. Whether or not he'd be game for being on the bench quite a bit is another question......I was completely blown away by what I saw with Rod Barajas last year......His statistical performance was expected, but he seemed to be a good personality for that team. 
braden - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 12:51 PM EDT (#193723) #

he seemed to be a good personality for that team. 

That's what surprised me most about him.  He seems like the guy who lights teammates shoelaces on fire and stuff.  I like those guys.

VBF - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 01:07 PM EDT (#193724) #
Ted Rogers has been  admitted to hospital. with an 'existing cardiac condition'.

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/528578
Ron - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 01:20 PM EDT (#193725) #
Curtis Thigpen has no business being the Jays backup catcher to start next season. Heck, he probably has no business being on the 40 man roster (although I would drop Jean Machi before I drop Thigpen). He offers nothing but outs at the plate and isn't well regarded for his work behind the plate. I would rather have Zaun than Thigpen as the backup.
The_Game - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 02:15 PM EDT (#193726) #

Out of the catchers you have mentioned, Thigpen is the most likely to play back-up.  Jeroloman needs to prove himself at AAA, and personally I think Arencibia should be back at AA to start the year.  They are our future and one if not both will get a shot this year, but Thigpen is the guy who has the best chance to start as the back-up.  I'm not really looking forward to a year of Barajas.

So Thigpen has proven himself at AAA?

I honestly want no part of Curtis at the major league level.

Dave501 - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 03:30 PM EDT (#193727) #

Where does all this Curtis Thigpen optimism come from?  Joey Lawrence the 2nd is not a major league catcher, backup catcher, 2nd baseman or anything else.  Perhaps some day he could be a major league backup but it's not likely given his age now, and for sure he's not now or in 2009.

If the jays go into 2009 with Thigpen as backup catcher I think I'm going to find another team to root for...

Wildrose - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 03:37 PM EDT (#193728) #
The Elias free agent rankings were released yesterday.  Burnett is a type A and in a bit of good luck Zaun is a type B.  I believe you need to offer arbitration to recieve  compensation picks. For Zaun you'd get a supplemental pick , and for Burnett  from the team that signs him their first round choice ( depending) and a supplemental.

I'd probably offer Zaun arbitration and let the chips fall where they may ( although the budget is going to be tight). I'm perfectly fine with him as a back-up or as somebody who brings you back a draft choice.
Wildrose - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#193729) #
You indeed have to offer arbitration.

  • By December 1, each club must decide whether to offer salary arbitration to their former players who have filed for free agency. A club not offering arbitration may continue to negotiate with the player but does not receive compensation if he signs with another club.
  • By December 7, player must accept or reject the arbitration offer. If the player accepts the offer, he returns to his club’s 40-man roster. The player and club may continue to negotiate before the February arbitration hearing. See Arbitration. If the player rejects the offer, he may continue to negotiate with any of the 30 clubs.


TamRa - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 04:51 PM EDT (#193731) #
Mike Redmond had his option picked up some time ago I believe
-----------------
The "Thigpen love" isn't love...it's a recognition that the Jays have gone with empty bats as back up catchers more than once under JP (Huckaby, Phillips) and it might happen again
----------------

Speaking of pitchers you might sing on a one year deal - here's a radical idea: See if you can get Randy Johnson.



ComebyDeanChance - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 05:22 PM EDT (#193733) #
I think it's very unlikely the Jays offer Zaun arbitration in order to 'see where the chips land'. He'll make a few million there, significantly more than he'll make on the market, and I very much doubt the Jays throw that kind of money at the chance for a supplemental pick. The fact that there's not much to replace him in the organization doesn't push them there. Back up catchers aren't hard to find.
John Northey - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 05:27 PM EDT (#193734) #
Heh. Have Johnson finish his career in Canada after starting it in Canada in a brief stint with the Expos.

Given Johnson had 30 effective starts in Arizona (184 IP, 44 BB, 173 SO, 116 ERA+). He threw a complete game with 0 earned runs, 1 earned, 1 walk, 9 strikeouts to end the season. He made $10 million last year and will get $4 million in 2009 and 2010 from Arizona (I think...the Yankees might be paying it) but isn't under contract for 2009/2010 as that is a deferred signing bonus.

I suspect Randy can go to whatever team he wants to go to and Arizona would have to be his first choice I'd think. Nice as it would be to have him here I just don't see it happening.
Jays2010 - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 08:25 PM EDT (#193735) #

Curtis Thigpen can be a AAA guy who can ocassionally be called up to, hopefully, play multiple positions until his 40 man roster spot can be used for something better. It is very possible that neither Jeroloman or JPA are ready to receive any at-bats in 2009, so getting another Barajas-type on the cheap makes sense.

I like the idea of JP giving the kids a chance. In reality, the Jays need to adopt the Red Sox philosophy as much as possible...have a very strong roster and allow a couple of rookies to be intergrated into that roster every year. I'd rather the Jays spend their money on one elite player such as Manny than try and fill 3 holes with mediocre production. Please, no Giambi, Burrell or Lowe. Instead of spending 3/40 on Burrell, spend 2/8 on Juan Rivera. Instead of spending 4/60 on Lowe, spend 1/5 with an option on Freddy Garcia. If JP plans on taking a short-term injury risk, Furcal and Sheets are worth it, in my opinion. If he wants to take a long-term injury risk, AJ can probably be had for 5/80...

I'm also of the opinion that JP needs to start using the depth of his system to acquire elite players since he typically avoids drafting these players. So if two solid, semi-proven players such as Litsch and Lind can be used to acquire one potentially-elite player such as Matt Cain, pull the trigger and then sign a couple of one-year guys to fill the gaps behind Halladay, Cain and Purcey until McGowan/Cecil et al are ready to contribute. And unless Mike Jacobs learns how to play SS, I'm glad he will not be playing anywhere near Toronto in 2009...

Wildrose - Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 09:20 PM EDT (#193736) #
He'll make a few million there, significantly more than he'll make on the market, and I very much doubt the Jays throw that kind of money at the chance for a supplemental pick

Tough to know with their budgetary constraints what they'll do. Here however is a partial list of some of the players  obtained since 2000 in the supplementary portion of the draft.

Jedd Lowrie
Clay Bucholz
Huston Street
J.P. Howell
Adam Jones
Jarret Saltalmachia
David Wright
Dustin McGowan
Brett Cecil
Justin Jackson
Joba Chamberlin

I suppose it depends on how much you value the ability of your scouting staff to find a reasonable player in the supplemental  portion of the draft and if your willing to spend money to sign them.  If Zaun does take you to arbitration he'll make from $3.1 million to $4 million in salary as a back up catcher.

I'll let the discerning fan choose how they'd build a team.
TamRa - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 12:32 AM EDT (#193737) #
I suspect Randy can go to whatever team he wants to go to and Arizona would have to be his first choice I'd think. Nice as it would be to have him here I just don't see it happening.

He can, and 'Zona would surely be his first choice but the D'Backs don't have a lot of cash to play with. The Astros would have to be interested.

Wildrose - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 12:41 AM EDT (#193738) #
Looking at it a bit more closely if offered arbitration, given his age, Zaun probably takes it , unless he absolutely hates playing for Cito. You can only reduce his 2008 salary by 15 % in arbitration, this is done rarely. Zaun is a lot better hitter  as a catcher than most realize ( given his ability relatively speaking to get on base),  but given his age he's not unfortunately, going to  do better on the open market.

It's too bad as you can get real value with supplementary draft choices. A more wealthy team would probably roll the dice.

 
ComebyDeanChance - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 12:42 AM EDT (#193739) #

There is almost zero chance that Zaun would turn down arbitration. That means you're paying 3-4 million for a backup catcher, in the off-chance that you might end up with a supplemental pick instead. Way too expensive a gamble.
Chuck - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 06:16 AM EST (#193740) #

unless he absolutely hates playing for Cito.

But that's just it, he doesn't play for Cito. Gaston clearly doesn't like Zaun which we saw that with Zaun's greatly reduced workload once Gaston took over, despite Barajas's numbers heading south.

I can't see Zaun turning down arbitration, but I'm sure it won't be offered. The team will want a cheaper solution for a one- or two-day-a-week catcher. Gaston will probably continue treating Barajas like Johnny Bench.

sweat - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 10:01 AM EST (#193741) #

Would it be a bad thing for the Jays if Zaun accepted?  Thigpen or Zaun.  hmmm.

Mike Green - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 11:26 AM EST (#193742) #
Barajas has never caught more than 119 games in a season in his career.  The difference between Zaun and a Phillips/Huckaby clone on the field for 50-60 starts plus the odd late inning appearance is worth whatever he would likely get in arbitration.  The added bonus is that you could give Jeroloman (or Thigpen or JPA) half a season in triple A, and then bring him up in July to learn with Zaun. 
Chuck - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 11:44 AM EST (#193743) #
Barajas's body may well limit him to 110 or 120 games, but the only reason he caught as few as 104 last year was because he was hurt for a while and because Gibbons had the catchers sharing the job. Once Gaston arrived, he had Zaun playing the role of Bill Plummer.
ayjackson - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 01:25 PM EST (#193744) #

The other option is not offering Zaun Arbitration but bringing him back at $2m for next season.  Or $3m over two seasons.  JPA and J-Roloman may be ready to handle the load in 2010, but having a veteran as a back up plan wouldn't be a bad idea.

Wildrose - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 01:30 PM EST (#193745) #
 You may be able to finesse Zaun into accepting arbitration and perhaps going elsewhere for a year or two. He has a youngish body and could probably still play  somewhat well. The carrot could be a post career job in broadcasting or coaching with the team. As I said from the outset I'm happy if he either returns or brings back a draft choice.
lexomatic - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 01:54 PM EST (#193746) #
perhaps someone more konwledgeable can answer this.. in hockey teams can walk away from the arbitrator's decision.. what prevents this from happening if a team is unhappy with the decision? can they wqlk away and make him a free agent? i don't see why it wouldn't be worth doing that.. becuase it amounts to the same thing as just letting him go, except that if you make it clear he will only be a backup he might jsut go elsewhere if he wants to play more.
Greg - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 02:24 PM EST (#193747) #

What's mediocre about Burrell?

He's had 4 straight years of OPS+ in the 120s and he's still just 31...no spring chicken, but I don't really see too many signs of decline...he seems like the perfect guy to fit into the Jays LF/DH situation, what with being right-handed and all.

Although I was thinking...Lind/Snider/Baldelli might be a good 3-man platoon system for LF/DH, make sense to anyone?

Chuck - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 02:25 PM EST (#193748) #

in hockey teams can walk away from the arbitrator's decision

In baseball you can't walk away.

Jays2010 - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 03:01 PM EST (#193750) #

What's mediocre about Burrell?

Well there is the age, which you mentioned. He is very inconsistent, is restricted to LF and supposedly plays poor defence and cannot run. Looking at OPS is fine and dandy, but I certainly do not consider, for example, Jason Giambi's contributions to a ballclub as useful as his nice OPS, espescially since he is useless defensively and cannot run at all. This is just my personal opinion, but I don't trust Burrell enough to pay him $50 million more than Juan Rivera, who many people seem to mention as a good, cheap option. The free agent market is what it is; even Manny who looks nice at this point is a massive gamble. Frankly, the best people to take may be high-upside injury risks like Sheets and Furcal, espescially if they are only looking for 2 or 3 year deals. Furcal would espescially be nice since he will not require compensatory picks. If Burrell would take a one year deal, then I'm all for it. But if he wants 4/60 or whatever then I don't see the point...

Glevin - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 04:40 PM EST (#193751) #
"I'm also of the opinion that JP needs to start using the depth of his system to acquire elite players since he typically avoids drafting these players. So if two solid, semi-proven players such as Litsch and Lind can be used to acquire one potentially-elite player such as Matt Cain, pull the trigger and then sign a couple of one-year guys to fill the gaps behind Halladay, Cain and Purcey until McGowan/Cecil et al are ready to contribute."

The problem is that two young decent players do not equal a superstar. The Jays are not getting Cain (or anyone similar) without giving up multiple guys like Snider, Cecil, and Arencebia. I would also be shocked if the Jays got Manny. He will go for every dollar he can get and someone will pay him more, probably a team with a better chance of winning as well.
Mike Green - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 04:51 PM EST (#193752) #
Chuck, Zaun started 20 games between July 20 and the end of the season.  I wish that the number had been 25-30 instead, but I don't think  that it is impossible that Gaston would give him a decent amount of work in 2009.  Zaun is 37.
Chuck - Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 05:35 PM EST (#193753) #

Maybe I'm not being entirely rational about the way Gaston handled Zaun. I am a big fan of reason, so I'll cede to a more objective analysis.

Zaun is old, yes. But he's a young 37, if that's possible, given how little he has caught over his career. It just struck me that even with Barajas hitting so poorly during the second half, he was still Gaston's all-too-frequent choice over Zaun. And when Barajas continued to bat in the middle of the order, it was clear that Gaston had the beer goggles on where Barajas was concerned.

I'd like to see a Barajas/Zaun 50/50 job-sharing, as I hoped we'd see last year. Each catcher has strengths and weaknesses and these can be mixed and matched based on the opposition. But Ricciardi and Zaun have to know that Gaston has 75/25 in mind. Ricciardi might decide that $3M for 40 games is too rich for his blood. Zaun might decide that there's a team out there that may well give him 60-80 starts.

Or, as someone mentioned earlier, Zaun may decide that staying in Toronto, even at a "discount", has the upside of keeping him poised and ready to segue into his Buck Martinez post-playing broadcasting career. I'm all for a plan that has Zaun staying in Toronto one more year and then retiring, taking Pat Tabler's spot in the booth. Ah, yes. Dare to dream.

Jays2010 - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 01:58 AM EST (#193755) #
The problem is that two young decent players do not equal a superstar. The Jays are not getting Cain (or anyone similar) without giving up multiple guys like Snider, Cecil, and Arencebia. I would also be shocked if the Jays got Manny. He will go for every dollar he can get and someone will pay him more, probably a team with a better chance of winning as well.     You are most likely correct, but its hard to know exactly what a young, controllable groundball starter like Litsch would fetch in a trade. He has similar numbers to Cain the last two years and he pitches in the AL East, not the NL West. He also has five years before free agency. Obviously it's hard to gauge the value of a control pitcher like Litsch, but I'm sure many teams covet a pitcher like him. At this point in their careers, is it a stretch to suggest that Litsch is worth more than Brett Cecil to other teams? At the least, what do you think a team would offer for someone like Litsch in a trade? It makes more sense, in my opinion, to trade prospects for Litsch than dump $60 million on Derek Lowe. Obviously in a trade Cain has more value than Litsch, but how much of a difference is this really?   Lind does not have the upside nor the track record to be the centrepiece of a Cain trade. But when you're getting back a pitcher with good stats the last 2 years like Litsch, perhaps Sabean figures he can fill 2 spots by trading one player...it is Sabean after all...
Chuck - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 08:16 AM EST (#193756) #

He has similar numbers to Cain the last two years and he pitches in the AL East, not the NL West.

While they both have a career ERA+ of 118, they differ dramatically in K/9 (Cain 7.7, Litsch 4.7). K/9 is a strong, though not foolproof, leading indicator of success.

it is Sabean after all...

While Sabean deserves much mockery for his checkered track record, he tends to err most dramatically in his over-evaluation of veterans. It is unclear where his skills lie in evaluating young players. His decision to not move Lincecum for Rios is a data point in his favour.

Lucky - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 09:43 AM EST (#193758) #
Could someone (in the know) post which Blue Jays minor league players will be free agents this year?  And, are minor league players required to file for free agency like the major leaguers?  Other than Dopirak, who has already been signed, do you see the Blue Jays signing anymore of these players?  (Like Wayne Lydon, for instance)
Gerry - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 11:19 AM EST (#193759) #
BA has a feature on JP Arencibia today.
John Northey - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 11:50 AM EST (#193760) #
Haven't seen it mentioned but with such big news I figured we should point out that Brad Wilkerson is now a free agent!  How will the Jays survive 2009 if this key free agent is not signed quickly?

So we have Parrish, Wilkerson, and Zaun off the 40 man roster.  Odds are AJ will be too shortly.  Aaron Hill and Casey Janssen will have to be added back off the 60 day DL. 

Current 40 man...
25 pitchers listed on site including Janssen.  Remove Parrish and AJ and you are at 23.
The 24 are... Accardo/Bullington/Camp/Carlson/Castro /Downs/Frasor/Halladay/Hayhurst/Janssen /League/Litsch/Machi/Marcum/McGowan /Murphy/Purcey/Richmond/D Romero/Ryan /Santos/Tallet/Wolfe
3 catchers listed.  Remove Zaun to get to 2 (Barajas/Thigpen)
8 infielders listed including Hill.  Adams/Bautista/Hill/Inglett/McDonald/Overbay/Rolen/Scutaro
6 outfielders listed.  Remove Wilkerson and we have 5 - Coats/Lind/Rios/Snider/Wells

Thus 23+2+8+5 = 38 slots in use plus AJ makes it 39 for now.  Adams, Coats, and Thigpen are easy cuts imo if needed (tons of minor league free agent catchers who would be better than Thigpen I'd suspect) and I'm sure a few of the 23 pitchers could be cleared out too.

Who is being added?  Rickey Romero, Robert Ray, Brian Pettway come to mind right away.  Some would take Ryan Patterson and/or Jacob Butler.  Who else from the 2005 college ranks or 2004 high school qualifies and is worth keeping over guys like Adams/Coats/Thigpen?
Jays2010 - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 12:51 PM EST (#193761) #

Chuck, I realize Cain has the far stronger K numbers in comparison to Litsch. And obviously he has the better ceiling; however, guys like Litsch are perfect for the NL west. Frankly, if JP were the GM of the Padres he'd build a far better $50 million team with his philosophy than Kevin Towers, in my opinion. Obviously having an arm like Cain to pitch against the Yankees/Red Sox/Rays is necessary; this is one reason I wouldn't be terribly disappointed if the Jays overpay for AJ because he had a far better year vs the beasts of the east than Marcum or Litsch. But I highly doubt anyone would give a pitcher with as much proven success as Cain in a trade for Cain. Whether or not Litsch keeps it up is obviously the key question; I don't think he will and that is why I wouldn't mind if the Jays sell high on him. But who knows how others feel about him.

If Cain cannot be acquired, perhaps Litsch could be traded for someone such as Yunel Escobar, considering Atlanta badly wants a pitcher. Obviously Litsch cannot be traded without acquiring at least one other starter and the Jays would be in a better position to trade an arm next winter. 2009 looks like a frustrating year - almost as though the Jays should just sell off everyone to give themselves a top 5 farm system...

mendocino - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 02:51 PM EST (#193762) #

lefty Joe Wice was a draft and follow from the '04 draft.....lefties Luis Perez & Edgar Estanga, right hander Edward Rodriguez, catcher Jonathan Jaspe &outfielder Welinton Ramirez all signed in '04.

teams might take aflier on the lefties but not much else, could lose some depth in the AAA draft

Greg - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 03:26 PM EST (#193763) #

Good points on Burrell's age and lack of defensive value...but as the Jays could use a right-handed bat at DH and maybe the ocassional game in LF, I think Burrell is a good fit

And as for inconsistent, I don't get why Burrell gets stuck with that description.
He struggled in August/September this year, but in his fast 4 years, he's only had 4 months with an OPS below .850.  That's 4 out of 24 months!

As far as I can tell Burrell is a freakishly consistent hitter
Slugging percentages his past 4 years
2005 - .504
2006 - .502
2007 - .502
2008 - .507

His OBP slipped a bit this year, but for 3 years straight he was within 10 points of .390. 

I think Burrell would easily be the best hitter on the Jays next season, and fits what could be considered a hole (a right-handed bat in the DH/LF situation).  He certainly has his flaws, but he seems like a really under-rated player to me.

Pistol - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 03:43 PM EST (#193764) #
Who is being added?  Rickey Romero, Robert Ray, Brian Pettway come to mind right away.  Some would take Ryan Patterson and/or Jacob Butler.

Romero's the only one on that list that I think would be a risk of being taken if he wasn't protected.
Glevin - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 04:28 PM EST (#193765) #
"Whether or not Litsch keeps it up is obviously the key question; I don't think he will and that is why I wouldn't mind if the Jays sell high on him. But who knows how others feel about him."

I doubt there's a single GM in baseball who thinks he can. Litsch doesn't K enough guys while giving up too many HRs. Litsch's value is similar to where Chacin's was after his big rookie year. He pitched well, but it is very unlikely to last.
John Northey - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 04:42 PM EST (#193766) #
Burrell and the like will be interesting to see this winter.  Burrell is at the tail end of his prime years (age 32 season is 2009) and is entering his decline years.  A multi-year deal should be, if he has a good agent, a must to him.  To any smart team you try for as short a deal as possible, say 1-3 years, since you'd be aware that he most likely will produce closer to his pre-peak years than his peak years.

Through age 27 he hit 253/351/470
Since age 27 he has hit 262/386/504

Pre-age 27 he hit much like Rolen did this year (262/349/431) but with more power.  Useful, worth (in todays market) around $8-10 mil probably as a LF/1B/DH.  If the Jays could get him for that over no more than 3 years I'd say go for it but any more than that is too big a risk (years) or too much money. 

What do I expect to see?  JP will either make a big splash quick ala his Frank Thomas, AJ, Ryan signings or will wait and see who is left after the dust settles in late February ala Barajas and Eckstein.  I see a fair number of these LF/DH/1B sluggers out there (Manny, Burrell, Giambi, Ibanez, Dunn) plus rumours that Prince Fielder is available in a trade (not to mention secondary washed up ones like Frank Thomas and Mike Sweeney) so I wouldn't be shocked if someone decent is left standing after the music stops and the team which waits can swoop in and grab him cheap for one year.  I think a key will be Manny coming back to the AL. If he does that then one more DH slot is gone and the others will be scrambling to sign before the big bucks go away.

The big Jays key will be what JP values most.  Is it a DH?  If so he'll chase one hard and fast.  If it is a pitcher then he'll go after that.  Whichever it isn't he might wait until later to sign.  Also depends on how he rates them - if he sees two or three as the best options then the rest as roughly equal then if those 2 or 3 are signed by other teams he'll sit and wait.
John Northey - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 04:53 PM EST (#193767) #
Litsch vs Chacin...

Chacin: came up in September at age 23 (2 starts) then 34 starts at 24 with a 119 ERA+ followed by 17 with a 90 and 5 with an 80 at age 26, now in A+ with a 7.88 ERA.
Litsch: came up mid-season at age 22 and had 20 starts with a 117 ERA+, followed by 28 starts with a 119 at 23 yrs old.

Chacin after his age 23 season had 2 ML starts vs Litsch with 48.  That is a huge difference. 

4.67 K/9 = Litsch
5.02 K/9 = Chacin (advantage)

2.35 BB/9 = Litsch (advantage)
3.20 BB/9 = Chacin

1.07 HR/9 = Litsch  (advantage)
1.22 HR/9 = Chacin

Litsch has 287 IP, Chacin 331 2/3. 

I don't see Litsch as a great pitcher, and if someone offered a solid deal I'd take it (ie: level A prospect or two).  However, he has already shown more than Chacin and is just at the age that Chacin reached the majors.  Better control, better at keeping the ball in the park.  Two big pluses for Litsch vs the lower K/9.  That K/9 suggests he won't last, but he is cheap (Jays pick his salary for 2009 and maybe 2010 before arbitration hits) and given the league didn't figure him out over last winter I suspect he can hold it for another year or two. 

Mike Green - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 04:54 PM EST (#193768) #
It's more complicated than that.  Litsch is a year younger (K rates tend to rise a bit), has pitched at this level for almost 300 innings instead of just over 200, and has a much better minor league history than Chacin from all perspectives including K rate. 

Litsch's home-run rate is completely fine.  He gives up a little less than an average number of fly balls, and his HR/fly rate is entirely normal.  It is true that because of the large number of balls in play he allows, he will be susceptible to changes in team defence more than other pitchers might be, but then so was Jimmy Key.
seeyou - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 05:49 PM EST (#193770) #
Sportsnet is reporting the Jays just picked up two players off waivers: RP Kelvin Jimenez from St. Louis and SS Angel Sanchez from Kansas City. 

At first neither seem like real impact claims to me, we've already got so much depth in the pen and Sanchez doesn't seem close to ML-ready yet.  Any initial thoughts from anyone else?

Timbuck2 - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 06:03 PM EST (#193771) #
I don't know about Sportsnet (I can't find anything there) but here is a link to the Canoe report.

And as for comparing Jimmy Key to Jesse Litsch - Until I looked I didn't realize that Jimmy's had similar years to Jesse in the K/9 inning department...  Very interesting!
Ducey - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 06:28 PM EST (#193772) #

The Jiminez and Sanchez waiver claims are on the Official site.  Sanchez had TJ surgery on his elbow in 2007 and hit .250 last year.  Seems like standard SS AAA filler.

Jiminez had a decent ERA but his peripherals are not that exciting to me.  Maybe he is a groundballer that had bad defence behind him?  Maybe he will be auditioning for Jason Frasor's job?

JP has now filled the 40 man roster (according to the site) with a lot of marginal guys including:

Bullington, Camp, Castro, Dirk Von Hayhurst??, Jiminez, Machi, Bill Murphy, Parrish, Reid Santos and Sanchez.

Maybe JP is under pressure to field a better team in Vegas and figures if he sends these guys down they may not get claimed and will stick with the organization.  I guess Joe Inglett didn't look like much either - still its tough to get excited about these moves.

Jays2010 - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 07:18 PM EST (#193773) #

Litsch is not the only starter who has been effective with a low K rate. Wang and Westbrook are others. I'm not saying anyone considers Litsch a number 2 starter or anything, but is it unrealitsic to call him a number 3 starter in the NL? He also improved his K rate in September, when his velocity was up. If people are willing to dump millions on Marquis, Silva, Suppan et al, I'm sure someone would be willing to give up something solid for Litsch. Other than JP Ricciardi, most GMs have shown a willingness to trade prospects for young cost-effective pitching; Litsch is not Dan haren by any stretch of the imagination, but he is worth more than two B prospects. I doubt he is going to be traded and, personally, I would not consider trading him unless AJ stays or we acquire another number 2 starter. But by 2010 it is very possible that Halladay, McGowan, Cecil and Purcey will be leading our rotation with their excellent arms and someone will have to be moved (barring more injuries). Acquiring Yunel escobar, for example, for Marcum at one point was not impossible (espescially with Brent Lillibridge waiting in the wings). Supposedly if Robinson Diaz had been added with Rios we may have landed Lincecum. The point is that JP is way too protective over his players/prospects and needs to get over his stubbornness if he wants to save his job...

Glevin - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 07:58 PM EST (#193774) #
"Litsch is not the only starter who has been effective with a low K rate. Wang and Westbrook are others."

The difference between Litsch and these guys is that these guys don't give up HRs and Litsch does. (Litsch is 1 HR/8.4 IP, Westbrook, 1/11.6, Wang 1/18.5 IP). I honestly do not see a GM giving up much for Litsch, or rather Litsch would be more valuable to the Jays than whoever they could get for him. I'm sure they could get something, but I don't see two B prospects by a long shot.


ComebyDeanChance - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 09:16 PM EST (#193776) #
Way off topic, and I don't know if someone has already mentioned this, but have people seen Nate Silver of BPro's, excellent election website called fivethirtyeight.com ? Nate has become one of the featured election poll analysts in the US, plus his site obviously backs the good guy.
zeppelinkm - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 09:44 PM EST (#193777) #

But Glevin surely you must be willing to acknowledge that Litsch is only entering his age 24 season. He's had 2 fine seasons for someone his age. Yes, his K/9 isn't great. However, he did improve it dramatically from last year to this (he went from 4.05 to 5.06) while at the same time lowering his walk rate by nearly a full walk per nine innings and less significant was his lowering his H/9 by .3. Not to mention he also lowered his HR/9 from 1.13 to 1.02

These are all good positive indicators of continued success. This is a critical difference of Litsch from a seemingly similar pitcher in Chacin. Chacin got worse in K/9, BB/9, and HR/9 from his breakout, 119 ERA+ season to his followup season. As for Wang, Jesse will have thrown 3 full seasons before Wang ever threw 1 MLB pitch. Will he be as good as Wang? Hard to say he really is a different kind of pitcher, but he's still got time to improve yet. Westbrook at the same point in his career had thrown 70 innings with an ERA over 6.00 with a brutal K/W ratio albeit a decent K/9 ratio.

To say there is no GM in baseball who wouldn't trade 2 B prospects for a guy like Litsch is laying it on a little heavy, I think. I think there are several GM's who would pay that given the price of pitching in baseball. Litsch is still under control too. He is an asset.

But then again, we all see the glass differently. I think Jesse's is half full.

Glevin - Monday, November 03 2008 @ 10:45 PM EST (#193778) #
"To say there is no GM in baseball who wouldn't trade 2 B prospects for a guy like Litsch is laying it on a little heavy, I think. I think there are several GM's who would pay that given the price of pitching in baseball. Litsch is still under control too. He is an asset."

Look at it this way. Would you trade say Ahrens and Cecil (combined for a B rating in Sickles last year) for Armando Galaraga? No, you wouldn't and neither would I. Level B prospects are still very good prospects and for most teams this will be their #2-4 on their list. No team is trading top players for a pitcher with as little upside as Litsch. I am not saying he cannot be valuable, but watching him pitch and looking at his secondary numbers, it is absurdly optimistic to think he will repeat this kind of season. Guys with average stuff who rely on excellent control but who also give up plenty of HRs do not have long-term success. (His K/IP was still 39/40 starters in the league with guys over 140 IP.)
Jays2010 - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 03:21 AM EST (#193779) #

Glevin you are more likely than not correct about Litsch's value (though Cecil isn't a B prospect and Sickel's evaluations really don't mean much in terms of Cecil's present-day value). However, I remember on a Blue Jays broadcast that a scout had said something to the effective of "I would pay to see Marcum pitch and I think he could develop into an ace). Now Marcum and Litsch are different pitchers - but the basic point is that one scout from one organization placed a very high premium on Marcum. Marcum has the stronger K rate but he has the worse HR rate in comparison to Litsch. The point isn't so much to compare Marcum to Litsch; it has more to do with the fact that they are both control pitchers that have exceeded expectations; Litsch has also show that he's durable so far in his career and I'm sure there are teams that feel he can give them 200 quality innings next year.

We know for a fact that at least one team thought very highly of Marcum, one team gave up a ridiculous package for Bedard and this same team spent $48 million on Carlos Silva. We also know that a major reason that Arizona traded for Dan Haren as opposed to a more expensive pitcher is that they wanted a cheap, controllable pitcer. So, basically, while I agree with your main point I disagree that the every one of the other 29 teams don't value a guy like Jesse Litsch as much as Toronto does. If Litsch was made available, there will surely be someone who pays more than two B prospects for him (actual B prospects, not Cecil). To use the Jays system as an example, I would expect that someone would give up Jackson, Ahrens and Campbell at the least for Litsch. Perhaps a R Romero is tossed in as well. There are no sure things in that group, but I believe those will be 4 of the top 10 Jays prospects when BA comes out with their 2009 rankings. Litsch probably won't bring back any studs, but he'd get more than redundant prospects from other organizations...

TamRa - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 04:08 AM EST (#193780) #
Regarding Litsch's K/9....while sample size cautions apply, it's worth noting that before his demotion it was 4.62, and after his recall it was 5.90 (for referance Tim Hudson's was 5.46)

Not enough to up his trade value but promising nonetheless.


TamRa - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 04:12 AM EST (#193781) #
Romero's the only one on that list that I think would be a risk of being taken if he wasn't protected.

I would not be AT ALL surprised to see Robert Ray plucked. Pettaway is emminantly safe of course.

Chuck - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 07:59 AM EST (#193783) #
this same team spent $48 million on Carlos Silva

Bill Bavasi has been canned. One imagines, though cannot state categorically, that the GM bar will never again be so low.
Mike Green - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 09:23 AM EST (#193784) #
The Globe reports that Gregg Zaun has filed for free agency.  The club must decide whether to offer arbitration by December 1. 
Jays2010 - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 12:12 PM EST (#193788) #

this same team spent $48 million on Carlos Silva

Bill Bavasi has been canned. One imagines, though cannot state categorically, that the GM bar will never again be so low.

Allegedly quality organizations spent a lot of money on Jeff Suppan and Jason Marquis. In the case of Suppan, I remember people suggesting that the Brewers only had one major hole to fill on their roster that year and GM's will overpay to "complete" their 25 man roster. In the case of Marquis, he was clearly payed for winning 14 games for 2006 (though he lost 16 games and had an ERA over 6).

There will always be someone who gives out ridiculous contracts or someone who will overpay in trade, espescially for pitching. I think watching the Blue Jays organization for the last 7 years has convinced people that trading prospects is a rarity; even as teams become more protective of their young players/prospects, there will always be someone like Bavasi who believes that replacing the 2007 production of Weaver, Ramirez et al with Bedard and Silva will give them another 10 wins and a shot at the division (of course, Brad Wilkerson replaced Jose Guillen and their 87 wins in 2007 was a fallacy considering their -21 run differential). Bavasi is not alone; most GMs are not like JP (in that JP doesn't make too many colossal errors but he has not done many things espescially well either). If Litsch were available, someone would be dumb and overpay.

92-93 - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 01:46 PM EST (#193792) #
"Way off topic, and I don't know if someone has already mentioned this, but have people seen Nate Silver of BPro's, excellent election website called fivethirtyeight.com ? Nate has become one of the featured election poll analysts in the US, plus his site obviously backs the good guy."

Why, oh why, must you say that? I get how it's cool round these parts to be all liberal and such, but come on - this is a Blue Jays fan site. Nobody needs your endorsements, nor cares. I was quite surprised to find that by "good guy" you meant the person who is going to set this country back farther than any since his party counterpart, Jimmy Carter. My only comfort in knowing Obama is going to win today's election is in also knowing the damage he is going to do to the Democrat party's image once his 4 year term is up, and then the Republicans can send in another Reagan to clean up the mess.

Hey, if you are going to get political here, why can't I? (and for the record, he isn't the first - there have been a few pro-Obama stances on here lately, so it's time for some balance)
ayjackson - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 02:28 PM EST (#193793) #
Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.
zeppelinkm - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 03:15 PM EST (#193798) #

Anyways... enough of that, let's get back to talking about the Jay's and baseball in general.

Glevin: Do you think that Litsch will not improve, or not improve enough to offset the expected decline?

I think he is capable of improving enough as a pitcher to post numbers maybe a half step below last year. He's not really a 119 ERA+ guy, or atleast I would be moderately surprised if posted another season like that, but I think he could turn in 100 - 110 ERA+ performances for the next 3 - 4 years, which I think has great value. He's already passed one big test which was improving upon his performance as a 22 year old.  There is value there. Pitching is a precious commodity in baseball.

And no, I wouldn't make that trade you proposed either, but we are not talking about Galarraga. Litsch is younger by 3 years, this is significant.

christaylor - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 03:53 PM EST (#193800) #
Personally I don't understand how anyone could back McCain. I mean, I'd get it if McCain from 2000 were running, but we've seen a McCain that has repudiated his previous stances against the Bush tax cuts, against the Religious right and against torture. His ability to work in a bi-partisan way is conspicuously absent amidst his railing against the boogeymen of Wright and Ayers. He's also nominated a running mate who while pandering to the hateful base of his party makes George Bush look intelligent and adept. McCain ought to won in 2000, I daresay the world would be a better place if McCain had won in 2000. While have no strong feelings about an Obama win (I see him as an empty suit and talker) I daresay I can't see any reason to have any good feelings about McCain.

Sorry for the off topic-ness of the message and in general I don't care about US politics and agree that the endorsements don't belong on the fan site (although Nate Silver is doing an excellent job of analyzing polling data on fivethirtyeight.com which is sorely needed both in the US and this country) in so far as they do not impinge upon Canada (I couldn't understand people eagerness to watch the American debates over the better quality Canadian debates nor the 15% who wished they could throw away their Canadian ballot and vote in the US) but as a disinterested observer I just don't understand the appeal of this McCain (whereas I did understand the appeal of the McCain of 2000) unless of course one thinks a) Obama is evil somehow (the democrats are to the right of the Conservative Party of Canada) or b) McCain is lying in his campaign and he'll become the McCain of old.

Anyway... I know from your past posts that you're a rational, thinking person, so I just thought I'd pose above puzzles about McCain to you as in your message you offer a tacit endorsement of him...
92-93 - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 04:10 PM EST (#193802) #
Chris, I REALLY don't want to do this here (as I'm already doing it in other places). But I can't even begin to tell you how ridiculous this statement is -

"His ability to work in a bi-partisan way is conspicuously absent amidst his railing against the boogeymen of Wright and Ayers."

Obama deserves CREDIT for associating himself with these people?!?! WTF?!?!
christaylor - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 04:29 PM EST (#193803) #
Fair enough. No need to go into detail (or even reply) here. I'll just say this (for clarity):

""His ability to work in a bi-partisan way is conspicuously absent amidst his railing against the boogeymen of Wright and Ayers."

Obama deserves CREDIT for associating himself with these people?!?! WTF?!?!"

The first part of the statement deserves the emphasis more than the latter, however, I see the associations of Obama with Wright/Ayers as not very relevant to the issues the US has at hand presently (the economy and two wars) and at odd with the statements against negative campaigning McCain has made in the past (and at odds with a McCain who has suffered deeply from nasty negative campaigning in SC in 2000, where slurs about his daughter and made up 'love-children' were throw at him frequently).

As someone who had great respect for Senator McCain, I can't believe how little respect I have for candidate McCain. That was the main point I was driving at...
vw_fan17 - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 05:58 PM EST (#193809) #
To CT: So, Palin's pandering to the "hateful base" (i.e. the religious). Yet, Obama was a member of a church for 20 years where the preacher says F*** America and blames the white man for selling drugs to blacks, yet he can simply say "Nah, I wasn't there when he said that" and he's off the hook? That's what I don't get. Either he was using the church to get ahead (sounds like pandering to me), or he believes it. In which case, his beliefs are as or more radical than Palin.

For the most part, I think Obama's a great guy, and probably will make a great president. But, there's a little nagging voice that says that all this talk of a "civilian army" and "redistributing the wealth" sounds a lot like the big bad USSR my parents had one too many brushes with in WW2. My grandfather spent 5 years in Siberia and lost 2 children to the russians. Some of Obama's statements could be interpreted to mean he wants to be more like Cuba or Venezuela or worse. Bill Ayers apparently was in Venezuela recently to speak at a conference for teachers. He sure seems to love the socialism thing. I sure hope his association with OB's a boogeyman.

Sure, there's always someone talking about doomsday. Yet, for example, last month proved that sometimes, they ARE right..

(and to link it back to baseball)
If I were voting (not a US citizen, so I can't), I might vote McCain as a "devil you know". Not going to do much, probably emulate Bush some, but hopefully won't mess things up too much worse. Kind of like a coaching change. Obama's the "great changer" who is kind of like a new GM coming in, cleaning house and saying "We're gonna do it my way now." Sure, there's a good chance it works (for a while), but, it could also be really, REALLY bad. Time will tell. I truly hope that what I consider the best parts of Obama's platform will work out, and that nothing bad happens during his presidency.
rtcaino - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 06:01 PM EST (#193811) #

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/028876.html

 

Our boy Nate getting some love.

Nate Silver of The Plank and fivethirtyeight.com has done a better job synthesizing and explaining the polls this election than any statistical analyst has done in this or any previous presidential election. ....Anyways, here's Silver's final take:

Final Projection: Obama 349, McCain 189

TamRa - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 06:21 PM EST (#193812) #
Without taking a partisan positon, I will ask a generic question:

Why do people ignore what a person has DONE in favor of the BS they say on the campaign trail?

To take one example from each:

McCain spends 26 years in the Senate building up a reputation for working in a bi-partisan fashion (as even the most liberal member will attest) and on the campaign trail - SHOCK! - he sounds like a partisan. So? Which do you think is more indicitive of how he will act in office? (same with all this "now he loves the religious right" and all that nonsense - no one actually IN the Religious right likes him and he doesn't like them....it's simply an "enemy of my enemy" cease fire)

Likewise, Obama votes consistantly for highly restrictive gun laws then campaigns with rhetoric which contradicts that...which is a more likely indicater of what his policies will actually be?

I really respect anyone's right to support whoever they want, but i will never understand how so many otherwise clever thinking people turn into simpleton's when it comes to considering who to vote for (or at least, explaining their choice).


christaylor - Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 11:33 PM EST (#193816) #
"Why do people ignore what a person has DONE in favor of the BS they say on the campaign trail?"

I think you're question is flawed... campaigning is something a candidate is doing and bears equal (if not more because it ought to be predictive of what a candidate will do, if not then they will have a tough time being re-elected). Any candidate spewing BS on the campaign trail deserves to be judged on it and it should never be ignored (that's why incumbents are so often taken to task for not keeping promises). A campaign is a time for a candidate to say and say truthfully, what they will do if elected to office. If it isn't, then it serves no purpose.
cybercavalier - Wednesday, November 05 2008 @ 12:54 AM EST (#193817) #
Lots of choices.

Not to mention that this is only a list of MLB free agent catchers; there should be quite a few veteran catchers at the peak of their careers in the minor leagues. Just off the top of my head, Pierre Luc LaForest is one Canadian catcher at his peak. I decide against playing Thigpen as our backup at MLB at this moment as he hasn't shown similar resilency as Adam Lind and I wish to see JP stocking up the AAA with batters with better offensive numbers.
ComebyDeanChance - Wednesday, November 05 2008 @ 01:04 AM EST (#193819) #
Why, oh why, must you say that? I get how it's cool round these parts to be all liberal and such, but come on
Well, since you asked, and and asked your question on this site, I'll answer.
1. So America won't be ruled by stupid people anymore, people who believe that dinosaurs were walking on the earth 4000 years ago and who try to prevent obvious scientific truth from being taught in schools, and who'd burn books before they'd read them.
2. So America won't be ruled anymore by racists who try as hard as they can to capitalize on people's 'otherness', meaning they're not white.
3. So America wont be ruled anymore by greedy people who peddle foolishness like 'trickle-down' economics.
4. Most of all, so America won't be ruled by the kind of vulgar people who peddle lies about WMD's, like Will's 'Maverick' (a supposed 'war hero' who got shot down trying to bomb civilians in Vietnam, and later apparently embellished stories of 'torture) did to people, to convince them it's ok to have 100.000 to 500.000 dead Iraqi civilians, who had no part at all in 9/11, and millions of displaced Iraqi's refugeed, because it garners some votes for some rich, white pricks who control the GOP by catering to religious foolishness, anti-abortion zealots and racists Or that it's ok to torture people in Guantanamo.
Those are 4 reasons. I'm sure people can think of others. I wouldn't have set them out her, because as you say it's a ball site, but you asked.
snowman - Wednesday, November 05 2008 @ 01:35 PM EST (#193833) #

Man, I was hoping nobody would respond to that earlier post by Dean; it was so obviously an attempt to bait someone into responding, so he could answer back with his hate-filled rant.  Dean, it's dishonest of you to say you're only responding "since you asked", when you were baiting people.

But, despite your lack of integrity, I'll address your concerns.

First, do your really believe George Bush, John McCain, or anybody else in Bush's cabinet really believes dinosaurs lived 4000 years ago?  That belief exists only in a minute fringe.  Every group has fringe elements that could be used to discredit the whole group.  This is more blatant dishonesty on your part, claiming Bush, McCain, etc. are "stupid" for a belief they don't even hold.  And as far as "preventing obvious scientific truth from being taught in schools", I assume you mean evolution.  Or I should say, the "Theory of Evolution".  Because that is all it is at this point.  It may well be true, but it has not yet been proven scientifically.  And that is why science has lost so much credibility over the years, because they are asserting things as fact that they have not yet proven.  Evolution and man-made global warming are the two prominent examples right now.  Wanting things to be taught as fact when they remain unproven is another example of a lack of integrity.  And burning books, does anybody actually do that?  That just a slander thrown in for effect (more dishonesty - anybody notice a pattern in Dean?).  One could just as easily assert that Obama supporters sleep with goats, since I'm sure a liberal, somewhere, has done so.

Point 2 is just more slander.  Why would racists have Condi Rice, and before her Colin Powell, in a prominent position like Secretary of State?  Your comment doesn't make much sense, but if you're referring to the issue of whether illegal immigrants should be given citizenship rights, that's an issue that people should be able to debate without being called racists.  Unless you're filled with hatred, like Dean seems to be.  Wow, hate, slander, lying - is this what Obama will bring us?

Point 3 also makes no sense.  First, trickle-down economics have been shown to work.  Second, greedy people will always exist, no matter what the economic system (even Communism).  And third, the current economic mess has nothing to do with trickle-down economics, it goes back to Bill Clinton ordering Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/etc. to lower mortgage standards so poorer people could qualify for homes.  Unsurprisingly, it turns out poorer people sometimes have a hard time making loan payments.  Incidentally, Obama was one of the top recipients of campaign funding from Fannie and Freddie.

Point 4, surprisingly has a few nuggets of truth buried in a lot garbage.  I agree that using torture is unacceptable.  If America wants to be the "good guy" in the War on Terror, it should act like a good guy.  Jack Bauer aside, good guys don't torture people.  But in a mind-blowing exhibit of inconsistency, Dean decries torture while giving the thumbs-up to killing babies in abortuaries.  How do you defend one and oppose the other?  If you can say a human child does not have rights, why can't the US government say a terror suspect also doesn't have human rights?  Your numbers of Iraqi deaths are also wildly exaggerated, and you fail to mention that the vast majority of those deaths were caused by Islamic militants.  While I might agree that the Iraqi invasion was unjust, the reality is that the US has been fighting there for almost 20 years.  Even Bill Clinton, who I'm sure is another of your heroes, was constantly lobbing missiles over the Turkish border.  And ridiculing McCain's 5+ years spent in a prison camp - that's just despicable.  On top of your dishonesty, slander, and hatred, you've added a total lack of class to your resume.

From a Canadian point of view, he was probably lying when he promised to scrap the Free Trade Agreement, but since then, the economic situation has devolved to the point where it's a possibility.  Protectionism tends to rear its ugly head in times like these.  The problem is, it only makes the situation worse, as the Great Depression illustrated.  Once one country takes that path, others respond in kind, and soon international trade grinds to a halt.

Sorry about the long post (the thread is pretty much done anyway), but that garbage needed responding - especially considering the obvious baiting that started it.  For the record, I agree with the poster who stated that both choices were pretty weak.  There are problems with both Obama and McCain, but at least discuss those problems honestly, not with slander and lies (if you feel a need to even bring up American politics on a Blue Jays fan site).

jerjapan - Wednesday, November 05 2008 @ 02:22 PM EST (#193838) #

And that is why science has lost so much credibility over the years, because they are asserting things as fact that they have not yet proven.  Evolution and man-made global warming are the two prominent examples right now.

There are no credible proponents anywhere for the idea that global warming is not man-made.  Even Bush has conceded this.  I challenge you to find even one example of what you claim as truth.  This argument would've been worrisome 10 years ago when it was debatable, now that this issue is undeniably the challenge of our lifetime, this statment is deeply disturbing.

I know and deeply respect many conservatives, and share many conservative ideals.  The current American administration in no way resembles a true conservative government, and I am offended by their claim to the label on behalf of sane, logical and progressive thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum.

For Americans to turn the page on an administration that has burned through a 200 billion surplus, turning it into an over 400 billion dollar deficit, an administration that is married to the DEEPLY DISCREDITED notion of trickle down economics (again, please point to even one actual example of a country where this has benefitted the majority), an administration that has divided the world along religious lines while sparking fanatacism (both at home and abroad) and costing thousands of innocent lives, an administration that would like to restrict the invidividual rights of gays and women, an administration loathed worldwide, is wonderful, wonderful news. 

Congratularions Obama.  I hope your conciliatory, non-partisan gestures in your speech last night are the first steps in unifying a deeply divided America.  The world needs it. 

 

92-93 - Wednesday, November 05 2008 @ 02:33 PM EST (#193839) #
"Man, I was hoping nobody would respond to that earlier post by Dean"

There was absolutely no point to. First of all, I made my intentions QUITE clear when starting this all, but they refused to listen, and kept trying to get the last word in. And secondly, those 4 points had literally zero substance and were not worth addressing at all - wouldn't have expected any different though, seeing as he just elected a president on the merits of pomp and fluff. Apparently doesn't take much to woo a Democratic crowd.
snowman - Thursday, November 06 2008 @ 12:47 AM EST (#193865) #

Oh, I don't blame you for responding, 92-93.  I just thought it would be fitting if everybody completely ignored it, and hopefully he wouldn't bring his politics in again.  But at the same time, there's also justification in answering that kind of thing, especially the ridiculous claims in his "four points".  I think it's great that America was able to elect a non-white to its highest office, but like you, I wish it was someone of more substance and accomplishment.

Jerjapan:  I could name you many scientists who dispute the idea of man-made global warming, but like Al Gore, you would simply dismiss them as "flat-earthers".  I can't find "credible proponents", as you ask, if you simply dismiss them as non-credible for resisting the theory.  But there are many climatologists, meteorologists, etc. who dispute man-made global warming, and many others who would, except for the threats against their careers coming from the proponents of the theory.  Global warming "science" is actually more of a religion, demanding belief and adherence to doctrine, and excommunicating any heretics that go against it.  That being said, I still think it's a great thing to reduce pollution, recycle, etc.  I drive a very fuel-efficient car myself, and recyle whatever I can.  I just think schemes like the Kyoto Protocol, and the Canadian Liberal party's "Green Shift" plan are a huge and expensive mistake.  Some scientists are already detecting a weakening trend in solar activity, and predicting a significant cooling period coming soon.  It may not be long before we're wishing for global warming.

However, I do agree with you that there's been fiscal mis-management in the US.  I suspect most of that is the result of the decision to invade Iraq though.  Would there still be a large budget deficit without the costs of the war?  I don't know; I'm sure the numbers are out there, but I'm not planning to look for them tonight.

But I do have to dispute your claim that Bush divided the world along religious lines.  I think there are some imams who may have a little more to do with it than Bush.  Remember, a terror attempt was made on the World Trade Center long before Bush showed up.  Bush has also not restricted the rights of gays.  Nobody is saying they can't be together, and many jurisdictions give them benefits similar to those of common-law couples.  Bush (and many others) are opposing gay "marriage" because there is no such thing.  That is not what marriage is.  You can no sooner claim a right to gay marriage than I can claim a right to defy the laws of gravity.  Gay couples can make up whatever name they want for their relationships, but the word "marriage" is already spoken for.  The attempt to co-opt the word is an attempt to force people to not just tolerate homosexuality, but to approve it.  In the past, homosexual lobbyists promised, just leave us free to do our thing, and we won't bother you.  But the promise was broken.  People are being forced to approve.  Any criticism of homosexuality is now forbidden.  Religious organizations are being force to allow gays couples to use their facilities for their ceremonies, etc.  The promise was broken, and people are resisting that.

The same goes for the rights of women.  Bush has done nothing to restrict those rights.  Women have all the same rights men have in America (as opposed to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan before the US invaded).  Now if you're talking about abortion, there is no legitimate right to that, because it violates the natural rights of another, namely the child being killed.  As I pointed out previously, if you can declare any group (such as unborn children) exempt from human rights, then you can't complain that another group is deprived of its human rights by someone else.  You have to be consistent.  By denying children their fundamental human rights, you've lost your ability to criticize the KKK (who dehumanized African-Americans), the Nazis (who dehumanized Jews, priests, gypsies, homosexuals), the Stalin regime (who dehumanized anyone who disagreed with them), and countless other atrocities.  Denying anyone their humanity, and their human rights, is never a good thing.  It's always a precursor to bloodshed, whether it be the blood of children, or of blacks, or of Jews.  So no, there are no threats to the rights of women.  There is an attempt to assert the rights of a class of people that is too weak to defend itself.  A just society should defend the weak, not destroy them.

zeppelinkm - Thursday, November 06 2008 @ 07:32 AM EST (#193868) #

As somebody not emmersed in this stuff, I will thrown my 2 cents in, as someone who might represent "the regular voting joe" albeit a Canadian one.

First off, 92-93, I take offence to your using the term crowd at the end of your statement in a debate you are having with 1 individual. It reduces the credibility of your post as you decide to paint us all with the same brush, and makes you come across as a major "I'm a republician and i'll always be a republician" rather then a free willed individual who can independantly and without bias evaluate all the politicial parties and candidates every election.

Now, onto the actual policital stuff going on: I don't know a ton about politics, but I will take issue with the comment "Clinton forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce their mortgage standards..", implying that this is the reason for the mess the USA is in. This is false. I don't follow politics but I do understand economics (it's my life). Buddy above me alluded to it - the financial mess right now is the result of years and years of running unsubstantiated budget deficits. IE, deficits so unbelievably huge it's only the fact that it's the US Economy that it took so long for the economic shit to the fan. And why are they running such large deficits...  (Someone to do with something going on overseas, maybe perhaps?).  We actually this discussed this very issue 7 years ago in an advanced macroeconomic issues course I was taking during my undergraduate. My prof at the end of this particular discussion on the US said "it might not be for 5-10 years, but eventually this overspending WILL catch up to them, these deficits are not sustainable".  

And finally, onto McCain and Obama. Something that has been lost, or at least not mentioned at all in this debate is a leader's ability to inspire. As much of leadership is about the decisions YOU make as it is about the decisions you inspire other people to make. Obama has the ability to change the world for better, this is the ace of his sleeve that McCain lacks - to inspire people to get off their ass and do something different. Look at the unprecedented number of new voters this election. McCain cannot inspire people to action the same way Obama does and hopefully will continue too (although John McCain wouldn not have been a bad president, he just ran at the wrong time). He is the kind of president you roll the dice on.  For all his "pomp" and "fluff", that's what most election campaign's seem to be. Now, it's time for him to put his money where his mouth is. If he can surround himself with smart people who can guide him through this recession, he has the ability to inspire people to believe in whatever policies/theories are established to get out of this financial crisis. 

 

zeppelinkm - Thursday, November 06 2008 @ 07:36 AM EST (#193869) #
My brain had a moment: I wrote unsubstantiated instead of unprecedented when I was referring to the budget deficits. In simple terms: huge deficits.
jerjapan - Thursday, November 06 2008 @ 01:38 PM EST (#193886) #

Jerjapan:  I could name you many scientists who dispute the idea of man-made global warming, but like Al Gore, you would simply dismiss them as "flat-earthers".  I can't find "credible proponents", as you ask, if you simply dismiss them as non-credible for resisting the theory. 

My question is actually serious, and please don't compare me to Al Gore ;)

I teach high school for a living and often the civics course - I don't try to convince my students to think my way, but rather to make critical evaluations and decisions on their own.  As such, It would be useful for me to have the names of credible scientists who dispute global warming - I am not familiar with any, and continue to dispute your claim, but I won't judge any names in advance and would happily be proven wrong.  In fact, while others don't like mixing politics and pleasure (fair enough, it is a baseball site) I personally can't resist the opportunity to debate with well-informed conservatives, as my friends generally have similar views to me. 

But I do have to dispute your claim that Bush divided the world along religious lines.  I think there are some imams who may have a little more to do with it than Bush. 

I am in no way letting corrupt and immoral imans who use hatred and violence for political gain off the hook.  But I know first hand from my extensive travels around the world and the numerous Islamic students I teach, many of whom are wonderful, open-minded young people, just how widely hated the Unites States is outside of North America - and in some cases, quite legitimately so.   

Bush has also not restricted the rights of gays.  Nobody is saying they can't be together, and many jurisdictions give them benefits similar to those of common-law couples.  Bush (and many others) are opposing gay "marriage" because there is no such thing.  That is not what marriage is. 

I think this semantic argument is vaild, and I would NEVER insist that a religious institution conduct ceremonies that run counter to their beliefs, but I think  you are ignoring the symbolic value of giving gays equal rights.  Gay people are still beaten and discriminated against, fired from jobs and harassed in our schools.  Gay teens are far more likely to comitt suicide.  The word 'fag' routinely slips off the lips of otherwise educated, moral people.  Allowing gay marriage does no harm to anyone opposed, but it does a heck of a lot of good for those who've been discriminated against for much of their lives. 

By denying children their fundamental human rights, you've lost your ability to criticize the KKK (who dehumanized African-Americans), the Nazis (who dehumanized Jews, priests, gypsies, homosexuals), the Stalin regime (who dehumanized anyone who disagreed with them), and countless other atrocities. 

this is your one point I would dismiss as ill-conceived and not worthy of your very cogent arguments.  Obviously, what is being disputed is whether or not unborn children are 'people' - you insist that this is axiomatic, I disagree.  And then to imply that their's a link between pro-choicers and the KKK, nazis, etc. is just a ridiculous example of the straw man fallacy.

I actually respect pro-lifers for their committment to what they believe to be right.  But when abortion doctors are being murdered by these same 'pro-lifers' (the irony!) for helping teenage mothers who are not ready to be parents, or when we consider that women who are raped may lose their rights to have an abortion, or when we look at choice in the context of women's rights and the feminist movement, the issue is far, far more complex than you give it credit for being. 

TamRa - Sunday, November 09 2008 @ 06:25 PM EST (#193948) #
campaigning is something a candidate is doing and bears equal (if not more because it ought to be predictive of what a candidate will do, if not then they will have a tough time being re-elected)


In theory perhaps, but I've never seen it work that way IRL. For instance, Bill Clinton ran boldly on tax cuts in 1992 and wasn't in office even a month (maybe even before the inaguration) before he announced that his budget figures had been wrong and he couldn't afford tax cuts.

Obama will almost certainly chart a similar course. (except for these cash payment to lower income people that he calls tax cuts but aren't)

Any candidate spewing BS on the campaign trail deserves to be judged on it and it should never be ignored

But all do so on both sides and each side calls the other on it while the supporters of each side deny it's BS. It happened in 2008 on both sides - it happens every time.

Only gulabillity and naivete keeps it going.

(that's why incumbents are so often taken to task for not keeping promises)


Have you noticed that 90% of incumbents get re-elected as often as they want to?

A campaign is a time for a candidate to say and say truthfully, what they will do if elected to office. If it isn't, then it serves no purpose.

I don't mean to be a smart ass but how old are you? Have you actually ever SEEN an election? There is a ton of stuff elections OUGHT to be but never EVER actually ARE.

TamRa - Sunday, November 09 2008 @ 06:47 PM EST (#193949) #
1. So America won't be ruled by stupid people anymore, people who believe that dinosaurs were walking on the earth 4000 years ago and who try to prevent obvious scientific truth from being taught in schools, and who'd burn books before they'd read them.

While I respect your somewhat absurd contention that everyone who is friendly to the religious right disbelieves evolution, the slander about book burning is exactly the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that keeps political opponents so polarized. I've seen hundreds of political conversations and a lot of nastiness on both sides but if one side owns any particular manuver - the left clearly own the condescending assumption that their opponents are stupid and evil, as opposed to just wrong.

2. So America won't be ruled anymore by racists who try as hard as they can to capitalize on people's 'otherness', meaning they're not white.

Another totally baseless slander. You can't show me a single thing that the Bush Administration (as bad as it was) ever said or did that was racist and i can show you multiple examples of where they went above and beyond on racial issues. You really undermine your credibility before fair minded people when you make up shit out of whole cloth to play to the cartoon caricature in your head instead of talking about reality.

3. So America wont be ruled anymore by greedy people who peddle foolishness like 'trickle-down' economics.


Economics is a complex subject and there's a nice mix of good and stupid on both sides. I won't debate the complexities of it here but if I had to bet, I'd bet you could no more explain academically why its "foolish" than you could explain string theory...you are simply taking the word of politicians you trust.

4. Most of all, so America won't be ruled by the kind of vulgar people who peddle lies about WMD's, like Will's 'Maverick' ...

WILL's maverick? What "Will" would that be again? Sure seems like you mean me even though I said nothing in praise of McCain and have NOTHING TO SAY in defense of McCain. I do not like him, never have...and I haven't voted for a Republican for president since 1988 (and regretted that afterwards). I do exercise my vote according to what I believe and not what politicians SAY to get my vote. I'm sure you just ASSUME that because I have the sense to call bullshit on all the hero-worship I'm surrounded with I MUST be a McCain backer...but that's not the first dumb-ass assumption in this post.

(a supposed 'war hero' who got shot down trying to bomb civilians in Vietnam, and later apparently embellished stories of 'torture) did to people, to convince them it's ok to have 100.000 to 500.000 dead Iraqi civilians, who had no part at all in 9/11, and millions of displaced Iraqi's refugeed, because it garners some votes for some rich, white pricks who control the GOP by catering to religious foolishness, anti-abortion zealots and racists Or that it's ok to torture people in Guantanamo.

Dude...seriously....get of the train to Wacko-land. there is so VERY much nutball ideas in that one paragraph you could make fruitcakes for all of Canada this christmas.

I can't be arsed to parse it out bacuse you are clearly too far goneto even notice a reply.

TamRa - Sunday, November 09 2008 @ 07:00 PM EST (#193950) #
There are no credible proponents anywhere for the idea that global warming is not man-made.

That's a nice circular argument since for the CC faithful, to dispute manmade climate change is to surrender credibility by definition, thus "there are no 'credible' proponents" kinda proves itself.

In fact, there is a long list of credential scientist who dispute that the acts of humanity are any more than a incidental effect on a largely natural cycle. And just as the world is about to win the point (by elections and propoganda, not by science) now the cracks are begining to show because the models turned out to be wrong and tempratures have stopped rising.

The current American administration in no way resembles a true conservative government

Damn straight. Here we agree.

an administration that has divided the world along religious lines while sparking fanatacism (both at home and abroad) and costing thousands of innocent lives

And here you overstate the case. Please don't be naive enough to ask us to believe fanatacism did not exist decades before GWB took office.


TamRa - Sunday, November 09 2008 @ 07:18 PM EST (#193954) #
I don't know a ton about politics, but I will take issue with the comment "Clinton forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce their mortgage standards..", implying that this is the reason for the mess the USA is in. This is false. I don't follow politics but I do understand economics (it's my life). Buddy above me alluded to it - the financial mess right now is the result of years and years of running unsubstantiated budget deficits. IE, deficits so unbelievably huge it's only the fact that it's the US Economy that it took so long for the economic shit to the fan. And why are they running such large deficits...  (Someone to do with something going on overseas, maybe perhaps?).  We actually this discussed this very issue 7 years ago in an advanced macroeconomic issues course I was taking during my undergraduate. My prof at the end of this particular discussion on the US said "it might not be for 5-10 years, but eventually this overspending WILL catch up to them, these deficits are not sustainable". 

I'm not an economist or an economics student (i took the basic courses but so what) but I think there are two different things going on here. YES, without a doubt the spending the last 6 or 7 years (and it's not all on Bush but it was on him to fight it and he didn't) have been VERY bad economic. there is no defense for it. and yes, at some point the deficits will get to the point of totally collapsing the economy (in such a way as to make the current matter look like a bad day in Vegas) HOWEVER

The SPECIFIC issue that's going on in the credit markets now has not been described by ANY economist from anywhere on the political spectrum that I've seen (and i do pay attention) as related to government deficit spending and in fact a big chunk of the most influential ones insisted MORE government spending was the only way out. (i.e. the bail out and various stimulus idea)

this SPECIFIC issue does derive specifically from an unexpected spike in mortgage defaults earlier this year which crashed the value of mortgage backed assets and sucked the liquidity out of a big part of the credit market and put banks into a financially unteneble position. Again, it is a DIRECT RESULT of mortgage defaults, not government spending.

Now, there is some partisan disagreement about why the unsound mortgages were created - with a lot of folks pointing to the Community Reinvestment Act and a Carter-era bill (who's name escapes me) which was beefed up mainly at the prodding of Chris dodd and Barny Frank in the late 90's (which Clinton signed). the purpose of these bills was well intentioned (increase minority home-ownership which is a very noble goal) but it had (according to critics) an unintended consiquence.

That aside, this is not something that deficit spending caused - that earthquake wiull be much greater and is still to come. Interestingly, in this country, many of Bush's harshest critics on spending voted for a man who promised over a trillion dollars in new programs with no way to pay for the vast majority of it.

Curcis Washington continues apace.
 
TamRa - Sunday, November 09 2008 @ 07:19 PM EST (#193955) #
Damint I didn't highlight what I was quoting in that last...sometimes it really galls me that you can't edit your posts here.


TamRa - Sunday, November 09 2008 @ 07:29 PM EST (#193956) #
I teach high school for a living and often the civics course -

*waves to fellow teacher*

As such, It would be useful for me to have the names of credible scientists who dispute global warming - I am not familiar with any, and continue to dispute your claim, but I won't judge any names in advance and would happily be proven wrong.  In fact, while others don't like mixing politics and pleasure (fair enough, it is a baseball site) I personally can't resist the opportunity to debate with well-informed conservatives, as my friends generally have similar views to me.


I've got a website to invite you to where I believe you will find some really enjoyable such debates (not that it's without its trolls) if you are interested. I've seen links several times there to lists of scientists who dissented from the Climate Change claims. And it's not a hard right site either, there are probably more lefties than hard right folks ...anyway, let me know if you are interested, we're always looking for well spoken members.

But when abortion doctors are being murdered by these same 'pro-lifers' (the irony!)

Names? Dates? Totals?

EVERY idea has it's wackaloon nuts who go too far. It reflects not at all on pro-lifers that some 3 or 4 nutbars killed a doctor any more than it reflets negatively on all of Islam that "honor killings" take place (not as much even).

I think reasonable folks can disagree on the choice issue without citing the occasional nut as proof of anything.

jerjapan - Monday, November 10 2008 @ 01:01 PM EST (#193979) #

"I've got a website to invite you to where I believe you will find some really enjoyable such debates (not that it's without its trolls) if you are interested. I've seen links several times there to lists of scientists who dissented from the Climate Change claims. And it's not a hard right site either, there are probably more lefties than hard right folks ...anyway, let me know if you are interested, we're always looking for well spoken members.

But when abortion doctors are being murdered by these same 'pro-lifers' (the irony!)

Names? Dates? Totals?

EVERY idea has it's wackaloon nuts who go too far. It reflects not at all on pro-lifers that some 3 or 4 nutbars killed a doctor any more than it reflets negatively on all of Islam that "honor killings" take place (not as much even).

I think reasonable folks can disagree on the choice issue without citing the occasional nut as proof of anything."

Fair point Will - I should lead off with the concerns about women who are assaulted, or who face many challenges financially or emotionally (here I'm thinking of teens) and may not be equipped to be good mothers.  The wackos with guns are a rarity. 

I would love an invitation to the website you're talking about - that's exactly the kind of controversial, well-supported content I need to give my students for the full picture.  I'm not sure if there's a way to message members privately on this site?  If not, I'll post my email next time ...

TamRa - Tuesday, November 11 2008 @ 04:59 AM EST (#194015) #
I sent you an e-mail through the system here, not sure if you got it or not. if you didn't, go to the blog I co-own:

http://thesouthpawbaseball.blogspot.com/

And drop me a line at the blog e-mail address and I'll shoot you a link



Barajas Back For 2009 | 90 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.