random off-topic thread

[BigRapidsJackass]

could you imagine what clint hurdle wold do with him?

After O'Dowd and Geivett draft him, Hurdle and Apodaca would immediately embark on a 3-year plan to get him to simplify things by choosing which arm to throw with once and for all. After he'd "slowed the game down" by doing this, he'd be out of baseball in 4 years.

[John Cocktoston]

Haven't heard much in the way of lamenting the non-tender of Chin-Hiu Tsao recently...

I guess that's because he's been on the DL with a shoulder strain since May 23 and is still at least two weeks away.

Seems only fair to mention, since people were lining up to kill DOD for the move only a couple of weeks ago despite the guy's obvious injury history.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Yes, JC, so much better that we wound up adding guys like Matt Herges and Bobby Keppel to the 40-man roster that had absolutey no room for Tsao ...

[John Cocktoston]

That wasn't really my point, Jackass. Let me clarify: I just think that the tone and tenor of the comments pertaining to Tsao on this board were a little over the top; as though the Rockies had inexplicably non-tendered a future ace or back of the bullpen stud. That's simply not the case, Herges or no Herges. Fair enough?

It's sort of like the Jennings trade in that the people who rushed to slam it were nowhere to be found when Hirsh started off hot, Taveras had an OBP of .385 and Buchholz was providing a little shot in the arm in a hybrid role while Jennings was sitting on the DL.

Whether that trade, or the non-tendering of Tsao, was a good move can only be ascertained in the long run. People seem to be in a rush to judgment unless the short-term results don't support their beliefs...in which case, they're happy to wait for the first turn of events that does and make a snap judgment in that moment in time. It just seems silly to me, that's all.

[BigRapidsJackass]

I understand the point. And yes, Tsao was let go because of the very high risk that he will never be healthy again for an extended period of time.

But as Heltonfan pointed out when it happened, Tsao actually has a minor league option left. Sure, it would've cost the Rockies more to hang onto him since he was (weirdly, given all the time he's been on the DL) arbitration eligible. Maybe it would've cost $700,000 as opposed to a minimum salary guy ($400,000).

Wait a minute. "Seven hundred thousand dollars" seems to ring a bell.

Oh. I know. That's what the Rockies guaranteed John Mabry.

Now you see what I'm talking about.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by John Cocktoston

It's sort of like the Jennings trade in that the people who rushed to slam it were nowhere to be found when Hirsh started off hot, Taveras had an OBP of .385 and Buchholz was providing a little shot in the arm in a hybrid role while Jennings was sitting on the DL.

Actually, it's not like that trade at all. You are, of course, correct about the need for passage of time to fairly evaluate any trade. But this wasn't a trade; it was a small decision involving one of our 40 roster spots. Such a move CAN be fairly evaluated quickly because, regardless as to whether or not the player cut gets injured or flames out, fringe roster spots are all about keeping players with UPSIDE. It's fair to say that Tsao had more upside (and probably still does) than some of the dregs that DOD decided to reserve roster spots for over him.

So, this anger was really all about the COMPETENCE of our GM in doing the little things to keep those players who MAY be expected to develop into something down the road. We had invested so much time and patience into grooming and healing Tsao, that it seemed like a waste to just let him go elsewhere. And when he landed with the Dodgers, in our own division, and showed something right away, it just added to our disgust at the clear incompetence.

So, this was nothing at all like a trade that needs time for proper analysis.

[Heltonfan]

You are, of course, correct about the need for passage of time to fairly evaluate any trade.

No, he's not. You can't fairly evaluate a trade using information that wasn't available to the GMs in question at the time the trade was made. Unless by "evaluate" you just mean determining whether it worked out or not. But I don't think you mean that.

[Roxpert]

I mean you can evaluate whether it was a trade that helped one team more than another, or whether it was a wash. On paper at the time of a trade, we can evaluate its merits instantly. That's obvious. What we can't evaluate is the success of such trade in hindsight, which requires the passage of time. So, YES, I did mean that.

[Heltonfan]

Returning to my new favorite linguistic crusade... this from Rotoworld today:

General manager Jon Daniels said Tuesday that the Rangers have not discussed trading Mark Teixeira with any teams recently and have no plans to shop him.

"Do I expect to get some calls? Probably," Daniels said. "But I won't be making any. Mark is not one of our issues. He's been our most consistent player. He's a star in this league."

Mark Teixeira, 2007:
April: .236/.346/.341
May: .349/.438/.661

First Half, 2006: .275/.353/.445
Second Half, 2006: .291/.394/.604

Wow. Talk about consistent...

Now, to be fair to Jon Daniels, I suppose he might have meant that Tex has been consistent on a yearly basis. But even if that's what he meant, it's still not a particularly meaningful statement; given that multiple years are required for this sort of judgment, Teixeira's only competition for "most consistent" would be Hank Blalock and Michael Young. Both of whom I suppose he beats consistency-wise... but who cares? Why not just say "Mark has been our best hitter over the past few years, and is in the prime of his career"?

My objection to all this isn't that the word consistent is being "misused." I'm a linguist; I know better than to pretend that words have clearly defined "correct" and "incorrect" uses. My objection is that linguistic innovation typically serves a purpose (i.e. expressing new concepts, responding to new social conditions, expressing old concepts in a more relatable manner), and this does not. It's not like Daniels was walking on thin ice and needed to find a suitable banality to avoid offending anyone; praise of Teixeira is expected in that situation. He had nothing whatsoever to gain by sucking every possible ounce of meaning out of his response.

I understand why we have euphemisms for things in the sexual/scatological realm. But why on earth would anyone want a euphemism for a non-taboo concept (in this case, words like good and excellent)? And if we do in fact need one, couldn't we have picked a word that doesn't already have a clearly established meaning relating easily to baseball? I don't get it.

[BigRapidsJackass]

I listened to a bit of the AM 950 rantings about the Rockies this morning.

Clough had a good point: Rockies ownership (and management) keeps saying that this club is very close. This year, Monfort suggested that the NL West title could be within reach. And every year these predictions are laughable when made, and are revealed as utterly ridiculous by the end of the season.

OK, big deal. It's what lawyers call "mere puffery" by a salesman. "You won't find a better small SUV than the RAV4." You can't turn around and sue the dealer when Consumer Reports decides that the Honda CRV is better all around.

So this kind of talk is harmless. Except for one thing: the Monforts, and maybe even O'Dowd, and especially Hurdle, actually believe it. They seem to have no idea of where the club really stands in the competitive cycle. That's why roster spots (active and 40-man) are made available for available for guys like Mabry and Martin, as if this club is so solid and ready to compete that 2 or 3 timely pinch hits could push them over the top and into the playoffs, or as if a veteran lefthanded reliever might just be that tiny edge they need.

And as a result "there's just no room on the roster right now" for Chin-Hui Tsao or even Justin Hampson. They aren't thought of as guys who can help you win now. John Mabry and Steve Finley and Tom Martin and Jose Mesa and Ray King and LaTroy Hawkins? Those are the kind of guys who, if everything works out just right, might squeeze that extra 2-3 wins out of this club and be the difference between playing baseball in October vs. going hunting with Todd in October.

And so the same pattern is repeated, in infuriating Ground Hog Day style, every offseason after every offseason. Another veteran bat or two off the bench; another washed-up reliever. All in service to the grand illusion that this team is right there, ready to win big at long last.

That's why dumping guys like Tsao is inexcusable. I don't care whether his arm falls off. A club that isn't going to beat out the Dodgers, Padres, or D'backs this year, under almost any plausible scenario, isn't a club that ought to be dumping real talent to make room for Finley, Mabry and Martin.

But just watch. It'll happen all over again starting in October. Who will be 2008's version of John Mabry? I can hardly wait ...

[Roxpert]

People are often lazy about how they phrase sentences in public. Our message boards have proven that many times in the past!

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

So this kind of talk is harmless. Except for one thing: the Monforts, and maybe even O'Dowd, and especially Hurdle, actually believe it. They seem to have no idea of where the club really stands in the competitive cycle.

They certainly SOUND as though they believe it when communicating to the public. And in my judgment Charlie Monfort is one deluded individual. How else can we explain the extensions to DOD and Hurdle, as well as simply keeping Keli McGregor is team president all these years?

However, I think those below Monfort are just being "yes-men", and don't believe nearly as much in this hype as Monfort does. I think they say exactly what Monfort wants to hear. It's how they keep him hopeful, and thus keep their own jobs!

[Heltonfan]

Originally Posted by Roxpert

People are often lazy about how they phrase sentences in public.

That only makes this whole thing even stranger. If Daniels was being "lazy", he would have just gone with the first acceptable word that came to mind. And if saying "most consistent" to mean "best" is more natural to him than saying "best", that's an incredible illustration of just how pervasive this usage has become.

[hiaspire]

Did I click on the grammar chat room by accident? I didn't mean to.

Many trades develop their own vernacular and accepted descriptive labels, so I don't know why that's such an issue. GMs and coaches value dependable players and guys they can count upon. Baseball more than any other sport involves a long steady grind of daily games over many months. They preach going to work day-in-and-day-out with the same consistent approach (if not results necessarily because everyone goes through ups and downs in terms of production numbers). That consistency is quite important from their perspective in dealing with players everyday. We don't deal with the personalities everyday, they do. That professional attitude and consistency of approach is valued on the field.

The problem I think is that you view consistency entirely in terms of numbers and people in the game do not -- especially coaches on the field dealing with real people, and where a good at bat doesn't have to look bad even if the stats register it that way.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

That only makes this whole thing even stranger. If Daniels was being "lazy", he would have just gone with the first acceptable word that came to mind. And if saying "most consistent" to mean "best" is more natural to him than saying "best", that's an incredible illustration of just how pervasive this usage has become.

Yep. It's also an example of a manager trying to sound "smart".