Ask Grandstander

[Zen653]

You suggest that Bonds would be a natural fit, but quailfy your endorsement by mentioning the fan backlash. So perhaps at best, he might be an unnatural fit.

I meant a natural fit from a baseball perspective. Ortiz and Bonds are both lefthanded power-hitters better suited to DH. Even at Bonds' advanced age, it's entirely possible that he would produce Ortiz-like numbers. And according to the Mitchell Report, the Red Sox already knew that Eric Gagne was on steroids when they acquired him from the Texas Rangers. This would suggest that Boston front office executives are not the paragons of virtue that some make them out to be.

Anyway, who do you foresee the Red Sox using as a long-term replacement for Ortiz? Will they merely try to ride things out by moving Ramirez to DH and playing Ellsbury, Crisp and Drew in the outfield every day? Will they rely on one of their 4A-types like Bailey or Carter? Will they trade for an impending free agent slugger like Adam Dunn?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Zen653

Anyway, who do you foresee the Red Sox using as a long-term replacement for Ortiz? Will they merely try to ride things out by moving Ramirez to DH and playing Ellsbury, Crisp and Drew in the outfield every day? Will they rely on one of their 4A-types like Bailey or Carter? Will they trade for an impending free agent slugger like Adam Dunn?

I think that they will have to find an internal solution, So far this year, it has not been boom times for the league DHs. Only seven of the 14 AL teams have been able to have one player sufficiently good so as to identify him as the team's regular DH. Among those seven you had three who were hitting effectively, and one of those three was Ortiz. Jim Thome has the 5th highest OPS among DHs and he's batting .203-.332-.421.

The consequence is that any player that they could obtain who would come remotely close to replacing Papi's production, will come with an enormous asking price, much higher than would be extracted at other times. Say for example that the Red Sox tried to trade with the A's for Jack Cust, what would the A's demand in return? I suspect that it would be a serious blow to the Sox farm system.

My guess would be that they will be forced to do what you describe above, move Manny to the DH slot and make the other three outfielders regulars.

Too bad that Frank Thomas landed on the DL at this moment. The A's got him for next to nothing, and if he was still healthy, after his good showing with the A's, they could have moved him to the Sox for some quality prospects....a real coup for Beane.

[Zen653]

President Franklin Pierce seemed to have all the tools to be a successful president. Bright, articulate, handsome, experienced, accomplished and popular, he defeated General Winfield Scott by a significant margin in the 1852 presidential election. So why did he squander his opportunity for a positive legacy by being a doughface? And how did he manage to even get elected as a pro-Southern northern Democrat? If being a Yankee Southern sympathizer was considered acceptable in 1852, why was it no longer tolerated in 1856 when he failed to earn his party's re-nomination?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Zen653

President Franklin Pierce seemed to have all the tools to be a successful president. Bright, articulate, handsome, experienced, accomplished and popular, he defeated General Winfield Scott by a significant margin in the 1852 presidential election. So why did he squander his opportunity for a positive legacy by being a doughface? And how did he manage to even get elected as a pro-Southern northern Democrat? If being a Yankee Southern sympathizer was considered acceptable in 1852, why was it no longer tolerated in 1856 when he failed to earn his party's re-nomination?

All of the presidents from the North during the period from Jackson through Buchanan, were friends of slavery, they could not have been elected otherwise, the South held the make or break it card for them. Party affiliation did not matter, no president was going to get Southern support if he ran as anti slavery.

Pierce was one more of the slave friendly Northerners who followed the formula into the White House.


I'm uncertain what he could have done, apart from changing his political positions entirely, to have been a better leader. Look what happened to President Tyler....a sitting President who gets thrown out of his own political party because he pursued his vision of what was right over what was politically expedient. Tyler's chances for being nominated for a term of his own, ceased to exist, he was a man dead in the political water and his chances for being an effective president were wrecked beyond redemption.

Had Pierce attempted any sort of hardline policy against the South, he would have gotten the Tyler treatment. Those things that Pierce did which get him trashed by historians, his support for the Kansas/Nebraska bill along with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the clandestine filibustering associated with the Ostend Manifesto...these are the sorts of things his Southern supporters would have expected him to do....and he did them. Had he not done them, he would have been a man rejected by all the South rather than a man rejected by half of the North.

Keep in mind that the 1850's was a decade long march to civil war. All events served to polarize American society and bitterness grew with each passing year. It became impossible to be any sort of middle of the roader, mentalities hardened into a with us or against us rigidity. You could be pro South and hated in the North, pro North and hated in the South....or middle of the road and hated in both the North and the South.

Filmore, Pierce and Buchanan all served during a lose/lose time for US presidents, it was not going to be possible to please everyone, and those you failed to please were going to be fierce enemies.


My position is that the Civil war was an utter necessity, the nation had reached a point where only a blood conflict was going to resolve the divisions. That war was going to come the moment someone was elected who clearly represented one side rather than the other, and indeed that is precisely what happened. Pierce and Buchanan were not identified heavily enough with one side rather than the other, so in a sense they were stopgap presidents, serving to delay the inevitable. Had either acted differently, the result would have been the earlier triggering of the war.

[Zen653]

Why did Pierce's party boot him out in 1856 when he did everything he had to do in order to please the South and keep half the North supporting him? What changed from 1852 to 1856 to make Pierce unfit for his own party's nomination?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Zen653

Why did Pierce's party boot him out in 1856 when he did everything he had to do in order to please the South and keep half the North supporting him? What changed from 1852 to 1856 to make Pierce unfit for his own party's nomination?

Pierce lost his Northern support by being too openly in favor of measures identified with Southern interests. Had he not been supportive, he would have lost his popularity in the South.

As I noted, Filmore, Pierce and Buchanan served in a lose/lose age. The more things were polarized, the more offensive an act favoring one side rather than the other would seem. Thus, what previously would have passed as compromise, became one more inflamatory irritant. None of those three gentlemen were asked to run again. The Democratic Party was in the slow process of fragmentation which would lead to the dual nominations in 1860, which in turn allowed the election of Lincoln. It became possible to be with one segment or the other, but it became less possible to chart a course down the middle. There is no way to come out a winner when the cause-effect dynamic prevailing was:

1) Do this and A will hate you
2) Do the opposite and B will hate you
3) Do a little of both and A and B will call you a spineless wimp.

It was the system which failed, more so than any of those three Presidents. What had been a well functioning two party system with each party representing collectives of common mercantile and ideological interests, collapsed and was replaced by a regional rivalry where all was subordinate to geography. The political system which had been able to handle all the adveristy rising from diversity, failed when it came to handling the slavery issue. And a war was required to resolve this issue.

Pierce, and more so Buchanan, get slammed for doing nothing to prevent the coming of the war. I do not see that there was anything that either could have done which would have prevented it. Delayed it a bit? Maybe. Prevent? We are speaking of societal forces in play far beyond the command of any individual, Presidents included.

[perfectstormhits]

I'm running for President. Can I count on your vote?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by perfectstormhits

I'm running for President. Can I count on your vote?

Depends...what cushy government job did you have in mind for me? I prefer the sort where just showing up is all that is required, like ambassador to Monaco, but best would be one where I don't even have to show up. For that I'll vote for you several times.

[heyterry]

Has 3000 hits become more difficult to attain than 500 Home Runs?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by heyterry

Has 3000 hits become more difficult to attain than 500 Home Runs?

I don't know what cut off dates you had in mind. Looking at the lists, there are 27 players with 3000 hits and 24 players with 500 homeruns. Among players whose careers began in the mid seventies or later, there have been 11 who reached 3000 hits and 11 who have reached 500 homeruns. The next person with a shot to join either club is Gary Sheffield who is 17 homeruns away. Griffey Jr. needs 390 hits to reach 3000. After that, it may be awhile before anyone else reaches either milestone. Jeter isn't the active hits leader, but he is the most likely after Griffey to reach 3000 hits and Jeter still needs 584 hits, so he's at least three seasons away.

If it has become easier to reach 500 homeruns, there isn't any glaring statistical evidence which supports it.

[perfectstormhits]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Depends...what cushy government job did you have in mind for me? I prefer the sort where just showing up is all that is required

I'll put you in charge of border patrol.

[phenweigh]

I don't understand why pennies remain legal currency. What has stopped the government from mandating that transactions be rounded to the nearest nickel?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by phenweigh

I don't understand why pennies remain legal currency. What has stopped the government from mandating that transactions be rounded to the nearest nickel?

It's that impossibly powerfull Penny-Ante Poker lobby which has kept our lawmakers from being able to act. It's even tougher now that the PAPs have been joined by the Women Named Penny organization. Also the Cliche Preservation Society wants to protect sayings such as "A penny saved is a penny earned" and "Penny for your thoughts" and "In for a penny, in for a pound" and so forth.

[Zen653]

WhY dO yOuNg pEoPle tHiNk iT iS cOoL To pLaY aRoUnD wItH fOnTs aNd GrAmMaR?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Zen653

WhY dO yOuNg pEoPle tHiNk iT iS cOoL To pLaY aRoUnD wItH fOnTs aNd GrAmMaR?

Place a toy in front of the inactive mind and that person will play with it.