166 thoughts on “July 27, 2011: Addicted”

  1. Minor league day games: Ft. Myers hosts Tampa and New Britain hosts New Hampshire, both games starting at 11 a.m. Central. The Rock Cats game is the "day" portion of a day/night doubleheader.

      1. actually, i was wondering what was up with that nosedive myself. wtf? did he trip?

        1. It looked pretty awkward, so I'm going with a trip. Kind of makes the whole situation even more farcicle.

    1. Bad, terrible, no good call.

      I'm not gonna crucify him for two reasons. 19 innings behind the plate is he'll. And mckendry made a half baked swipe tag. He didn't see the tag get jersey. Unfortunately he's dumb and wrong.

      1. I suppose calling someone dumb and wrong is more lenient than crucifying them. Less painful, too.

      2. Had I RTFA he stated exactly what I have guessed.

        As an umpire I love plays at the plate.

    2. Here's what Meals said after the game:

      I saw the tag, but he looked like he oléd him and I called him safe for that. I looked at the replays and it appeared he might have got him on the shin area. I’m guessing he might have got him, but when I was out there when it happened I didn’t see a tag.

      I just saw the glove sweep up. I didn’t see the glove hit his leg.

      From the blog of Braves beat reporter Mark Bowman

    3. Is there doubt that if this was against the yanks replay would be expanded to plays at the plate tomorrow?

      I should mention I was watching this live too.

    4. I've already seen polls on the 4ltr between this call and the Joyce call, asking which is the "worst call ever." Setting aside being a Twins fan, I still don't understand how Cuzzi is not also on that list. Fair/foul seems an even more egregious mistake because of its simplicity than blowing this call because he couldn't be certain a tag was made. Also, extra innings in a playoff game > extras in a game in July.

      1. Worst call ever? It's not even in the top 10.

        Did they miss that little exhibition between the Royals and the Cardinals in '85?

        1. Per the 4ltr's bylaws, the World Series is automatically downgraded to Non-binding Exhibition status when played by two teams from flyover country.

          1. That's part of it, but also their idea of "history" is something that happened within the last ten minutes or so.

            1. True. I suppose that means 2009 was practically in the Bronze Age as far as they're concerned*.

              * Years in which the Yankmes win the World Series are automatically part of the Modern Era.

        2. Agreed. If you were to really dig through the annals of baseball, this wouldn't even be in the top 500 worst calls for me. A lot of that, for me, has to do with practically every missed procedural call being worse than nearly every missed judgement call. For instance, earlier this year, Doug Fister issued a 3-pitch walk, that guy came around to score, and the Mariners lost 1-0. Where's the outrage for that? Surely counting to three ought to be easier than seeing a borderline tag like that. (And Meals had himself in good position, too.)

          One of my favorite "worst calls ever" (and I'm sure there are plenty worse) was the Angels-White Sox playoff game where Pierzynski effective stole first base by running to first base as though the third strike had been dropped. To me, that call was easily worse than either the Joyce, Meals, or maybe even Cuzzi call, if for no other reason than the umpire signaled an out and then changed his mind in the middle of the play, not even really giving the Angels a fair shot at retiring Pierzynski.

          1. I've always hated the dropped strikes three rule. You don't get to run to first if the catcher drops strike one. What's so special about strike three? Swinging and missing should not be rewarded.

            1. Foul balls count differently if there's two strikes vs. fewer.
              I'm cool with that rule.

              I also disagree with how Ubes tells the story of AJ. I saw that he signalled swinging strike (vs. ticked foul, which if dropped would have kept the count the same). Either way, catcher should have tagged AJ anyways, to make it moot.
              (I'm a Scioscia hater, so I may just be wearing blinders here. Also, Hrbek did not pull Ron Gant off base, he just followed Gant with the tag.)

              1. Oh man, totally disagree about the AJ thing. Eddings clearly motioned for both a strike and an out (as documented here, for instance, couldn't find a replay) and the entire Angels team started walking off the field as he did. So Eddings: a) ultimately got the call wrong, b) didn't appeal for help even though he clearly didn't see the call correctly, c) used at best misleading mechanics to relay his decision. I also don't think it's reasonable to expect a catcher to tag the hitter when he cleanly catches the third strike.

                In the context of the whole thing, it would have been the last out of an inning and the teams would have gone to extras. Obviously nothing guaranteed for the Angels in extras, but compared to, say, the Joyce call, it had a much bigger impact on the game, a game which was more important in the first place because it was a playoff game.

                1. With balls like that it is practically expected for the catcher to make a quick tag of the batter. It's almost a complete guess by the plate umpire whether or not it skipped into the glove. I've made catchers throw down to first a couple of times they claim they caught it. But them, being heads up always check what my call is so it isn't a big deal.

            2. My impression of the rule is that the spirit of the rule goes back to the times when hitters were allowed to choose whether they wanted high strikes or low strikes, and in general the pitcher was perceived as a guy who just needed to get the ball across the plate rather than someone who was supposed to deceive the hitter. I've always figured the idea is that if the catcher couldn't catch the pitch it somehow wasn't a very "gentlemanly" pitch and the hitter ought to get a chance at first.

              So it does seem a bit anachronistic to me, but I'm sort of comfortable with it at this point. It gives the catcher a little more responsibility, which isn't such a bad thing in my book.

          2. And who made the 3-pitch walk possible? Our dear friend, Phil Cuzzi, who mentioned after the game that he thought he had it wrong because no one else said anything.

      1. After listening to Mike & Mike bellayache about it for three hours, I was expecting a no doubter, but that was a very weak tag. He was out, but I can see how, after seven hours behind the plate, he might have made the mistake. Cuzzi's call was much, much worse.

        1. ...in a much more important game, in front of a national audience. Plus he was a douchebag about it after the game. Heck, the Cuddy's "out" in this game was about as egregious a call as this one.

        2. people are just upset they didn't get any sleep last night and didn't get the payoff they wanted. I doubt many will remember this play ten years later. Galarraga's, probably. Not this one.

        3. I was expecting a no doubter, but that was a very weak tag. He was out, but I can see how, after seven hours behind the plate, he might have made the mistake.

          The funny thing is, you could apply that statement either way. Yes, it was a long game, and it's possible for an ump to blow a call like that after concentrating on calling balls and strikes all evening. On the other hand, Michael McKenry, the Pirates' catcher, caught all 19 of those innings, and while he made a crappy tag, he deserves better than to lose the game on a wrong call just because he didn't set up for a collision which might have knocked him out of the game. Their other catcher had pinch hit earlier in the game, and with MLB's post-Posey spotlight on collisions at the plate, you can't really blame the catcher for trying to make the tag as safely as he could. And he did make the tag, no matter if it wasn't a great one.

          1. On the other hand, Michael McKenry, the Pirates' catcher, caught all 19 of those innings, and while he made a crappy tag, he deserves better than to lose the game on a wrong call just because he didn't set up for a collision which might have knocked him out of the game.

            Meh, deserve's got nothin' to do with it. It can also be argued that in the first 18 innings, McKenry (and the rest of the Pirates) had plenty of chances to end the game in the Pirates' favor and didn't capitalize. No one's so good at their job that they ought to feel they deserve a perfect performance from someone else.

            That said, it was really unfortunate for Meals to make a mistake at that point in a close game. So the timing was terrible, but I don't think it was such an outlandish mistake to make.

            1. I disagree. Yes, nobody's perfect at their job, but the players on the field deserve to have the game settled amongst themselves and not by a call made by a third party which is questionable. McKenry has every right to expect that each play be called correctly, even though that is obviously beyond the capability of a human umpire. If the human umpire is uncertain he can make the correct call, he is obligated by his position as arbitrator to consult with any available resource to help him accurately determine the outcome. Making the claim that McKenry doesn't deserve accuracy from the umpire making the call exclusively because the umpire has human failings simply begs the question of how to compensate for those failings. Which basically means baseball needs some form of instant replay to help the humans on the field get the calls right.

              1. I look at it the other way. If McKenry wants his team to win, then he deserves to make a better tag than he did. No, he does not have to take a beating from the baserunner to do that -- he was ALREADY blocking the plate fairly well, so he got off lightly as it was. In addition, it would have been the second out, and the batter tripped (or something) on the way to first, yet I don't even remember him looking for any additional outs on the play. Yes, the ump made a questionable call, but the catcher made it easy for Meals to doubt the tag.

                1. Look at the replay. After the tag McKenry immediately looked toward third to see if he could make a double play. He only looked back at the plate in disbelief after he registered that Meals called Lugo safe.

                  As for having to make the tag more explicit, like I said, that doesn't excuse the fact that he made the tag. There's nothing in the rule book which says a tag has to be made emphatically. We have no idea how much catchers have had safety at the plate drilled into them this year, but like I said, McKenry was the only catcher the Pirates had. He has the responsibility to balance making the play with keeping himself in the game, and he made the play. I don't think it's reasonable to expect much more out of him.

                    1. A runner is safe until proven out. That's a good umpires philosophy.

                      He was out though.

                    2. Which gets to the point of what said just above. It doesn't matter what we think based on the replays circulating out there - all that matters is what Meals thinks. For all we know he has access to camera angles that we don't, or that haven't been widely circulated. He said that after he reviewed the tape in the locker room after the game that he could see that McKenry made the tag. So whether we can confirm McKenry made the tag or not based on the camera angles we have seen is immaterial to the fact that McKenry made the tag, and that the umpire admits it.

              2. If the players deserved to have the game settled amongst themselves, they'd figure out how to settle it without the use of a third party. If they've got better ideas, they can advocate for them through the collective bargaining process. As it is, I don't think there's really a consensus among the players about whether or not they'd prefer to have more instant replay.

                1. You're missing my point, ubes. The performance of the players on the field should determine the outcome of the game, not the performance of the umpire. There was a time in time when human umpires were the closest we could get to perfect accuracy, which meant his ruling was effectively unimpeachable (how can you prove an umpire was wrong without PitchFX and multiple camera angles)? That era has ended. Accepting and excusing umpire error now is ridiculous because it means that something other than what goes on between the players - something which is now quite preventable/correctable - can determine game outcomes and statistics.

                  Quite honestly, I don't care whether players want instant replay or not. It shouldn't be their choice. For baseball to maintain its legitimacy it will have to accept replay in some form or lose fans who want the efforts of the players, and not the umpires, to determine the outcome of the game and the validity of statistics. Baseball has to conform to the fans' expectations, and not those of the players, because we're the ones who fund their ability to play a child's game for money.

                  1. The institution of instant replay can have unintended consequences and there's no guarantee that on balance things get better. If it's so obvious that it will make the games better, I'd imagine we'd see more players in favor of it. I realize the fans fund the game, but at the end of the day, I have a lot less invested in baseball than, say, Nick Punto does, so I think the players' collective opinion ought to carry a good deal of weight in how the game is officiated.

                    I'm also of the opinion that the closer the call, the less anyone got cheated out of anything. The tag was ultimately a close call, and I don't feel the Pirates were particularly cheated. Even if they got the call at home, they still aren't out of the inning and even if they get out of the inning, they've got maybe a 50% chance to win anyway. Meals' call made a difference in how the game played out, but didn't necessarily decide the game.

                    I'm not against improving officiating, I just think these things ought to be kept in perspective. MLB is quite possibly the best officiated team sports league in the world, and I don't think that officiating is the huge problem that some (not necessarily you, though) think that it is. Things will change and if they change gradually, a few mistakes in the interim is really not such a big deal.

                    1. I think we agree here perfectly, Ubes.
                      I would like MLB to follow up on umps with irregular strikezones.

    5. JPosnanski: Strange: Woke up this morning, reread Mighty Casey poem. Seems Mudville actually won. Jerry Meals said Casey checked his swing.

    6. The broadcasters were worse than Meals, IMO. It was telling that their first criticism of the call was that "the throw beat him by a mile." Well, great, that's important on a force play, but the deciding factor here is whether or not a tag was applied. It was a pretty crappy tag which barely caught Lugo. It was a gutsy call given that the throw did arrive so early, but I don't think it's the sort of call you make just to go home. Meals is supposed to call what he sees and if he thought the tag missed, he thought the tag missed. There's not enough time to manufacture a "boy I'd really like to go home so I guess I'll just call him safe" thought, unless you are really, really thinking ahead for such an event, and I'm willing to give Meals the benefit of the doubt.

      1. An umpire can't base his call on it, but the runner being clearly stunned that he was called safe leaves me with no doubt the tag was applied.

        1. The story is that after The Hand of God, Maradona's teammates all stood around waiting for the goal to be disallowed. He went over and yelled at them to celebrate with him so the officials didn't think something was amiss.

          1. Here's the quote, as written in Sports Illustrated:

            Figuring the goal would be waved off, his teammates stood around instead of celebrating. A panicked Maradona told them, "Come hug me or the referee isn't going to allow it."

      2. This is a really great article. My first reaction on seeing the reply above was that he was clearly out, but looking again around the 1:50 mark of the MLB feed, I don't think anyone can objectively say that he 100% got the call wrong (you can see the fabric on Lugo's pants wave as the glove goes by, but there's no slow down of the glove suggesting it got anything). It was a poor tag on what should have been an easy out.

        With that said, I would be mad as heck if that call had gone against the Twins instead of the Pirates.

      1. oh, yes, this should be... interesting. fingers crossed for some moon/cunningham type magic.

        1. I'm rooting more for a good, solid rant on the subject by Drew Magary instead.

          1. Ah yes, my deepest sympathies to you, Buffalo, that the NFL season is back on.

                1. I don't think Peyton Manning is the final piece of the puzzle.

    1. I just realized that for most of the season, games will be starting at 7 PM and 10 PM for me, assuming I can find them somewhere.

    2. My favorite moment of the 2010 NFL season: Washington announcing a monopoly (i.e. not real) money extension for McNabb and then watching Philly absolutely crush them later that night.

  2. Hey, speaking of the NFL being back, will there be any sort of WGOM fantasy league again?

    1. i'd say talk to spooky. we need a kelly wells signal or someth--- nevermind.

    1. As much as I enjoyed the Cuddy pitching experience, seeing Punto throw knuckleballs would've been 100x better.

        1. That was the permissions on the server itself. UNIX permissions don't work especially well for our situation.

      1. Blue Jays Get: Colby Rasmus, Trever Miller, Brian Tallet and P.J. Walters

        Cardinals Get: Edwin Jackson, Marc Rzepczynski, Octavio Dotel and Corey Patterson

        Um. AA must have incredible blackmail photos.

            1. Not sure that Rios was a total coup. At the time, he had some decent peripherals (and two very good seasons in the two previous years) and last year he turned in a strong season. Not sure what's up with him this year, but he didn't have the history of poor performance going into the trade that Wells did.

              1. It was also J.P. Ricciardi who put Rios on waivers. Anthopoulos wasn't even interim GM until the offseason.

              2. Rios was still massively overpaid and he freed up a ton of salary. But I think a lot of that coup can be chalked up to Kenny Williams.

                Getting Yunel Escobar for freaking Alex Gonzalez and Tim Collins was pretty shrewd, too.

                1. He would not be overpaid if he remained an average fielding center fielder with a league average bat. That's a 2.7 win player, which would be worth $12 million. If you look at 2006-2008, then you would see a +10 bat and a -5 to 0 run center fielder.

                  1. Agree with Sean. His contract made him risky, but not necessarily overpaid. KW gambled on Rios, but I don't think it was a totally unreasonable gamble. Rios was also going into his age 29 season as opposed to Wells going into his age 32 season.

                    1. Wells had a better song, though.
                      A quick google search for "Coming for Vernon Wells," a fan video parodying* Neil Diamond's "Coming to America" encouraging people to vote for Wells to start the ASG. I know I voted for him because of that song.

                      I don't think I dreamt that, but if THE GOOGLE doesn't remember it, it's possible it was a figment of my own mind.

                      *Dictionary didn't like "parodising". "Parodying" is an awful word — a cheap verbing — but I don't have the time to figure out the proper verb, if such exists. Spooky, you're a fan of English vocab. Do you know for which word I'm looking?

                    2. Here it is.
                      httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slxMENTT_I4
                      That should be worth an extra 1.5M per year and an extra year or two.

                    3. Well, you could use the adjective "parodic," which is every bit as ugly to me, I hate to say. I just don't like the way "parody" is conjugated.

                    4. fan video parody of Neil Diamond's

                      This is the way I always get around that- at least it's not as clumsy-sounding as the other alternatives, but probably a grammar no-no in other ways.

                    5. To me, "spoof" connotes that the original is what is being ridiculed, while a parody covers a wider range of options, such as just assigning new lyrics for a non-humerous purpose like electoral campaigning.
                      (My guess is that there's a broader term for this, but that I am unfamiliar with it.)
                      And my personal connotations may not be shared by all.

                      I considered "A fan video in the style of Neil Diamond's 'Coming to America'" but that seemed too legalistic.

                      And thanks for the rearranging options socal and bhiggum, but mostly I'm saying that there should be a verb better than "to parody".

        1. Initial test of the waters at the local card shop: Cards did great in this deal. I don't want to sound stereotype here, but Rasmus sounds as much a Arkansas bumpkin as he apparently is.

      2. Ooo, a three-team trade. I like. Let's see, that's Zach Stewart and and Jason Frasor for Rasmus, et al. Frasor is decent, but has little surplus value. Stewart could be interesting, but a 7.5 K/9 and 3.1 BB/9 in the minors isn't that impressive.

        Oops, Jays are sending more along as well. This will be complicated to evaluate.

      1. This year according to FIP, xFIP and fWAR. rWAR doesn't like him as much, but he has by far the best K rate in their rotation. Regardless, it just shows the White Sox have been dazzled by Humber's shiny ERA and low BABIP.

    1. I play a lot of sand volleyball, albeit in South Dakota. I would hate to Kevin Love on the other side of the net.
      That's an awesome title, BTW.

  3. Programming Alert: Ervin Santana is doing that thing that baseball superstition requires I not mention by name. Funny thing is thanks to errors, it's not a shutout. MLB.com is having live look-ins.

      1. Tigers lost to White Sox, so Twins can get within 6 games of first. This means that since the 4th of July, the White Sox have lost a series to the Royals, lost 3 of 4 to Twins, won a series at Detroit, lost a series to Royals, won two at Cleveland, won series against Tigers.

  4. After promising Chris Jaffe I'd share the link, I whiffed on sharing his post on Bert Blyleven's career highlights (I don't think THT Live posts show up in my RSS reader). A few to grab your interest:

    May 13, 1972: The day before, the Twins tangled with the Brewers in an extra-inning game seemingly without end. In fact, it hit the AL curfew after 21 innings and the game still tied 3-3. So on May 13, the teams went back at it, tabbed to finish off this game first before beginning that day's scheduled contest. Blyleven thus makes one of his seven career relief appearances, and loses, allowing a run off two hits in the 22nd inning. He then pitches nine innings in the regularly-scheduled game, but ends with a no-decision as the Twins win in 15 frames, 5-4.

    July 31, 1972: Blyleven has his strangest pair of home runs allowed in this game, as White Sox star Dick Allen hits two inside-the-park home runs off him. Since then, only one other player has equaled Allen’s feat. Oddly enough, it came in another Twins-White Sox game. Minnesota’s Greg Gagne did it on Oct. 4, 1986. [Chris, in the comments: "A reader (Brian Gunn, former Cards blogger) points out, the game Gagne hit two inside the park homers—Bert Blyleven was the winning pitcher."]

    Aug. 1, 1986: Blyleven joins the 3,000 K club, and he does it in style! He fans 15 batters, his personal best. Only four batters reach base against him (two singles, a walk, and an error), and three of them do it in the fifth inning. That same inning sees strikeout No. 3,000, Mike Davis, as Blyleven survives the frame without allowing a run. Later, an eighth-inning solo shot provides Oakland’s only run in a 10-1 trouncing.

    Aug. 2, 1989: In a 7-0, complete-game shutout over the Mariners, Blyleven first faces a young 22-year-old shortstop named Omar Vizquel. Now a member of the White Sox, Vizquel is the only active player who once faced Blyleven.

    There's some really great stuff in the piece, so I recommend reading the whole thing. Sorry I missed this earlier, Chris!

    1. He's mentioned the May 13 game a few times on air. I knew about it beforehand, but it's still crazy.

      I also remembered his 3,000 K game, because Kirby hit for the cycle that game. The last Twins cycle until Gomez's.

      1. The 15K part of that highlight made me wonder who recorded the highest strikeout total during the game when they reached 3000 strikeouts.

          1. Player Strikeouts Date Batter K in 3K Game
            Bert Blyleven 3,701 1-Aug-86 Mike Davis 15
            Randy Johnson 4,875 10-Sep-00 Mike Lowell 14
            Gaylord Perry 3,534 1-Oct-78 Joe Simpson 10
            John Smoltz 3,084 22-Apr-08 Felipe López 10
            Steve Carlton 4,136 29-Apr-81 Tim Wallach 9
            Don Sutton 3,574 24-Jun-83 Alan Bannister 8
            Nolan Ryan 5,714 4-Jul-80 César Gerónimo 7
            Roger Clemens 4,672 5-Jul-98 Randy Winn 7
            Tom Seaver 3,640 18-Apr-81 Keith Hernandez 5
            Walter Johnson 3,509 22-Jul-23 Unclear 5
            Phil Niekro 3,342 4-Jul-84 Larry Parrish 5
            Pedro Martínez 3,154 3-Sep-07 Aaron Harang 4
            Bob Gibson 3,117 17-Jul-74 César Gerónimo 4
            Curt Schilling 3,116 30-Aug-06 Nick Swisher 4
            Greg Maddux 3,371 26-Jul-05 Omar Vizquel 3
            Ferguson Jenkins 3,192 25-Jul-82 Garry Templeton 2

            Interestingly, 2 players hit 3K on the Fourth of July - Ryan and Niekro - while Clemens missed by a day (July 5th). And I think I knew this before and forgot, but César Gerónimo was victim 3,000 for both Ryan and Gibson

            1. Mags, that's a great chart. Given his performance in that game I suspected Bert's total was the highest, but I figured the margin between him and whoever was next would be higher. Thanks for running this down.

              1. Thanks, but it was mostly all done for me. The 3K Club page on wikipedia had the first 4 columns, I just had to find the corresponding game log.

  5. Mauer and Thome back in lineup tonight, as are all the regulars.

    Revere
    Casilla
    Mauer
    Cuddyer
    Kubel
    Thome
    Valencia
    Delmon
    Nishi

        1. This is a four-gamer? Yeah, that would work for me too given the competition and venue, though splitting series at this juncture isn't very helpful no matter where it happening.

    1. I just ran into it again- I'm getting a little worried that we're going to have another Nationals "closer" on our roster soon.

    2. From LEN3:

      Ken Rosenthal of FOX continues to report that the Nationals are pursuing the Twins' Denard Span. I've been told by a source the Twins are not shopping their leadoff hitter, and it's hard for me to believe that they would move Span, who is under control through 2015. Rosenthal suggests that closer Drew Storen could be part of a potential deal. The Twins were eyeing Storen before the draft a couple years ago, but the Nats selected him with an earlier pick.

      I also was told that the Nationals, in need of a long-term answer in center, were evaluating Ben Revere and CF's in the Twins' farm system too.

      My view is that Span shouldn't be moved unless its for a lot in return, more than Storen. The Twins don't have another leadoff hitter. Span also is a good outfielder and a good citizen.

      1. Just out of a sick curiosity, what's the best way that trade could end for the Twins?

        Span/Young for Storen/Morse/Desmond? Span/Young for Storen/Morse/Espinosa?

        I'm not terribly familiar with the Nats, so those might be wildly off one way or another, but thought I would throw it out there. I would be okay trading Span if we got a solid young middle infielder out of the deal, and I am always looking for ways to dump Delmon.

        1. Just out of a sick curiosity, what's the best way that trade could end for the Twins?

          ubes, if you were at the table, i might not be as nervous. unfortunately...

            1. You said the best, right? I don't remember realistic being part of the request. 😀

        2. I'd think that if the Twins are absolutely going to trade Span, I'd want Espinosa back in the deal. I'd prefer Storen over Clippard, but if it's Span for Storen/Desmond or Espinosa/Clippard, I'd take the latter deal. I wouldn't be quite so sick to my stomach if they got Espinosa/Storen, but they'd basically be shifting a pothole in the lineup from position to another.

          LaValle's update tonight says they'd need to be blown away, so that's slightly reassuring. Then again, this is the same GM who traded a very good starting shortstop for a reclamation project for the bullpen, sooo..

          1. I think that organizationally, it makes sense for the Twins to trade some up-the-middle outfielders for some up-the-middle infielders. If it takes Span (rather than Revere, Hicks, Benson, etc.) to get someone really good in exchange, it could be worth it. What I am less concerned about is trading for relief pitchers.

  6. CC to Foot and Ball Guy players: I renewed the league and you should have invites in whichever inboxes you use for the league.

    1. I don't know if it's an open league, but if you want a comically bad addition to the league, shoot me an invite.

      1. We've kept it to the original 12 (although last year someone replaced AMR, who didn't expect to have the time). Any more than that and it's a pretty diluted talent pool. If there's an opening, I'll bother you.

    2. Squee! Hopefully I'm in town for this year's draft. If it helps, the weekends I will be in Fargo are the weekends of 8/4, 8/18, and 9/2.

    3. I'm up for it as well, as long as you don't mind a manager that will go through the free-agent pool like it's a Vegas buffet line.

      1. I've won my money league using similar tactics...

        ...if there's a ton of interest, I assume we can either have a second league, or kick around the idea of expanding to 14 teams.

        1. i like it at 12, but i'd be happy to join a 2nd league if there's a spot too.

        2. The NFL has 32 teams. I don't see why the fantasy league can't even have 16.

          1. Well, fantasy teams usually have two of everything, including QBs, so it would be silly to have more than 16 teams. I don't mind my 16-team money league whatsoever, but it gets to a point where people have no idea who they're drafting.

              1. The benefit to this is that there are defensive studs that somehow just end up sitting in waivers because I think Yahoo just orders them by name or something equally asinine. Their rankings for individual defenders after a certain point are horrible.

                    1. Joke's on you, I'm sure I'll get voted out by my team for providing no material benefit before your scheme can come to fruition!

  7. C.J. Wilson after Tuesday's game:

    "I was just 100 percent unlucky. There were zero balls squared up. It was like bloopers and bleeders."

    What a douche. He walks four in four innings with a four-run lead, including three straight to lead off an inning, and he he blames it on bad luck. Your team scored seven runs for you!!

Comments are closed.