Gopher74

RF: Hart < Hart - Hart's progress has been slow, but he's developed into quite a player and he's still getting better. Hey, great post, and I agreed with everything, but I don't know that Hart's progress has been slow. He's been fantastic at every level of the minors, and he's been very good in the big leagues thus far. But like I said, I agree with everything else, so sorry to nitpick.

Man, I'd just be getting if we could get Taylor Teagarden from them. By all accounts he's an excellant defensive catcher, and a great leader. He had TJ surgery a couple years ago, but the word is that he's all the way back from it and is expected to have a bit of a break out year behind the dish. He's not a great offensive prospects, but hell, he's a catcher, so who is. Plus they've got Max Ramirez and that Cristian Santana both catching prospects who can sit behind Salt, their catcher of the future. I'd think Dave Bush would get him in return, or at least Dave Bush plus Seth McClung. We really don't have much call for McClung and the Rangers can use all the arms they can get(though their pen is actually pretty decent).

Well, if not looking at the numbers, what should we look at? He really doesn't do anything for this team. And he's not a backup plan for Rickie Weeks since he doesn't play second. And even if Weeks looks lost, a "lost" Weeks is likely going to be better for the Brewers than a "found" Brandon Inge given his OBP has been .313 and .312 the last two years. And it's always a time to trade for prospects if you can get them. Of course you don't trade your key players for prospects, but we've got an excess of starting pitching. Rather than trade for an expensive backup who likely won't do much to improve this team right now, I think prospects are the better way to go.

Generally teams with playoff aspirations want a bit more certainty than just hoping that someone will fill a role. They could certainly look inward for a guy, but I'm guessing they'll explore options as has been rumored.

this thread has become rediculous. Well, it didn't get off to a good start after this post; Unless some team is really in need of SP they will be with the Brewers and even if we do trade them the Brewers are not going to get much for them. Jesus christ, how literal is everything taken around here My post is a hell of a lot less crazy then every single trade proposal people post involving these two pitchers. What part of this wasn't suppose to be taken literal? I was an jerk I guess because I found it amusing the insane amount of trade proposals on this board involving these two and I can't be the only one. Again, you WEREN'T being literal here? I guess that's on you then. If you're not able to convey your sarcasm or whatever it is you're trying to convey, then use that pretty blue font people use. The majority of trade rumors out there from the media have zero substance behind them at all. Again, if I took this TOO literal, then why don't you explain what you meant rather than getting worked up? I am referring to the ridiculous trade rumors on this board that people are making not about anything the team is doing. What are you talking about? "Not about anything the team is doing"? This doesn't make any sense. Plus, like last time, before you got all worked up and talked about people taking your exact words "too literal", I asked for an example of all these "rediculous" trade suggestions. I just can't believe how overvalued they are on this board, that is all. I guess you need to add a disclaimer for people who take everything completely literal. Yes, you keep saying the word literal. I'm starting to think you don't know what it means because you haven't given one example yet. You see, even in this post you KEEP talking about all these crazy trade rumors. Then when I ask for one, ask what you're talking about, you go off on a tangent about how everyone's too literal. I know the difference between a blog or suggested trade in a thread because that is what this thread is about not reported possible trades. So either I am not explaining it again or you aren't reading my posts correctly. Ummm...what? unless you think ESPN, blogs where ESPN steals info and rumors from, are always using credible info when they report trade rumors. ESPN is a joke and it is in their benefit to make sports interesting and entertaining. Seriously, what on Earth does this have to do with anything? Now you go into a diatribe about ESPN? Hmmm.... Sure I am sure a lot of their trade rumors have merit but a lot of them dont, for example the majority of Santana's rumors. Actually, almost all of the Santana rumors were supported by the actual GM's involved, so I don't know what you're talking about here. Once again this thread has nothing to do with the organization, simply reading it would answer that. Whatever you say. I can hardly understand what you're posts are trying to say. And clearly, if I replied to your posts, and quoted several things you said, wouldn't that suggest that I "simply read it"? Anyways How do you know they have had talks? Do you know something we don't know? If you don't like me saying what I said you can always ignore it. How do I know? Doug Melvin has said as much. And no, I don't know something "WE'' don't know, but apparently I know something you don't know. As for the "ignore it" part, again, what are you talking about? Can you deal with someone not agreeing with what you said, or asking you to clarify your off the wall comments?

I don't think there is any truth to this. I think that Jeff Suppan would be sough after by several teams. Being this late in the game, ie, the seasons about to start, that number would be a bit diminished, but if we were to try to trade him next year, assuming he had a year like he did last year, I don't think we'd have any problem. The Phillies for instance I think would jump at the chance to get him. He's seen as a GB type pitcher, an innings eater and a guy that'll keep you in games. For teams with great offense, but limited defense, that would be a very attractive pitcher. The Texas Rangers, the Mets(especially next year if Pedro and Perez are gone), the Dodgers, the Angels with their pitching right now would gladly take him. I just don't know where this notion that we'd have to eat not only a chunk of his salary, but most of it comes from. Maybe after next year when he's got 2 years and 25 million left on his deal we'd have to eat 2.5 each year and pay the option year or the buyout, but that would be the most we'd likely have to eat. Jeff Suppan's got a lot of value. We got him at what was IMO a decent deal last year given the market. Meche 5/55, Lilly, 4/40, Marquis 3/21(after a 6.00 ERA). Suppan coming off an NLCS MVP and having won seasons of 13, 16, 16 and 12 wins, and ERA's of 4.19, 4.16, 3.57 and 4.12. Now I didnt' really like the deal, but I thought it made our team better. Second, I don't see how Gallardo is an injury risk? One injury in your career does not make you an injury risk. Not to mention, trading Suppan, which again, is not going to happen since he's got a no-trade clause WOULD free up a spot to go with Sheets, Yo, Parra, Villy, and then one of Vargas, Cappy or Bush, save us 32 million over 3, and give us money to bring Sheets back.

I couldn't agree more with what you've said on this thread so far. First of all, I've been an advocate of Vargas in the long relief role, or Villy's "swing role" all off-season. I think the fact that he could bring it at about 95/96 as a reliever, and has a pretty good slider makes me believe that he could be a nice reliever. However, if he did actually develop a change as last night suggests, and he can go after hitters a little bit better, he does have good enough stuff to be a very viable option for the starting rotation. As for Dave Bush, he absolutely seems to get behind in a count and is so unwilling to walk a guy, he'll come down the middle and get killed. That's always been his problem IMO and the reason that his peripherals can be incredibly mis-leading. It's not just bad luck, if you throw the ball over the middle of the plate when you're behind in the count, it's going to get hit hard, and it's more likely going to fall for a hit. Some will argue that, saying it's all a matter of luck(that is balls in play have the same chance to be an out). In any event, Vargas is certainly making the decision that much more difficult, but it's never bad for your pitchers to step up, even if it clogs and already crowded pitching situation.

Right, I didn't mean to take what you said and suggest that's what you're implying. I agree, if you can get a nice prospect then I'm all for moving them. I guess I'm just saying in the absence of anyone of real value, I don't want to see us make a trade just to make a trade.

I apologize. I did see where you said that the other play was "trash". I just don't agree with the premise that both plays were equal or that the second play was justified because of the first play. I should have worded it differently. I just can't get too upset about the Rays playing trash baseball (in a vain attempt to say 'Yeeeea!? We're tough!') and receiving trash in kind.? Do unto others...

Reed, shouldn't it be on you to provide a link to these three occasions of Pettite lying in the last 6 months? You're the one calling the man a liar and saying he lied three times. I don't believe that he did lie three times. In either event, the fact remains that has nothing to do with Mike Cameron, but still, I do think if you're going to present something as evidence, that it should be on you to provide the link. I'm sorry golpher that you can't follow what I'm saying. That I don't see the least bit of correlation to athletes lying about taking performance enhancing drugs and Mike Cameron looking into if he MAY need an exemption for a legitimate injury does not mean I don't understand what you're saying. I don't understand why you're making this connection. I simply don't think that one has anything to do with the other. I mean, seriously, can I bring in examples of players telling the truth about things that also in no way relate to this particular topic? I don't recall Cameron ever going public and admitting to what substance he took that resulted in his suspension. Don't change the criteria. You said that he hadn't talked publically about the suspension. He did...ad nauseum. To have not heard him talk about it would have meant you weren't paying attention. When he signed here it was almost all he talked about. The fact is he said he didn't know. For the record, 13 pct of supplements contain things that are banned by baseball. It's very easy to see how someone could take something with ephedra in it(almost all diet pills had it, rip fuel, any number of things at GNC, which is what his suspension was supposed to be for). Where are all these admissions of his past drug use? Are you still talking to me? To be perfectly honest, I have to check because you're asking questions about things I've never talked about. First of all, where do you get evidence of "all these past issues of drug use"? You're not being intellectually dishonest. Through his entire career he's been in trouble or even linked to any type of banned substance ONCE. One single time, so framing it like this is just ridiculous. Would Michael Vick ever have come forward if the press had not first nailed him? The press had more evidence on Vick than the FBI did. He was convicted by the press long before he ever went to trial. You keep using this argument which again doesn't have the first thing to do with this topic. Again, as simply as I can say it, you're comparing athletes who have committed CRIMES to Mike Cameron. I'm sorry, but that is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, Mike Vick would have to be even dumber than I thought to come out and talk about what he was being charged with. Second, how does dog fighting equate to "I'm going to have tests and see if I MAY have the need to POSSIBLY use the exemption from Major League Baseball". What the hell would he be lying about? I'm serious, I'd like to hear this rather than examples of a professional athlete in a totally unrelated situation. Hamilton never talked about his drug addiction until it was already a well known fact. My posts are long enough. Do you want me to include every player and what they haven't divulged? OK, beyond telling you once again that this doesn't have the first thing to do with the topic at hand, you're wrong. Well, at least you were wrong. You initially stated that Joey Hamilton didn't talk about his drug problems prior to his "feel good story", ie, last year. The problem with that is he was on the cover of SI and gave SEVERAL interviews, including one on HBO sports about his addiction. AS for Hank Aaron, again. Wow. What does that have to do with anything? I'm not going to argue any longer about how forthcoming players are about other topics. The fact that they HAVE to speak with the media(literally have to or are fined) should say enough. Just watching Sports Center should be enough, but whatever. You're drawing me into this argument that again, isn't relevant. It'd be like arguing about how bad Steroids are for you...except that would be more relevant to this topic. I didn't realize so many baseball players suffered from ADD - and only in the past 5 years. Do you have any link supporting this? I will admit I'm naeve about drugs. I'm also guessing you don't know about supplements and how many of them can create a false positive? Just because guys like Randy Johnson, Sosa and Jenkins never tested positive, it makes me speculate that they either had medical exemptions or better masking agents than the other ball players. And again, still has nothing to do with this thread about Mike Cameron. Nobody has EVER accused Mike Cameron of taking steroids. As for Cameron wanting an exemption and using post concussion syndrome as a reason, doesn't anybody else find it odd that he has waited this long after the concussion to seek treatment? No. I'm not a doctor, but I'm also not going to vilify him for doing absolutely nothing wrong at this point in looking into the situation. In fact, I'd find it incredibly irresponsible for him not to if he felt the lingering effects. it's very hard for me to believe these symptoms just started surfacing now. Nobody EVER said that they were. I don't believe anywhere anyone said that they were just surfacing now. Perhaps he's become more aware of the signs because he came to the Brewers and learned about Koskie or talked to the trainer and he suggested he seek further treatment. Either way, I don't use my ignorance as a reason to convict a guy of a harmless "crime", and I use crime in quotes for a reason. I don't see what you think he's done wrong in this instance. I do not doubt that cameron is experiencing some type of post concussion syndrome. I just don't get this. This contradicts nearly everything you said in this previous paragraph and the general tone of your posts. But you don't doubt that he's suffering from it, you just don't think he should be treated for it? Or maybe he should just take whatever he needs and then if he gets suspended again like last time, then "oh well"? But the timing of his seeking an exemption seems a bit off. How so? He's not saying that BECAUSE of this he took something and that's why he was suspended. If my back starts hurting 6 months after my auto accident, could I say it was a result of my auto accident? Again, what difference does it make? This analogy doesn't work at all because Cameron's not trying to use the incident for any gain. He's not placing blame, he's not going to court, he's not trying to get anything out of it. I just don't get it. You're saying that, "yea, I believe he has PCS", but he waited too long". "If I got hurt, could I go back and blame it on an accident 6 months prior". Who cares what it's from? That really doesn't matter at all. If it's from the collision or if he fell down his steps that's not the point. most doctors would say why didn't you report this earlier. Again, I can't speak to what Doctors would say, but I can only assume that they wouldn't refuse him treatment because you don't know why he "waited" so long. I mean, if a guy has a broken bone in his hand that he deals with for a couple years, are you going to call him a liar because he goes to the doctor when it continues to bother him? Should I give Cameron the benefit of the doubt that he's being truthful? I gave that benefit to McGuire, Bonds, Clemens and Sosa. I've got no more benefit to give out. Seriously....do you really not see the difference here? You're saying that because players have lied in the past about taking PED's, that Mike Cameron must be lying.....you haven't said about what yet, or what his motivation might possibly be, just that because someone lied in the past that Mike Cameron MUST be lying. The only problem? He's not doing anything wrong. The fact is, you don't know. You don't have the first clue what he may want to take or what he may need to take, what that is going to mean in regard to the drug test, you don't know what his symptoms are, you don't know how he's feeling. You've got almost no information other than the fact that he decided to go get tests to see if his BRAIN was still messed up and if he may need to take something, and all the sudden you start to compare him to Mike Vick and Barry Bonds and that he must be a liar. I used to think pro wrestling and rollerball derby were real, and that the kansas City bombers won so many times because they were good. I used to think TV news reports were truthful. I've come to realize it's all about spin and entertainment and money. Congrats. You've moved on from comparing athletes lying about taking drugs to a 1960's sitcom, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and Pro-Wrestling and you've done it in an incredibly condescending tone. But the suggestion that you're just smarter than all of us who don't see the problem, or what Mike Cameron even would be lying about, or what his motivation may be by trying to change this topic to make this a thread about the fact that there are people that lie about there is just flat out ridiculous. It's insulting for you to compare this to Pro-Wrestling, the Beverly Hillbillies, or anything else you included in the last paragraph. The simple fact here is that you're just aimlessly spinning around here and talking about all the non-truths in the world today, a goal that quite frankly doesn't address the fact that you still seem to think that Cameron is lying...even though you believe that he DOES still suffer effects from the incident. unfortunately, at least for me, basball players are now viewed by me as guilty until proven innocent. Their word holds little value. the game is no longer clean. it's also no longer a game. it's become a business just like Wal Mart. Ok, so then you're essentially admitting that no matter what, you're going to think that every player is lying. I guess Prince is lying about his diet. He probably actually eats dogs after his dog fighting matches. I mean, if Mike Vick would lie about it, why wouldn't he? It's fine to not trust players. I don't think anyone really does right now(though you're all alone on Pettite, if anything, his rep improved after this latest incident, and just saying he did these things does not serve as proof), but that still doesn't mean that you can take these mundane statements and just go off on a tangent and come right out of left field and accuse him of....well, I'm still not quite sure what you've accused him of. I guess to conclude this incredibly long post, I'd ask you should I now not believe anything anyone in the armed forces says because there were no WMD's in Iraq? Should I go through and list all the inaccurate information and then call you a liar? Especially in the intelligence community? No because those two things don't have any relation to each other.

Yea that really was one of those where it's almost hard to look at. Like I said, they're lucky. If they would have hit just a little bit differently that was a collision that was so bad the effects could have been much worse than they are now.

I don't know about that, I think that Melvin was always pretty up front about the fact that he believed that the value for starting pitching was much greater during the season, and position players much greater in the off-season. I think if anything that suggests that the Brewers always had it in the back of their heads that if they didn't get a deal that was acceptable that they would just keep that trio, go into the season with them and wait for someone to lose a starter to injury thus raising that price again. I mean, every year they talk about the value of pitchers at the all-star break and how teams are going after pitchers worse than what we've got and offering decent packages. The only question is are the Brewers going to be patient enough, or is it going to take until the trade deadline for that value to be there?

I would think that Doug Melvin who's done this for a career and has done it quite well in two stops has a much better grasp of what he'll get than you do quite honestly.

Gil Meche got 55 Million dollars over 5 years. Ted Lilly got 40 Million over 4 years. Jason Marquis got 21 over 3 years. None of those three had been as good in regards to what the Brewers were looking for at the time, so 4 years and 42 million dollars really isn't overpaying for him. He provided stability to our staff. It was also a bit of a Carlos Delgado deal IMO in that you sign him for a reasonable price for the first two years with a No Trade Clause and then you deal him when his contract starts to increase the last two years. There are plenty of teams that would be willing to take a guy for 12.5 a year that is going to throw 200 Innings every year and give you an ERA in the mid to low 4's. The Mets are one that jumps out at me as they may just want a number 3 next year if they let Perez and Pedro go. I just don't know why you'd think we were desperate for signing a guy to a pretty standard deal given the market. And finally, we're not going to struggle in the least bit to sign our arby guys next year or the year after. We've go about 35 million dollars coming off our books, and I believe we had a net gain last year of 50 million dollars. The Brewers are doing just fine. It's like some people will complain when you don't sign anyone only to turn around when you do sign someone arguing that he's overpriced.

He was fielding a throw. It wasn't like he was four steps up the line thumping his chest as the ball was being relayed home. The runner, otoh, was gearing up to hit the C at least halfway to home plate. First of all, it doesn't matter if he was thumping his chest or not. That has absolutely no bearing on this. Nobody's arguing he ran over the catcher because he was showing anyone up. The fact is he was run over because he was blocking the plate. The suggestion that he had to block the plate because he was recieving the throw is the exact opposite. The fact that he didn't have the ball is all the MORE reason to not block the plate. It's really very simple. If you don't have the ball do not block the plate, give the runner access to the plate. I just don't understand how you can lay this all at the feet of the Rays. It's like saying if a batter is hanging way out over the plate and a pitcher throws inside and hits him, that's cheap because it's "just" Spring Training. Well the fact the responsibility lies with the catcher to get out of the way if he doesn't want to get run over. You're right, it IS just Spring Training. So why is a guy blocking the plate like it's game 7? I understand that injury can occur on a hook-slide, but ask yourself which play is more likely to induce injury - a hook slide, or a full-grown man running full speed & lowering his shoulder into another man's upper-body? We don't have to. We can ask Joe Torre. In one of the links provided there was a comment from Joe Torre about when they used to play Mike Scoiscia Torre would tell his players to go into home plate hard every time because he was block the plate and he didn't want to risk an injury. This is true if you're playing a ST'ing game, a regular season game, a little league game or any game. You don't want to get run over don't-block-the-plate. But in any event, let's say that we agree that the running over the catcher was dirty. Let's just say that for arguments sake. That was a play that at least does have a place in the game, even if you don't believe it's in ST'ing. Going into second base and cleating the 2nd basemen is about as dirty as it gets. Frankly, if there is any team that's dirty and has the "we're tough guys" mentality it's the Joe Girardi managed New York Yankee's.

This statement suggest that I don't understand when the case is really that I just don't agree. The thing is, this type of logic leaves out far too many aspects of actual performance that can't be quantified. For instance, if a pitcher's grooving pitches and getting drilled, thereby more balls falling in for hits as opposed to last year or the year prior when he was sawing guys off, or getting the ball off the end of the bat leading to more easy outs, that shows up as just pure dumb luck in a differential of BABIP. That's just an example. Again, I find a great deal of value in this logic, but it just doesn't explain away everything. Salomon Torres wasn't as good in 07 as he was prior.

The majority of trade rumors out there from the media have zero substance behind them at all. You can't say that you don't assume to know anything that the rest of us don't, then you go onto say that the majority of the rumors out there have zero substance behind them at all. To make that definitive statement, wouldn't you then have to have inside knowledge of those conversations? Also, I think you need to understand that there is a difference from a blog suggesting what MAY be a good trade, or a thread doing the same, and a report of a possible trade. And as far as media reports of possible trade rumors http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gifhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif Wow, not only is this condescending(as TooLiveBrew used it as an example that there were actual trade talks and you essentially laugh in his face), but I find it ironic that we're to take your word for it, and ignore the baseball writers who have actual relationships and connections with baseball people. I'm sorry, but if it's between you and Peter Gammons, I think I'm going to side with him. I guess what I find distasteful is your almost gloating that the Brewers haven't made a trade yet and citing "all these trade proposals"(without actually citing one single example of a ridiculous one) and the premise that you know they haven't had talks....not to mention the mocking.

I don't know, to me, the fact that he does plan on starting 140 games to me leads me to believe that Rottino would be a better choice because of that. He can play so many other position, so if you're going to need a backup who only plays 22 games, wouldn't it stand to reason that you'd want someone who could then play so many other positions and do so many other things for your teams? On one hand you've got someone who can only do one thing and that's catch in Rivera of Munson(though Munson could play 3rd).On the other you have someone who can play 1st, 2nd, 3rd, SS in a pinch, and all three OF positions. So while I like Munson, I would think that would make Rottino a better choice, not worse.

I understand your point, but I don't find any other stat as important as how many runs a pitcher allows. As I said, you can use those stats to explain WHY he wasn't as good, but you simply can't say that a pitcher who in one game gives up 10 runs was just as good as he was in another game when he gave up 2 runs. That's just missing the most basic element of baseball. It's really a very simple game.

Ok, there's a lot to sift through here. First of all, as for Pettite, I'd like to see the links where he denied using within the last couple months, and the other lies you've said. With regard to Joey Hamilton, I still don't know what this has to do with anything, but it's been no secret that he was suspended for drugs. It was most definitely well known prior to his story becoming a "feel good" story. As for what happens when he has a relapse, again, I don't know how this has even the slightest bearing on the topic at hand. Frankly you seem to be going off on a tangent about something totally unrelated. But all the same, you sound awfully judgmental. Some people have problems. Again, this has nothing to do with Cameron in any way, but I don't understand the disdain for people who have their own personal demons that they need to combat. I guess I just don't see it as your place to admonish them. As for your take on Cameron's PCS based on your accidents, I'd just say that your not a doctor, and that your experiances can be very different. I do find it interesting after going through a situation here in Milwaukee with Corey Koskie where we got a very clear and sobering example of just how devastating that injury can be, that you'd be so certain that he's lying about it. I also can't disagree more about Athletes not talking about their injuries. When an athlete is injured, that's often the first thing they're asked about and they almost always talk about it. To use Felix Pie's injury as your example, I don't know if you're trying to be funny, but clearly when someone has an embarrassing injury, yea, they may not be as forthcoming about it. But Ben Sheets, Chris Carpenter, Albert Pujols just as a couple examples, they don't talk about their injuries? And then the Hank Aaron thing, again, what does that have to do with anything? Man, you're just bouncing around from one issue to another here with almost no relation to each other. But again, let's just say that they don't. I think it's absolutely 100 pct wrong, but let's say that athletes don't talk about their injuries. SO WHAT!! Why does that mean that Cameron is lying? Is Corey Koskie lying about his PCS? Now you're likely going to say he's not asking for an exemption, but you've brought up all these other players who don't meet the same criteria. As for the Bud Selig thing, or the Mitchell report, I honestly don't even know how to respond to it, because frankly, I don't see how it has anything at all to do with Mike Cameron saying that he MAY have issues, and that he MAY need an exemption and you being so disgusted with this. And finally, you lump Cameron in with all these other athletes. You compare him to Gange and Giambi. You say because they lied so must he be. I guess the very simple and very obvious follow up question would be what is his motivation? Yea, theres was because it could hurt their livelihoods. You also blame them for apologizing for the fact that they've created a distraction, but you need to understand, everyone knew what they were talking about, but they can't come out and say, especially Giambi that they took roids as it could be grounds to void his contract. Gange could have been suspended. So what's Cameron's? You still haven't offered up a plausible reason for why he would lie about this? I guess it kinda comes off as though you see it this way because of your training, and I just don't see any correlation to anything you've talked about. So I ask, what's the real reason Cameron wants a drug exemption? Why don't you tell us why YOU think he would? Also be sure to tell us why the Doctors he's going to see would lie about it. Be sure to explain why it's hard to imagine that a player who experienced the most violent baseball collision that I've ever seen couldn't have PCS? I know this isn't a court of law, but man, talk about being guilty until proven innocent for almost no reason.

Exactly. It's just a bit disconcerting when Brewer fans lump Derrick Turnbow in with the Roger Clemens, and Barry Bonds of the world when what he did wasn't even close to the same. It'd be like saying two crimes, one in which a guy hits someone with a baseball bat time after time is the same as another who accidently bumps into someone with their elbow because in both incidents they made contact. To me it seems insincere. As for the Marmol-Turnbow argument, I'm too burnt out to get any further into the argument how you can just chalk everyone who doesn't fit into a specific mode up to being lucky.

I never said that you said he was convicted. This is the problem with coming into a debate specifically between two people. Geno's words- "Marmol's 5 years younger, makes $3 million less, has no steroid convictions" He's comparing the differences between the two, Turnbow and Marmol and says that he has no "steroid conviction". I never said at any time that YOU said Turnbow was convicted. It is classified as a steroid(the FDA classifies it as a anabolic steroid precursor which is still a steroid), therefore to me, it is a steroid. It was also an over the counter supplement that he got that wasn't banned by baseball at the time, NOR was it illegal, and I don't believe it was classified as a steroid at the time. So that very much is relevant to this discussion. The guy took a steroid and tested positive for it. Big deal, let's move on. The guy took a supplement legal in MLB and was suspended from Team USA. You can also say someone taking a cream for a rash takes steroids. That doesn't mean it's on the same level as a illegal roid that you shoot up with. And I never said it was a big deal. If you'll recall I was replying to another poster when you started intervened.

2004-ERA 2.64 1.18 Whip 2005-ERA 2.78 1.18 Whip 2006-ERA 3.28 1.45 Whip 2007-ERA 5.47 1.40 Whip I don't understand how you can possibly argue that the first three seasons in this are anywhere near as good as season number 4. You can explain why he wasn't as good, but the very simple basic fact is that his ERA was twice as bad in 07 as it was in 04 and 05. He gave up more runs. That's not as good. This would be akin to saying that a hitter was just as good in two different seasons, one in which he hit .330, the other he hit .220 because his BABIP was .110 points difference and he was just unlucky. Well, lucky, unlucky, whatever the case may be, he wasn't as good. I do understand you're saying there is reason to believe he will be better this year, and I absolutely agree with that. Just not the way you arrive at that.

LOL...great line. Apologies for the "AOL" talk as I've been yelled at for that before, but I felt as though it was appropriate in this particular instance.

What else would you have had him do? Have them force pitchers to stay out on the mound and blow his elbow out? I mean, anyone there was an all-star(which...I suppose is rather obvious), so if they got hurt, it'd obviously hurt their team very badly. And you can't throw a regular out there less he have a Jose Canseco incident and also blow out an elbow. Bottom line, he had to do what was in the best interest of the game, not the fans at the game, who did stll get a pretty dang good product. As for Wendy, I think I could earn three strikes just talking about her, so good call leaving that one for another day.