Thurston Fluff

Also, the Red Sox have been regarded as having a good farm system for basically Epstein's entire tenure iirc. He won WS titles with no players drafted by him in 04 and two of significance in 07. As has been stated he didn't really trade away many prospects that have had a big impact in the majors. I think his drafting capabilities are overrated. Not saying he wasn't good only that his championships were won by means other than his drafting. The advantage Epstein had was the same as Billy Beane and the Yankees (the forgotten early sabre disciples) had. Namely they were the only ones doing it. Now that virtually everyone is to one extent or another the advantage is gone. Now I think he's just another guy with a calculator. If you read the Boston Globe article it appears he missed on personalities this time around. Earlier on he either ignored attitude and got lucky or took those things in to greater consideration back then. Or the players changed. Given success they had I could see players simply getting lazy. Long story short he's an upgrade but to hope for a repeat of Boston would be ignoring the fact when other teams caught up with the approach he took his teams started to decline.

Can you imagine what Prince would do to a pitcher who sat in the clubhouse drinking, eating and playing video games during games?

I think it would be a terrible move. Take a guy who hasn't started in a long time and hasn't pitched much recently over one of your better pitchers just because the pitcher is having a bad stretch, the same kind of stretch that pitchers have at some point every single year all based on a small sample size of innings by Narveson that includes games against players that aren't even on the team anymore I would rather they went with Marcum for some of the reasons you mentioned but keep in mind Marcum has played more innings and games than he ever has. It may just be a bad stretch or it may be he's tired. I can see the arguments for going either way.

You forgot replacing Weeks and Hat on defense but still leaving Yuni in. It is unfortunate but I feel the same way. We won but his decision making has been pretty suspect. Man did that ever backfire when Yuni totally botched the play to give the lead to AZ.

Some of those topics are very much related to Yuni. The third base and outfield discussions in particular It got old when normal conversations about any situation turned into yet another Yuni bashing. It got to the point where I stopped reading any thread because I could already predict the posts. And no, third base and the outfield have nothing to do with Yuni. He doesn't play those positions and was never an option there. The only partial relationship it had was some of the players also could play short. Why bring up how terrible Yuni is when discussing who plays the outfield? It had to do with why someone might not be replacing Yuni but how does talking about possibly playing Counsell more at third relate to Yuni being a bad shortstop? Did we really need to know Yuni sucked when discussion how much Harriston played in center?

I'm pretty sure that, by the time Prince got to the majors and realized his father had stolen his signing bonus, the family / Prince's grandparents had civil judgments renedered against them and were deep in the hole. Nope. The judgement against him was for two homes and some bonds that Cecil gave to him and his grandparents to hide from his debtors. It totaled $1,280,000. All Prince had to do was sell the homes and bonds his dad gave him and he was no worse off financially. His signing bonus as an 18 year old was $2.4 million of which his dad took some of but not all.

Once it became apparent that the Brewers were sticking with Yuni for the long (2011) haul, I decided to assume that there's some inscrutable, cosmic reason for them to do so. Maybe we haven't seen "the reason" yet, but he had some solid moments Friday night, which I'll accept. He's there, we can't change that, so may as well hope for the best. That pretty much sums up my feelings on him. The only thing that got annoying after a while was seeing him brought up in every thread like somehow his in/ability was the root cause of everything that ailed the Brewers. Understanding someone isn't good is fine. Bringing up how awful he is when discussing the bullpen, team ERA, outfield defense, outfield depth, the third base situation, who chews bubble gum in the dugout or any number or other unrelated topics was less fine.

Given his experience with his Dad (making and then blowing a fortune and leaving the entire family in horrible financial circumstances) it makes sense to me that he should get what he can when he can. I get your point but to say the family was left in horrible financial circumstances is an extreme statement. Especially given the type of circumstances many are living in today through no fault of their own. His dad took some of his 6 figure signing bonus he received as an 18 year old to pay off some of his debt. Prince never really had to struggle to make ends meet at any point in his life. His family never lived in a car or had to worry about where their next meal was coming from. He simply didn't have as much as he thought he had at the time. He also knew he was going to get a whole lot more in the near future. I don't blame him for wanting all he can get but it doesn't mean I have to feel badly for him because he has to leave the comfort of the only organization he played for behind to get it.

I mean what do you want people to say, he was one of the weaker regular SS in baseball all season as expected, he can get hot at the right time and it doesn't mean any criticism is wrong somehow. If you are asking maybe something about how even though he was not a good baseball player, and everybody knew it, there was no reason to keep whining about it. It was time to accept he was our bad baseball player and we always had hope this type of thing could happen to him simply because he was ours. Maybe even something about how, in hindsight, it was a bit much to think he would be the downfall of this team in the end. That maybe when no matter what the topic his name had to be brought up in a negative way was over the top. Something along that line would be a good start if you are asking.

I think the team will. I'm more worried that the fans won't. The team is smart enough to judge Mat on his body of work not compare him as a rookie to Prince as a 6 year veteran. Fans I'm not as sure do that. I just hope they put him at first and leave him there as the starter for at least half the season no matter how he does. I don't think we can know anything about him until he has a fair shot. That takes at least half a season of regular play at minimum.

It goes to show post season and regular season management are two different things. I guess we can put to rest the idea that RRR's moves will doom us in the playoffs. He seems to get the difference between the two. Better than Gibson anyway.

I had a lot of issues with his usage early in the season when everyone was healthy for sure though. Couldn't it be possible that usage then both helped Kotsay be capable of pinch hitting as successfully as he has and kept the regulars playing at their peak at this point in the season? I said back then that I think it's a good idea to play bench players often early. It appears to have played out correctly in that we now have a useful pinch hitter and regulars playing as well now as they did early. Playing time decisions can't all be about that immediate game. There has to be some thought put towards how each player can be used to be effective throughout the season. Sometimes that may mean playing someone that gives you less of a chance to win that particular game. I can't see how rotting on the bench early helps that player become more useful as the season wears on. I also can't see how playing regulars all the time until they drop in the field helps win more games over the course of a full season. To me all Ron did early was properly plan ahead.

Game geeks 1, scientists 0. Ok so they did it together but I thought it was cool that online gamers solved a decade old scientific problem in a matter of weeks.

If you don't want me to give you information about Mat that's fine. I actually do want the information which is why I should have been more cordial. So I hope Money has shared his concerns with Mat and told him how to be successful and what he needs to do. If Money didn't something is really wrong. I can't imagine a situation where he wouldn't have. Which is why I think Mat must still not be getting something. As I said I still have high hopes for him and think he will be out starting first baseman next season. Perhaps that was Money making sure the lesson stuck. Unfortunately he has gotten a shaky reputation based on some fairly minor incidents. This is where we disagree. Showing up late is not minor in any profession. At our place we give everyone, including teenagers, the benefit of a doubt once. If they shown up late the second time they are replaced. If that sounds harsh it's because we need to trust people or our job is in jeopardy. We learned through hard lessons that tardiness is never a solitary issue. It's a sign of lack of dedication, pride or what ever you want to call it. That leads to a lack of trust. Judging from your posts understanding nuances such as what showing up on time means is something perhaps Mat hasn't understood that in the past. That doesn't mean he isn't a nice guy or anything like that mind you. Just that he didn't understand what was really required. He's in a profession that will give him a lot. Naturally a lot is expected of him for that. Not all of it should or will be spelled out for him. Some of it he has to get on his own. If not he will bounce around for a while make some money have a few memories then disappear. If he gets it he could be really good, build a legacy of his own and be remembered forever. I sincerely hope he gets it now. For him because I like to see all our guys succeed and for us because we need him to if wining the division is going to be more than a one year thing.

If it wasn't it should have been good timing on the post if nothing else.

I'm the guy who Casey is referring to and Casey is right. I was rude and that was uncalled for. I should also know better which is why I apologized (first BF political scene crossover screw up goes to BUC). Some of the stuff Madmax talked about was things that showed information not usually known so I have no doubt he is telling it as he sees it. I want to hear both sides so I 'm glad he did. I don't believe one side should get to claim what the facts are when that is only one version of the story. I should have pointed that out then discussed them properly. Being as confrontational as I was prevents that. But enough of my stupidity lets get back to Money and Gamel's short comings instead.

MY bad I apologize Madmax. Reading it now it came off more confrontational than I intended. Lets try once again on a better note. Everyone else seemed to know you show up on time. Excuses about driving the whole day prior is just that, an excuse. I'm not sure what he thought it took to get a 6 figure income but even as an 18 year old I knew excuses aren't a good way to get someones attention in a positive way. Even then once can be understood. Things happen. It's documented it happened more than once. At what point does it show a lack of respect on his part? It may have been in the past but the Money rant is now. It's hard to believe both Macha and Money hold something that happened several years ago against him now.

I just would hate to see some un-truths or some half-thruths thrown around without setting the record straight if I can. I'm not sure how just asserting they are half truths or untruths means you are setting the record straight unless you give us an idea of why you know so much about it. I know who Money is and what his relationship is to Gamel. If you want to set the record straight from someone who has obvious knowledge of the situation you have to do better than just insinuate you know the situation. There is zero reason why the organization would treat a prospect in a way that doesn't give him a legitimate shot at success. In fact the entire organization is built on getting it's prospects to succeed. If they have jerked him around it has to be for a reason other than they just don't like him. This sort of thing came around when Ben Hendrickson was here. His family felt he was jerked around as well. In the end the reason they did what they did with him was he just wasn't good enough. Truth be told I still have high hopes for Gamel. That doesn't mean I don't believe there are some issues he has to figure out to be a capable major league player on a pennant winning team.

This was sent to us today from a friend of ours. I thought it was spot on. TLB you might especially find this interesting since you lost your best friend recently as well. A Dog's Purpose (from a 6-year-old). Being a veterinarian, I had been called to examine a ten-year-old Irish Wolfhound named Belker. The dog's owners, Ron, his wife Lisa, and their little boy Shane, were all very attached to Belker, and they were hoping for a miracle. ... I examined Belker and found he was dying of cancer. I told the family we couldn't do anything for Belker, and offered to perform the euthanasia procedure for the old dog in their home. As we made arrangements, Ron and Lisa told me they thought it would be good for six-year-old Shane to observe the procedure. They felt as though Shane might learn something from the experience. The next day, I felt the familiar catch in my throat as Belker 's family surrounded him. Shane seemed so calm, petting the old dog for the last time, that I wondered if he understood what was going on. Within a few minutes, Belker slipped peacefully away. The little boy seemed to accept Belker's transition without any difficulty or confusion. We sat together for a while after Belker's Death, wondering aloud about the sad fact that animal lives are shorter than human lives. Shane, who had been listening quietly, piped up, 'I know why.' Startled, we all turned to him. What came out of his mouth next stunned me. I'd never heard a more comforting explanation. He said, 'People are born so that they can learn how to live a good Life -- like loving everybody all the time and being nice, right?' The Six-year-old continued, 'Well, dogs already know how to do that, so they don't have to stay as long.' So live like a dog: Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Remember, if a dog was the teacher you would learn things like: When loved ones come home, always run to greet them. Never pass up the opportunity to go for a joyride. Allow the experience of fresh air and the wind in your face to be pure ecstasy. Take naps. Stretch before rising. Run, romp, and play daily. Thrive on attention and let people touch you. Avoid biting when a simple growl will do. On warm days, stop to lie on your back on the grass. On hot days, drink lots of water and lie under a shady tree. When you're happy, dance around and wag your entire body. Delight in the simple joy of a long walk. Be loyal. Never pretend to be something you're not. If what you want lies buried, dig until you find it.. When someone is having a bad day, be silent, sit close by, and nuzzle them gently. ENJOY EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY

http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv208/ThurstonFluff/z9mos80lbs.jpg RIP Zaphod. You were a great dog. Nine years wasn't long enough.

He got hurt in Spring Training in back to back years. That is not necessarily an indication of being out of shape. Two years ago he got hurt early in spring training by not warming up properly. How is that anyone's fault but his? Maybe he needs more than to be told what to do. Seeing as how Gindl is also having problems I think it may be a personality thing between Gamel and Money. What does he need more then being told what to do? Players learn how to throw a ball to a cutoff man in little league. From what I read he didn't appear ot be bashing Gindl. He said Gindl is young and needs to work on stuff that doesn't show up in the stats but will make him a better player before he's ready for a promotion. He also said he needs to wait his turn and not worry about things out of his control. I hear that said all the time by players and coaches all the time. Focus on what you can control and ignore everything else. Seems like good advice to me. If he is truly a discipline problem, showing up late, etc., be forthright with him and fine/suspend him if necessary. Why do you assume this was the only thing he tried with him? I don't even know if fines and suspensions for showing up late or not listening to the coaches is allowed. Quite frankly if that is necessary I don't think they are the type of player that succeeds. This isn't about being a jerk it's about not doing what is necessary to become a better more reliable player. If our organizational philosophy is going to be ripping on guys to "motivate" them, then why is somebody like Yuni off limits? Because he's not part of our long term plans. What do you think will change in 5 months that would make doing so worthwhile? Gamel on the other hand is being viewed as the first baseman of the future here. There is a lot more invested in getting his professionalism up to snuff. The other small problem with that comparison is Yuni hasn't been rumored to have an attitude, show up late, or fail to warm up properly before swinging the bat and hurting himself. His problem is he just isn't very good.

This article sums up my feelings on that play. It also seems like everyone but backupcatchers can tell Yuni is a terrible bunter. You assumed supporting the decision to have him bunt and disagreeing the one time you saw him bunt qualified you to make that assessment means I think he was good. That is once again reading something in there that isn't. That means I thought a bad hitter's best chance to help score a run is to sac bunt. Major difference. The very place you use a sac bunt is when you have a bad hitter. Maybe that is where we are missing each other. Since he can't bunt well you assume hitting is better there. That is the exact opposite of what the statistical analysis says of the situation. The really bad hitters should bunt more often when playing for one run. It's still more likely to succeed in sac bunting than getting a hit for someone who can't get on base above a 30 % clip regardless of how bad of a bunter he is. The complaint was it was obvious he should have hit in that situation. Argue all you want but objective measured research said it wasn't obvious, In fact it may have been wrong to hit there. You say he can't bunt well and Ron should have known that. Well he can't hit either and Ron knows that. He had reasons for not replacing the hitter. If you disagree with his reasoning for leaving Yuni in there then focus on that not the choice to bunt. As far as replacing Yuni there I would have if I needed to win that game. If it was one of many there are things that may effect my decision. Things like how to get a rookie good spots to play in might then play into it more. What it does for the future of Green or if it helps win more games later this season I have no idea. Handling players seem to be Ron's strong suit. I'll leave it at that.

Obviously everything that happens in BP is an assumption because none of us are there. So you can quit with the "assumption" in every sentence. You made the assumption that Yuni was a bad bunter by watching him once. You then went ahead and assumed he must do that all the time and Ron knew that. If you make the assumptions based off of nothing more than your preconceived notions and one AB don't expect me to stop telling you it is wrong to do. Why not just admit you over stated what you knew instead of telling me to stop pointing out that you did? Explain to me though what reason Yuni would have to show good technique in bunts in BP (i.e. not wrapping your entire hand around the bat, keeping the barrel above the handle, etc.) and then use bad technique in a game (wrapping hand around the bat, bunting pitches above the starting level of the barrel, not keeping the bat at consistent incline, etc). I don't think there is a reason that he would do so, therefore I don't think it is a big assumption (there's that magic word) that Yuni would show the same technique in BP that he used in games. What you believe is he saw a player bunt in BP and realized he sucks then thought to himself I think I'll have him try it in a game. That is pure conjecture on your part. Quite frankly it's also a little unbelievable. If you want to convince anyone who hasn't made up their minds then you need to come with something a little more believable. So I take this as an admiration that you weren't actually watching the game since you didn't answer the question and because of how it was so painfully obvious they were going to crash in. Wow. That is an impressive reach. Too bad it's nothing close to the truth. That in a nutshell is what you seem to miss. I didn't address one of your questions and you draw a false conclusion. It's possible that I just missed it or forgot about it or even didn't think it was worthy of a response. You're doing the same thing with regard to judging RRR on that play. You are seeing what you want to see but totally ignoring any factors that do not fit your preconceived notion of what is correct to do there. To answer your question yes I did watch the game. Was it painfully obvious? After the fact sure. To say so before it played out impossible to know. All you can do is make an educated guess. The situation dictated one of several options that could be employed by the defense. None of them obvious until they actually happen. What I saw was the possibility that they could crash in. I also saw the possibility that they would fake crashing in then pull back. I also saw the possibility that they were not going to crash in at all after the first attempt. There was also the possibility they would crash in at third and not first or vice versa. To have known for sure which option is going to happen would require better mind reading skills than I have. They didn't show anything to what their intentions were until well after the manager called the sac bunt already. The fact they did it on the first pitch has nothing, nada, zip, zilcho to do with what they may do one the second pitch. If you say odds are they would do what they did fine. I say the odds are also better that they would score a run by doing what they did than if they had him swing away. That was what the study found anyway. So it appears you are simply wrong on what gave us the best chance to score there. Unless you assume the study simply forgot to calculate that obvious strategy defenses play into it's study I guess.

It's called the slash play. Players (even pitchers) do it successfully all the time. It's a way to adjust to what the defense is doing, and keep them honest. Some players do the slash play sometimes. I think you have it backwards though. I think they do so to make the defense adjust not to adjust to the defense. They usually start with the intention that they are going to slash and get the corners to come in for a bunt by showing bunt. It is hard enough for competent hitters to hit a major league pitcher let alone decide which swing to use as it's being pitched. Doing so while looking at something other than the pitcher even harder. Much harder than laying down a sac bunt even with the corners crashing in. First, people still think it was bad to bunt in the first place, especially with Yuni. People are free to think what they want. I wanted to know if there was a basis for that. I was told why it was a bad idea and to look it up so I did. What I found seemed to indicate Ron had it correct. If you can't move off the first supposition when evidence shows you might be wrong then I don't know what to say. If you want to debate the veracity of study or my understanding of it then please do. Finally, why is it a large assumption to think that the manager has watched one of his players take BP at least this season? Nice try. The assumption is that Yuni does the same thing is practice and Ron knew that yet did what he did. You have no clue as to what he does or what Ron saw. Yet you made the assumption that Yuni always shows bad technique in bunting from seeing him do it once and Ron knew such. If you can't accept you made way to many assumptions to have merit then there is little point in continuing this discussion. All you will do is make up something else using increasingly wild assumptions based on little more than your dislike of the manager.

Were you even watching the game? The corner infielders were crashing in on a previous pitch in the at-bat. Just because they did so the first pitch doesn't mean they do so on the second. No more than batters bunt every time on the second pitch when they did on the first. One thing Yuni is actually decent at is making contact with the ball, so just tell him to swing away on a slash play if the infield crashes in (again), and it's going to be a lot easier for any ball in play to find a hole. Do you really think telling any batter to look at something other than the pitcher and the ball is a good way to increase the odds of success? So far the criticism of that play started with it's not a good idea to do it at all. Then when it appeared to not be such a bad call it was still bad because of the way the defense was playing on the first pitch. When I point out what happens on the first pitch has no relationship to what they may do on the second it changes once again to Ron should go out tell the batter to sac bunt if they stay but but keep an eye out in case they don't then change your swing while the pitcher is throwing to swing away. Yet make sure while you're looking at the first and/or third baseman to get a good enough look at the pitch to make enough contract to get it over their heads. You guys are the ones saying it's too much to ask him to put down a bunt but keeping an eye out for defenders while the pitch is coming and deciding in that split second whether to bun tor swing away is the smart move? All this for a guy who gets on base at a sub .300 clip. So I was assuming that Roenicke has seen him before and that Yuni used the same technique during BP that he showed during that game. That is a rather large assumption isn't it? Why one Earth would you assume Ron did so? The only thing I can think of is you started with the premise that Ron is stupid and spun your tale from there.