Master Index of Archived Threads


Willie: Brainless and Testicularly-Challenged (2006)

Rotblatt Feb 09 2006 10:30 AM

Sure, it's a little early to start dumping on your manager, but the early bird gets the worm and all. Thanks for the inspiration & title, Sal! Anyway, I'm worried about Willie's pending choices concerning the following: 1. Bullpen. We have an awful lot of "experienced" pitchers whom I'm worried Willie will go to instead of guys like Bell & Padilla. Wagner, Sanchez, Bradford, Julio & Iriki seem likely to make the team, as is at least one of our lefties, meaning two of Bell, Padilla & Schmoll will be sent to AAA. I'd much rather see Bell & Padilla in the pen than Julio & a crappy lefty--and maybe instead of Iriki too, but I'm withholding judgement for the time being. 2. Bullpen management. I'm guessing that whichever of Bell, Padilla & Schmoll make the team probably won't see much time, at least initially. Willie will probably give Bradford, Julio & Iriki a ton of rope to hang themselves with. On the other hand, giving the veterans a shot first might reveal another Robo 2005, but I kinda doubt lightning will strike twice. 3. Batting order. I know, I know, it's not a huge deal statistically, but I still get twitchy when I hear things like "LoDuca would be a good #2 hitter." Let's put our best hitters at the top of the order, meaning that LoDuca gets to bat AFTER Delgado, Wright, Floyd, & Beltran--not before. I also loathe the idea of keeping Beltran at #3, and I'd really like Reyes to prove he belongs at the top of the order before locking him in there. I suppose we don't have any better options now that Cameron's gone, but I hope Willie's willing to get creative & drop Reyes in the order if/when he starts struggling. 4. Second Base. Cairo's gone, which is a Good Thing, but I'm still nervous that Willie will fall in love with one of our srub 2B options and play him against all reason. I don't know the answer, but I want Willie to be flexibile & creative with the problem, and I really, really doubt he will be.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 09 2006 10:47 AM

There's an argument for allowing vets to hang themselves. If you cut them all in March, or don't invite them in the first place, as most smartypants armchair analysts seem to suggest, if/when the youngsters get cuffed around you've limited your alternatives to them and perhaps, wasted options in the event they need additional seasoning. I also don't think this particular complaint is on WWSB, or even unique to the Mets/Omar. All teams in one way or another have more options for their bullpens than come North every year, and I'd suggest the majority would prefer to let the guys they can't stash away in the minors to get the first crack simply for efficiency's sake.

metirish Feb 09 2006 10:50 AM

Julio will make the team , I really don't know much of anything about Schmoll or Iriki, I also would hope Bell and Padilla get a decent chance to make the team, no reason to believe they won't, Padilla is the coolest cat on the team, that must count for something.

smg58 Feb 09 2006 11:01 AM

I hope Royce Ring gets the chance, too. And I have no idea where or when Alay Soler will fit in. I'll refrain from passing judgement on Willie's handling of the situation until April, when I've seen how the situation pans out.

Elster88 Feb 09 2006 11:13 AM

I will refrain from passing judgement until I see how long it takes Julio to get sent to AAA. Anytime after mid-April is unacceptable.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 09 2006 11:23 AM

I also see Julio as an impending disaster. But if he has a decent April, I won't be arguing for him to be sent to Norfolk.

heep Feb 09 2006 11:29 AM

Now that Benson is gone, does anyone have an accurate count on the 2006 salaries and what the payroll will be?

seawolf17 Feb 09 2006 11:32 AM

Try [url=http://www.hardballdollars.com/team.php?team=mets&name=Mets]Hardball Dollars[/url]. Looks like $97.99 million right now for '06, down from $109.33 million in '05.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 09 2006 11:33 AM

I'm not arguing the guy is a superstar, but unless Julio is/was hurt, I don't see how he's necessarily a disaster waiting to happen. He averaged a K per inning every year till last year when he seemed to get too much bat -- and in good hitting parks of the AL East. And he's younger than Heath Bell.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 09 2006 11:56 AM

My biggest question is who's the sixth starting pitcher on the depth chart? With Seo gone, and Heilman presumably promoted, who's left? If Pedro or Glavine have to miss a few starts, who takes their place? The only name that comes to mind right now is John Maine. I really wish that had at least either Seo or Benson. They don't seem to have any rotation depth anymore. Am I forgetting somebody?

sharpie Feb 09 2006 12:00 PM

Isn't Soler really a starting pitcher?

metirish Feb 09 2006 12:29 PM

]Am I forgetting somebody? The Japanese guy can spot start.

KC Feb 09 2006 12:29 PM

Is it the general consensus among the WWSB group that he learned nothing from his first year managing and that even with a potentially much better lineup that his team will always be doomed from the onset? I mean jeez, he's a young second year manager - and I doubt he's as ignorant (baseball wise) as some people here and other places make him out to be.

Edgy DC Feb 09 2006 12:51 PM

It's certainly not set, but I thnk Iriki presumptively opens the season as the sixth starter, as it appears now. I'm looking at our starting current pitcher depth chart this way. Martinez Glavine Trachsel Zambrano Heilman Iriki Maine Bannister Soler Oliver Padilla Junge Lindstrom Scobie Musser Pelfrey Humber I think we'll be alright.

Rotblatt Feb 09 2006 12:55 PM

]Is it the general consensus among the WWSB group that he learned nothing from his first year managing and that even with a potentially much better lineup that his team will always be doomed from the onset? I can't speak for everyone, but for myself, I do WORRY that he hasn't learned anything--or at least, much. However, I certainly don't think we're doomed from the onset--as a matter of fact, I think we'll probably make the playoffs this year. I just think it might be in spite of Willie rather than because of him. ]I mean jeez, he's a young second year manager - and I doubt he's as ignorant (baseball wise) as some people here and other places make him out to be. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a while last year, and then got really, really pissy with him when he didn't seem to change at all. This year, I'm hoping the opposite happens--I treat him with suspicion from day 1, and he proves me wrong over the course of the season. Ultimately, I think that Omar's moves have made me even more nervous of Willie than I would have been. Willie had finally come around on Seo, Heilman & Jacobs and had finally demoted Cairo & Zambrano. Now Seo & Jake are gone, Zambrano's penciled in as our #4 guy, and after our closer & setup guy, our pen is littered with mediocrity. Essentially, Willie has a lot of new people to deal with and I'm worried he'll take another agonizing 5 months to figure out a decent configuration.

KC Feb 09 2006 01:06 PM

Fair enough, I'm just playing mid February testicularly-challenged advocate for a spell.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 09 2006 01:14 PM

Does anyone expecting Julio to be an unmitigated disaster care to defend that position?

Edgy DC Feb 09 2006 01:19 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 09 2006 01:27 PM

I don't know that any of us had a better option at second come mid-summer. Yeah, I would have gotten Matsui back in there as soon as he was able, but there was little in the way of options. I know there is hope that Woodward wouldward've been the man, but that's rather wishful thinking (as he's virtually the only one who didn't fail). I think Randolph has proven he has faith in in Woodie. ]...and after our closer & setup guy, our pen is littered with mediocrity. Doesn't that describe virtually every pen, or actually most of the better pens? I agree that I'd like to see more talent on the left side, but the depth shouldn't be a particularly worry. If we're convinced that Randolph will stay with a veteran failure too long, I don't think there's any team's bullpen that would make that concern go away. I guess a team that has a GM setting up a virtually vet-free bullpen, but that roster would likely have it's own perils.

MFS62 Feb 09 2006 01:22 PM

Aside from his decisions about the bullpen, I think we'll get a clue about his willingness to change/ learn when he starts fielding his regular season lineup towards the end of Spring Training. Last year he seemed set on the idea of alternating lefty and righty batters through the batting order. If Reyes(S) is the leadoff batter, who follows him? Beltran(S) is probably a better (OBP-wise) choice than anyone else as a #2 hitter. And Wright(R) looks like the best #3 hitter, with Delgado(L) following him. No problem with that. But the test will be who follows Delgado. The next best hitter is probably Floyd(L). Will Willie force a righty (Diaz?) into that spot, with Floyd(L) and LoDuca(R) and the second baseman (?)to follow? Will he put LoDuca in the #2 hole? Or will he change what he did last year and have Floyd follow Delgado? Should be interesting. Later

Edgy DC Feb 09 2006 01:29 PM

If he's still in the mix, Mr. Koo has a history of starting as welll.

Nymr83 Feb 09 2006 01:47 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Does anyone expecting Julio to be an unmitigated disaster care to defend that position? his 5.90 ERA makes that a pretty easy sell.

metirish Feb 09 2006 02:02 PM

Rick Peterson was on the radio last week and mentioned that he has spoken to Julio and that they have identified some things to work on, based on his career numbers he will need it, 2002 was a good year though... http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6709/career;_ylt=AuvDw79Te5X1VUaKsor11NiFCLcF

Willets Point Feb 09 2006 02:03 PM

metirish wrote: Rick Peterson was on the radio last week and mentioned that he has spoken to Julio and that they have identified some things to work on, based on his career numbers he will need it, 2002 was a good year though... http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6709/career;_ylt=AuvDw79Te5X1VUaKsor11NiFCLcF Did it take 10 minutes?

Elster88 Feb 09 2006 02:07 PM

It still cracks me up when I hear on the radio "If he can regain his form from 2002". I have no scientific proof of this, but my contention is that a player tends to stay at the level displayed in the previous three seasons, rather than the one before that.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 09 2006 02:07 PM

One of my complaints about Willie's testosterone-level has to do with his ability to recognize and fix a problem regardless of salary involved. Obviously, Matsui and Piazza got me started on this, but let's leave those aside to address a hypothetical because I don't want to fan old flames just now. Say Pedro gets off to a terrible start--gets through the lineup okay first time around, but consistently runs out of gas around the 3rd inning. All Spring Training, this goes on and on, and into the season. The other 4 starters (Glavine, Trax, Heilman, and Zambrano) are performing well, and Soler has been doing very well in a starting role in ST and in his first few starts at AAA). Soler gets promoted to MLB, does very well in a start or two at this level, while Pedro keeps gettting roughed up the second time through the lineup. The obvious solution is to take Pedro out of rotation and put Soler in. This move might not take too much brains after a while, but it definitely will take some balls to make that call. To my mind, I'd pull the trigger on that move around the middle of April. Some of you would delay longer, and risk taking more hits (literally) on Pedro's record, giving him longer to play his way off the rotation. May, maybe you'd stick with Pedro until June. I maintain that Willie would literally never make that move until Pedro publicly requested a demotion. That's where I fault him him for testosterone-deprivation. He will play big-salary over big-talent every time. Does anyone disagree with my assessment of that hypothetical situation?

Nymr83 Feb 09 2006 02:27 PM

the middle of April is way too soon, you'd really consider it after 3 or 4 bad starts?

Frayed Knot Feb 09 2006 02:27 PM

Agree with an assessment that after a few poor starts the decision should be made that that stint signals the end of productive pitching and should automatically trump the successes of the previous 14 years? ... Ummm, No.

seawolf17 Feb 09 2006 02:32 PM

If Pedro is that bad... I mean he's four starts in, and he's pitched 13 total innings... then they'll put him on the DL or something. They're not going to pull him out of the rotation. He's Pedro Freaking Martinez, not Scott Erickson.

sharpie Feb 09 2006 02:35 PM

Right. If Zambrano or Heilman or Trachsel begin that bad then that's a different story. Glavine probably gets a little more rope, Pedro a lot more rope.

Rotblatt Feb 09 2006 02:40 PM

]Doesn't that describe virtually every pen, or actually most of the better pens? Yeah, pretty much, but IMO, we had a much better situation before Omar started tinkering. I'd rather have Wagner & Heilman leading the pen and Petey, Glavine, Benson, Seo & Trachsel starting. Heilman & Wagner beats Sanchez & Wagner any day of the week, if you ask me. And I think Benson & Seo beat out Zambrano & Heilman pretty easily too.. Bradford, Zambrano, Bell & Padilla might be a mediocre back half of the pen, but the front end is better and I like the rotation more too. Bret, as for your hypothetical, I think my patience for Willie's patience would be pretty darn high. On the other hand, I'd probably call for Willie to put Petey on the DL sometime in April . . .

Johnny Dickshot Feb 09 2006 02:41 PM

The better question Bret oughta ask is whether any manager would bench Pedro as quickly as you suggest a ball-less manager would. Based on Julio's last 3 years, we're looking at a hard-throwing young strikeout artist. We all know the ERA can be a poor stat to measure a relief pitcher, especially in one season alone, due to factors out of his control like whether he get bailed out more or less than a similar guy. JJ's game log shows a pretty uneven year overall, but poor especially in September and quite good early on. Was he hurt?

Frayed Knot Feb 09 2006 02:45 PM

This whole thread in fact smacks a bit of deciding that mismanagement is a given so let's get a jump on things by deciding ahead of time which data fits the definition and act as if those chips are already in play. There seems to be this notion that undeserving vets were carried all year while deserving youngsters were on the sidelines being screwed over. Except that Mathews, Aybar, and Heredia were used sparingly and dumped early, and even DeJean (who at least had a good half Met year under his belt) never made it to mid-season. Let's also not pretend that Hernandez wasn't just a washed-up has-been himself at this point last year (he barely made the team) or that a sizeable pct of NYM fans didn't believe that Heilman was already a confirmed bust. So before we act as if Julio's ~ 6.00 ERA from last year means he's a confirmed albatross while Bell's ~ 5.60 somehow represents that of a stud being passed over; or that Iriki - already all but labeled as dead wood - will be held onto at all costs ... even though Koo, acquired under near identical circumstances last year, got all of 23 IPs, let's see what actually happens.

Elster88 Feb 09 2006 03:02 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 09 2006 03:02 PM

Maybe now would be a good time to mention that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I said Julio should definitely be demoted by mid-April. I had heard of the crazy theory before that says "Evaluate the players based on performance rather than deciding what to do in early February."

KC Feb 09 2006 03:02 PM

>>>Does anyone disagree with my assessment of that hypothetical situation?<<< No, because there isn't any manager who would have balls big enough to satisfy you and your hypothetical situation. Why should ours?

Bret Sabermetric Feb 09 2006 03:11 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 09 2006 03:17 PM

You all did get it, didn't you, that I had Pedro hypothetically getting lit up all through Spring Training, and then in his first few starts? Let's specify that first time through the rotation, he had his normal lifetime ERA, and was hitting 90+ MPH regularly, and then in the second time through, he had twice (or three times) his lifetime ERA and couldn't hit 85 MPH--in other words, clear evidence that he belonged in the bullpen--eventually. I'm asking you what Willie would consider "eventually" to be. I'm not trying to start fights here. I admit that I'm quicker on the trigger than most anyone here. I'm not arguing that you should all join me in my quest to rid the major leagues of all veterans earning more than minimum wage. All I'm saying here is, given my hypothetical, some manangers would pull the trigger on a veteran starter quicker than others, and that WIllie would pull it last of all 30 MLB managers, given last year as evidence. That's the view from where I am. Now, as to what sane people think...

KC Feb 09 2006 03:17 PM

So which managers make the cut on Brets Big Balls Manager List and would sit Petey down?

Willets Point Feb 09 2006 03:18 PM

I got big balls Big ole balls Big as grapefruits Big as pumpkins Yes sir, yes sir And on my really good days They swell to the size of small dogs My balls are as big as small dogs

metirish Feb 09 2006 03:20 PM

]Well I'm upper upper class high society God's gift to ballroom notoriety And I always fill my ballroom The event is never small The social pages say I've got The biggest balls of all I've got big balls I've got big balls They're such big balls And they're dirty big balls And he's got big balls And she's got big balls (But we've got the biggest balls of them all) And my balls are always bouncing My ballroom always full And everybody cums and cums again If your name is on the guest list No one can take you higher Everybody says I've got Great balls of fire I've got big balls Oh I've got big balls And they're such big balls Dirty big balls And he's got big balls And she's got big balls (But we've got the biggest balls of them all) Some balls are held for charity And some for fancy dress But when they're held for pleasure They're the balls that I like best My balls are always bouncing To the left and to the right It's my belief that my big balls Should be held every night We've got big balls We've got big balls We've got big balls Dirty big balls He's got big balls She's got big balls (But we've got the biggest balls of them all) (We've got big balls) (We've got big balls) And I'm just itching to tell you about them Oh we had such wonderful fun Seafood cocktail, crabs, crayfish (But we've got the biggest balls of them all) (Ball sucker) (Ball sucker) (Ball sucker) (Ball sucker)

Johnny Dickshot Feb 09 2006 03:20 PM

We've been over and over the fact that despite some cases where a vet was given too much rope (Ishii) there were a good many where the vet was overthrown early (the entire bullpen back half), and as said a very long time ago, I don;t think the guys who are on the team is entirely WWSB;s decision anyway.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 09 2006 03:41 PM

It's always the manager's call who to put in the rotation and who in the bullpen. You're being remarkably evasive about answering my question.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 09 2006 03:54 PM

And as usual, your hypothetical is remarkably difficult to answer due to the fact that so much pertinent information is purposefully left out so as to re-frame it as a question of whether WIllie Randolph has balls or not and not about Pedro at all. Why not just ask that question? The hypothetical requires an assessment of the answers to any number of additional questions -- Where are we in the standings? How is the guy who'd replace him in the rotation doing in AAA? Are we sure he's not hurt? How does Pedro feel about it? etc etc etc -- but in general I think you give Pedro all the rope you *think* he needs.

Nymr83 Feb 09 2006 03:55 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: It's always the manager's call who to put in the rotation and who in the bullpen. You're being remarkably evasive about answering my question. your question seems pretty absurd. there is not, never has been, and never will be, a manager willing to cut bait with a starter as accomplished as pedro based on a handful of starts. under the circumstances you are describing (he keeps gettng tired in the 3rd inning) i'd look to place him on the disabled list, because he's obviously suffering from something. but lets take a different set of circumstances- he's struggling period. he isn't getting tired, he isn't hurt, he's just flat out sucking, how much time does he get to straighten it out? for me, assuming the other 4 starters are pitching well and you have a guy ready to step in i'd give him about 15 starts because of his amazing track record. glavine gets about 10 starts in similiar circumstances, traschel 7-8, zambrano only a handful.

Frayed Knot Feb 09 2006 03:57 PM

Ignoring for a second the outcomes of such a sudden loss of effectiveness: DL, sidework, etc to find out what the problem is; that are far more likely than a banishment to the bullpen ... How long a rope will a theoretical shaky Pedro get before such a demotion happens? -- A long one How much rope has his decade-plus stunning career earned him? -- A long one How much will Willie give him? -- A long one How many managers would do the same? -- All of them

Yancy Street Gang Feb 09 2006 04:04 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: It's always the manager's call who to put in the rotation and who in the bullpen. You're being remarkably evasive about answering my question. Is it always? The impression I got from Moneyball was that Billy Beane was dictating a lot of the decisions that traditionally you would think would have been Art Howe's to make. (And please don't ask for specifics; I don't remember them. All I remember is that I read one or more items in that book that made me think that in at least some respects, Art was just a puppet on a string.)

Elster88 Feb 09 2006 05:00 PM

]Let's specify that first time through the rotation, he had his normal lifetime ERA, and was hitting 90+ MPH regularly, and then in the second time through, he had twice (or three times) his lifetime ERA and couldn't hit 85 MPH--in other words, clear evidence that he belonged in the bullpen--eventually. I don't think that Willie will ever put Pedro in the bullpen, no matter how much he gets lit up. And that's a bad thing.

Zvon Feb 09 2006 06:39 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: One of my complaints about Willie's testosterone-level has to do with his ability to recognize and fix a problem regardless of salary involved. Obviously, Matsui and Piazza got me started on this, but let's leave those aside to address a hypothetical because I don't want to fan old flames just now. Say Pedro gets off to a terrible start--gets through the lineup okay first time around, but consistently runs out of gas around the 3rd inning. All Spring Training, this goes on and on, and into the season. The other 4 starters (Glavine, Trax, Heilman, and Zambrano) are performing well, and Soler has been doing very well in a starting role in ST and in his first few starts at AAA). Soler gets promoted to MLB, does very well in a start or two at this level, while Pedro keeps gettting roughed up the second time through the lineup. The obvious solution is to take Pedro out of rotation and put Soler in. This move might not take too much brains after a while, but it definitely will take some balls to make that call. To my mind, I'd pull the trigger on that move around the middle of April. Some of you would delay longer, and risk taking more hits (literally) on Pedro's record, giving him longer to play his way off the rotation. May, maybe you'd stick with Pedro until June. I maintain that Willie would literally never make that move until Pedro publicly requested a demotion. That's where I fault him him for testosterone-deprivation. He will play big-salary over big-talent every time. Does anyone disagree with my assessment of that hypothetical situation? No way do they give up on Pedro in April, unless he says he's hurt. You say big salary over big talent,..but come on. Pedro is huge talent, experience and smarts. Lets face it, if Pedro falters this soon in his Mets career the team is in trouble. The run for the pennant in 2006 is as well. Because they will stick with him until 1)He says he cant do the job or 2)If he continues to fail thru June towards the AllStar break. (even then I dont think sending him to the bullpen will be an option- but his rotation spot would be in jeopardy.) As we've seen with Glavine, good pitchers in flux are given every opportunity to come around. If he loses velocity like that, he will have to make adjustments in later innings. Pedro will be given time to work things out if he should find himself in such a situation. It dont take balls, or lack there of, to respect a man whos done his job, and done it well for a long time.

Nymr83 Feb 09 2006 06:55 PM

Bret- if you want to have a serious discussion about salary vs. talent why not use an example of a player without such an amazing track record... i'll give one: it's April 30th, 2006. Nady and Diaz have been splitting time in Right Field and have both been tearing the cover off the ball to the tune of .325/.375/.550 in roughly equal playing time. Meanwhile, Cliff Floyd, much more highly paid, is hitting .240/.280/.380 in full-time duty and does not appear hurt. How soon do you pull the plug on Floyd here?

KC Feb 09 2006 07:30 PM

It's debateable whether a discussion of a baseball managers testosterone level can be called serious regardless of what players you insert into Brets cleverly-arranged-read-this-and-refute-it-even-if-the challenge-(and his follow-ups)- are-worded-so-that-no-matter-what-you-reply-he'll-never-be-satisfied-that-you solved- the-puzzle excersise in baseball (master)debating. And if someone gets close, then he breaks out the emotional stuff.

Zvon Feb 09 2006 11:02 PM

Nymr83 wrote: Bret- if you want to have a serious discussion about salary vs. talent why not use an example of a player without such an amazing track record... i'll give one: it's April 30th, 2006. Nady and Diaz have been splitting time in Right Field and have both been tearing the cover off the ball to the tune of .325/.375/.550 in roughly equal playing time. Meanwhile, Cliff Floyd, much more highly paid, is hitting .240/.280/.380 in full-time duty and does not appear hurt. How soon do you pull the plug on Floyd here? This is a tougher one, especially after what Floyd accomplished last year.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 09 2006 11:45 PM

Nymr83 wrote: Bret- if you want to have a serious discussion about salary vs. talent why not use an example of a player without such an amazing track record... i'll give one: it's April 30th, 2006. Nady and Diaz have been splitting time in Right Field and have both been tearing the cover off the ball to the tune of .325/.375/.550 in roughly equal playing time. Meanwhile, Cliff Floyd, much more highly paid, is hitting .240/.280/.380 in full-time duty and does not appear hurt. How soon do you pull the plug on Floyd here? A while. Because first you'd have to see what the two half-time players do with more than what, 50 or at 60 plate appearances at most they'd have by then. I believe it's basically been proven that anybody can hit anything in 75 at-bats --- 100 is better and 150 seems like a reasonable get from guys you have questions about. In the meantime, drop Floyd in the order if you have to but let him get his 150 too.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 12:49 AM

I just don't get where this is a tricky or complicated question. It's a very simple one, which you are painting as devious or agenda-driven in order to avoid answering it. What I'm saying is: assume Pedro comes into camp feeling healthy, wanting to start, but he ain't got much. He can throw okay for a handful of batters, but everyone--you, Willie, me, Stevie Wonder--everyone can see he's not going to cut it as a starting pitcher in the NL anymore unless something seriously changes, and nothing is changing. He's no good in Spring Training, he's no good in April, he shows zero positive signs of turning it around and everyone on the planet agrees that he's got nothing, outside of the back of his baseball card, to recommend him. This isn't open to debate: Pedro's toast. What I'm saying is, in that situation, that some managers will give him a few more starts than I would, most managers (to their shame, IMO) would give him into early June maybe, and some would ride him into the grave. I can't accept that every manager would stay with a completely ineffective Pedro Martinez forever and ever until he cries "Uncle." I think Whitey Herzog would pitch an epileptic fit in traffic, banging his skull against the yellow line as cars swerve to avoid him at top speed, rather than accept that concept. Some managers are proactive and think highly of themselves as appraisers of ability, and others pride themselves on their integrity, while still others are company men who would seek out permission of the mighty and powerful (i.e., their bosses) in order to learn how hard to wipe themselves on the ivory throne. Are you seriously answering this hypothetical question by saying that every single manager in the world would go with an ineffective Pedro Martinez the same exact length of time, number of innings, number of starts, etc.? If so, why make a big deal over hiring one manager or another? They'd all do the same things, right? Hire Willie, hire Billy Martin, hire Art Howe, hire Jeff Torborg, hire Bobby Cox--you'll get the same exact results anyway. Sure you will. It's utter bullcrap to pin me down as to the elements omitted from my hypothetical-- there's no limit to the number of trivial details I could add to my already lengthy list of particulars: If I told you how many pitches Pedro threw, and that they kept 4.5 games out of first place the whole time from April 1 through April 23rd, and how the Norfolk starters were performing, and whether Rick Peterson's wife was PMSing with particular crankiness, you could always answer: "Still not enough info, Bret." This is a hypothetical, in which you must assume that any information lacking is essentially inconclusive. My thesis is a simple one: I feel Willie would go longer, far longer, with an ineffective veteran than almost any other manager. You disagree? Fine. Tell me why. Or keep stonewalling. Really doesn't matter much to me. I've said my piece.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 01:37 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: And as usual, your hypothetical is remarkably difficult to answer due to the fact that so much pertinent information is purposefully left out so as to re-frame it as a question of whether WIllie Randolph has balls or not and not about Pedro at all. Why not just ask that question? The hypothetical requires an assessment of the answers to any number of additional questions -- Where are we in the standings? How is the guy who'd replace him in the rotation doing in AAA? Are we sure he's not hurt? How does Pedro feel about it? etc etc etc -- but in general I think you give Pedro all the rope you *think* he needs. I'm asking it in hypothetical form to get at a larger question. But I'll try to answer all your ridiculous evasions (and then you can come back with more) just to show you that you're quibbling We're in 3rd place (in April for chrissake you're never going to be very out of or very far in first place, like you need me to tell you that.) I already told you how Pedro's replacement is doing. Read my fucking post, if you'd be so kind, before asking me to clarify that which I've clarified at length. I'll help you out, though--his initials are A. S. He says he's not hurt. He's just pitching very, very, very badly. He's kind of bummed out by it. It's very bad luck to have an ERA greater than the pricetag on an aircraft carrier. There. Did that help very much?

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 06:49 AM

Also, I find it very interesting that the subtext of what many of you are saying is that, if confronted with persuasive evidence that Pedro is circling in the vortex of the toilet bowl, you're going down with him for the ride. As I understand you, he could be 2-9 with a 11.38 ERA in July, and you're all "He's Pedro Martinez! He won umpthy-umpth Cy Young Awards! My eyes are lying to me!" As I understand you (please correct me if I'm wrong) you would prefer to finish in fifth place, and blame the season's results on "I thought Pedro would turn it around, how was I to know, 2-9 and 11.38 wasn't a convincing bit of evidence, I needed at least a whole season of that shit, I hope he comes back big next year" to putting him the bullpen, and recognizing the emergence of Soler as a new star and winning the division. Please tell me that I'm wrong and you're not all self-destructive maniacs.

KC Feb 10 2006 07:21 AM

I'm sorry, but I don't have the energy to weed through your multi-directional, table-twisting, finger-pointing, and circuitously-worded excercise in baseball debate this morning. (I might change my sig line) As far as I'm concerned, no, there are very few managers (if any) who would handle Pedros horific start in 2006 much differently under you hypothetical situation(s) or with bigger nads than Wee Willie Small Balls. Next.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 07:32 AM

KC wrote: I'm sorry, but I don't have the energy to weed through your multi-directional, table-twisting, finger-pointing, and circuitously-worded excercise in baseball debate this morning. (I might change my sig line) As far as I'm concerned, no, there are very few managers (if any) who would handle Pedros horific start in 2006 much differently under you hypothetical situation(s) or with bigger nads than Wee Willie Small Balls. Next. Why don't you and JD argue it out: am I being "circuitously-worded" or am I omitting vital details? If I satisfy you, and give a simple and clear version, I'm upsetting Johnny's applecart and vexing him with my simplicity, but if I give him a complicated and detailed version, I'm way too devious and confusing for you. Here's the simple version (JD, avert your eyes!): Pedro is awful. How long do you let him be awful? How long does Willie go with an awful Pedro? Compare the two answers.

seawolf17 Feb 10 2006 07:49 AM

="Bret Sabermetric"]Here's the simple version (JD, avert your eyes!): Pedro is awful. How long do you let him be awful? How long does Willie go with an awful Pedro? Compare the two answers. 1) As long as necessary. 2) This question can't be answered, because it's never happened. He's managed one season, and this situation just hasn't come up. Rather than throwing a bizarre hypothetical out there and demanding that we defend it, show me situations where this has happened: ** HoF pitcher ** Falls off the table ** No discernible injury And show me how long they've stayed in the rotation. I don't have the time or the energy to do this research, but I don't think the question can be answered without any historical perspective.

KC Feb 10 2006 07:54 AM

>>>if I give him a complicated and detailed version, I'm way too devious and confusing for you<<< Don't forget cunning. I answered your question.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 08:13 AM

="seawolf17"] ="Bret Sabermetric"]Here's the simple version (JD, avert your eyes!): Pedro is awful. How long do you let him be awful? How long does Willie go with an awful Pedro? Compare the two answers. 1) As long as necessary. 2) This question can't be answered, because it's never happened. He's managed one season, and this situation just hasn't come up. Rather than throwing a bizarre hypothetical out there and demanding that we defend it, show me situations where this has happened: ** HoF pitcher ** Falls off the table ** No discernible injury And show me how long they've stayed in the rotation. I don't have the time or the energy to do this research, but I don't think the question can be answered without any historical perspective. Wolf, I'm throwing out this bizarre scenario precisely because it's so improbable. I don't want to stir up actual issues about Piazza or Matsui, because we've all got too much invested in our positions there. I'm coming up with this improbable but very troubling scenario so we can talk about Willie's bold vision (or lack thereof) in the abstract. Believe me, I admire Pedro, think he's a terrific player, perhaps a unique talent, and I wish him well for as long as he cares to pitch. Just off the top of my head, I'd give you Carlton as a pitcher who, like Pedro, pitched below his stellar level for a while (but still acceptably) and then crashed and burned. It's really not so strange for someone to suddenly lose it. All you have to do is think of Alomar, really, not that you'll enjoy that very much.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 10 2006 08:14 AM

I answered the question too. Lots of rope generally, and I don't suspect WWSB would treat him significantly differently than any guy in his spot, and I think it's a stupid question because it's hard to imagine Pedro gets to an 11+ ERA in July (I thought it was April?) without sitting himself down, taking a 14-vacation to the DL or whatever). If you're trying to point out to us the danger of allowing Pedro to call his own shots on this team well no shit. He's got better job security than Willie.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 08:27 AM

It's more about the money than the job security, though that may be a semantic difference. The thing hypotheticals allow me to do is to speculate on what's in someone's heart. With real situations you can defensibly (if inanely) point out over and over again that "You can't KNOW what Willie's thoughts are!" and so dismiss the whole concept, but with a hypothetical, I can include the idea that "Willie sees that Pedro can't pitch anymore," that he's convinced in his own private thoughts that Pedro's washed-up, and (I speculate) he will continue to pitch him, because he lacks the brains and balls and will (that Weaver and Davey and Whitey have in abundance) to speak the truth to a sea of howling Mets fans and Mets brass.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 10 2006 08:34 AM

Johnson and Herzog didn't deal generally with guys who had no-trade clauses.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 08:41 AM

Neither did Weaver. But none of them ever tolerated losing because of anything under his control, either.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 08:46 AM

Actually, Weaver is a great example of what I'm talking about. He said of Mike Cuellar "I gave him more chances than I gave my ex-wife," yet in reality in [url=http://baseball-reference.com/c/cuellmi01.shtml]1976[/url], he gave Cuellar only a half season of disastrous starts before relegating him to the bullpen, and plainly faulted himself for all sorts of foolish soft-hearted and sentimental behavior. I'm betting Willie wouldn't even start regretting playing an awful Pedro until his contract was almost all finished.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 08:56 AM

Cuellar's another example of a former Cy Young winner, Seawolf, who just suddenly and completely lost the ability to pitch. Not nearly as unprecedented as you claim. Others could include Jim Bunning (HOFer who suddenly went from stardom to a 4-14 record, followed by a career-ending 28-37 record.)

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 09:12 AM

Or Whitey Ford who went from 24 wins to 17 to 16, and then ended his career suddenly with 2-4 and 2-5 seasons. You're also being a little disingenuous by specifying that in my scenario Pedro must exhibit zero signs of injury, considering that he's been pitching with a constantly injured, strained, troublesome arm for half-a-decade or more now. All that I'm calling for is for him to feel well enough to take his turn.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 09:16 AM

Warren Spahn. Went from 23-7 to 6-13, and then 7-16 and out. You need more, or will this do?

KC Feb 10 2006 09:26 AM

BS: >>>The thing hypotheticals allow me to do is to speculate on what's in someone's heart. With real situations you can defensibly (if inanely) point out over and over again that "You can't KNOW what Willie's thoughts are!" and so dismiss the whole concept, but with a hypothetical, I can include the idea that "Willie sees that Pedro can't pitch anymore," that he's convinced in his own private thoughts that Pedro's washed-up, and (I speculate) he will continue to pitch him, because he lacks the brains and balls and will (that Weaver and Davey and Whitey have in abundance) to speak the truth to a sea of howling Mets fans and Mets brass.<<< This is better than going to the movies. Someone make some popcorn. Randolph is no Weaver, Davey, or Herzog. Got it.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 09:31 AM

I'm not sure that he can even fill Art Howe's jockstrap, or Jeff Torborg's.

seawolf17 Feb 10 2006 09:35 AM

Bret, you're killing your own argument. Whitey Ford: Ralph Houk, a managers with a pretty solid career record, gave Ford seven starts in 1967. He went 2-4, yes, but his ERA was under 2, and his WHIP was 1.11. I'm assuming there was some sort of injury that ended his career; but either way, Ford was 38. Spahn: Got 30 starts in 1965, from Gil Hodges and Herman Franks. At age 44. Cuellar: Went 4-13 when Earl Weaver gave him 19 starts in 1976 at age 39. Bunning: Maybe. His 4-14 in '68 was in 26 starts; was an injury at play there? I don't know. Either way, he finished 13-10 with two teams the following season, with good peripherals. In 1970, he was 10-15 in a full season; in '71, 5-12 with 16 starts (and 13 relief appearances), at age 39. Carlton: Was in his 40s when his career fell apart, and bounced from team to team his last few years. Pedro: Is 34 this year, still a few years younger than all those guys. Had his best WHIP in '05 since '02, when he won 20 games. Had a 148 ERA+, which although not his best, was still fifth in the NL. Is the active major league leader in ERA, WHIP, and K/BB. I still don't see how letting Pedro work out his problems makes Willie Randolph a bad manager.

KC Feb 10 2006 09:40 AM

sw17: >>>I still don't see how letting Pedro work out his problems makes Willie Randolph a bad manager.<<< Or one with undersized cajones either, for that matter.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 09:52 AM

="seawolf17"] ="Bret Sabermetric"]Here's the simple version (JD, avert your eyes!): Pedro is awful. How long do you let him be awful? How long does Willie go with an awful Pedro? Compare the two answers. 1) As long as necessary. 2) This question can't be answered, because it's never happened. He's managed one season, and this situation just hasn't come up. Rather than throwing a bizarre hypothetical out there and demanding that we defend it, show me situations where this has happened: ** HoF pitcher ** Falls off the table ** No discernible injury And show me how long they've stayed in the rotation. I don't have the time or the energy to do this research, but I don't think the question can be answered without any historical perspective. Jesus Christ on a pogostick. You say nothing--not one single friggen syllable-- about age in the above post, just a dismissive challenge to come up with HOF pitchers with no discernable injuries who fall off the table, and when I find you example after example, your post sudddenly becomes exclusively obsessed with age as a criterion. Why not challenge me to find you a pitcher with Pedro's social security number and fingerprints while you're at it? Better yet, why not offer to hold your breath until you turn blue unless I stop posting hypotheticals (which, by definition, have never happened)?

Elster88 Feb 10 2006 09:54 AM

]One of my complaints about Willie's testosterone-level has to do with his ability to recognize and fix a problem regardless of salary involved. Obviously, Matsui and Piazza got me started on this, but let's leave those aside to address a hypothetical because I don't want to fan old flames just now. I think that his handling of Matsui clearly shows his ability to play who he thinks is better regardless of contract size. He did everything he could to keep Cairo in the starting lineup over Matsui, and Matsui obviously makes a shitload more money.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 10 2006 10:04 AM

Let's take a look at Davey Johnson's testicles: On June 24, 1984, when the Mets were in a pennant race (tied for first place with the Phillies, a half game ahead of the Cubs), George Foster was batting .217. http://ultimatemets.com/gamedetail.php?gameno=3589&tabno=C Danny Heep, nine years younger, was hitting .323, with about one fourth as many at bats as Foster. Did Davey bench the highly-paid Foster for the more productive Heep? Nope. In July of that year, Foster had 95 at bats. And Heep had 40. (And Foster, incidently, hit .337 in July 1984 while heep hit .250.) Even the much-admired Davey Johnson has played an expensive non-productive veteran over a younger, cheaper, and more productive alternative. And, at least in the short term, it worked for him.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 10:08 AM

Elster88 wrote: ]One of my complaints about Willie's testosterone-level has to do with his ability to recognize and fix a problem regardless of salary involved. Obviously, Matsui and Piazza got me started on this, but let's leave those aside to address a hypothetical because I don't want to fan old flames just now. I think that his handling of Matsui clearly shows his ability to play who he thinks is better regardless of contract size. He did everything he could to keep Cairo in the starting lineup over Matsui, and Matsui obviously makes a shitload more money. Matsui pretty much started when he was healthy. He wasn't healthy much, hence Cairo's time. Not tremendous balls to bench someone on the DL.

Elster88 Feb 10 2006 10:17 AM

After Matsui was healthy, Cairo spent a lot of time in the starting lineup hitting .150. I know this because I bitched about it incessantly.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 10:25 AM

Matsui was pretty much the everyday 2b-man through my birthday, June 18th, spent the next two months on the DL, while Cairo played, and then became the regular again from mid-August through mid-September. Maybe he got hurt again in mid-September? My term had started by then and I wasnt watching anymore. http://ultimatemets.com/profile.php?PlayerCode=0719&tabno=4&ThisYear=2005

Rotblatt Feb 10 2006 10:29 AM

Here's another, vaguely more realistic hypothetical: it's Game 7 of the NLCS, Mets v Braves @ Turner Field. Smoltz starts for the Braves and we knock the crap out of him--he's given up 4 runs through 3+ innings and Cox throws Hudson in there to put out the fire, which he does. Meanwhile, Petey's cruising--through six innings, he's only given up 1 run on an Andruw dinger--one of only 4 hits--while striking out 7. As most of us would do, Willie trotted him out there in the seventh. Petey gets two quick outs, then gives up another Andruw HR. Pete Orr gets an infield single, then Petey gives up a solid single to Matt Diaz of all people, and all of a sudden the go-ahead run is at the plate in the form of Jeff Francouer. Tomahawk chops abound, despite the fact that Petey's struck out Francouer each of the three times he's faced him. Petey ponies up and whiffs Francouer yet again, shutting up the 10,000 rednecks who bothered to show up. Next inning, Cox puts Hampton in there to face Delgado with 1 out, and Delgado crushes it over the fence to right, giving us a 5-2 lead. Two quick outs, and the inning is over. Question 1: Petey's pitch count is close to 100, but he says he wants the ball. If you're Willie, do you a) give him the ball, no questions asked, b) give him the ball, but tell him he's on a short leash--he allows 1 runner and he's out, or c) yank him and put Heilman in there to act as a bridge to Wagner? And what do you think Willie would do, given how he handled Petey last year? If you answered A or B, proceed to Question 2. If you answered C, congratulations! You won the NLCS! Question 2: Petey gets Giles to pop up to Reyes, then Chipper hits a long double to right. Brian McCann, who's having a monster year, is at the plate. Do you a) do nothing, b) visit the mount to give the pen more time, or c) pull Petey now? If you answered a or b, proceed to question 3. If you answered c, congratulations! You won the NLCS! Question 3: McCann singles in Chipper. The score is 5-3 and Edgar Renteria, who's completely bounced back from his two-year lull, represents the tying run at the plate. Do you a) do nothing, b) visit the mound to give the pen more time, or c) pull Petey now? If you answered a or b, proceed to question 4. If you answered c, congratulations! You won the NLCS! Question 4: Renteria hits a ground rule double to deep left, putting runners on 2nd and third and Andruw at the plate. Do you a) do nothing, b) visit the mound to give the pen more time, or c) pull Petey now? If you answered a or b, proceed to question 5. If you answered c, congratulations! You won the NLCS! Question 5: Andruw doubles to center, tying up the game at 5's. Do you a) do nothing, b) visit the mound to give the pen more time, or c) pull Petey now? If you answered a or b, you seriously need to watch more baseball. If you answered c, congratulations! You're Grady Little! Anyway, my roundabout question is basically, do we think Willie is a) smarter/more ballsy than Grady Little, b) Grady Little in blackface, or c) dumber/less ballsy than Grady Little? Personally, I think Willie would probably have pulled Petey at Question 3 and I'm positive he'd have pulled him at Question 4.

Elster88 Feb 10 2006 10:31 AM

Matsui was activated 8/6. IIRC, he could've been activated even earlier. He should've been put into the lineup immediately, due to Cairo's intense suckage and because there was still a wildcard race going on. As your link kindly points out, he didn't become the regular until 8/22. Again, IIRC, this was around the time Cairo got an owie himself.

Frayed Knot Feb 10 2006 10:32 AM

This whole thing has become a really stupid exercise in hypothetical bullshit.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 10:42 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: This whole thing has become a really stupid exercise in hypothetical bullshit. Okay, you measure his testicle circumference with a tiny calipers and get back to us.

seawolf17 Feb 10 2006 10:46 AM

I love these really stupid exercises in hypothetical bullshit sometimes, because there's no right answer. That's what discussion is all about. That's why you go to college. You're right, Bret, I didn't mention age; but you need to compare apples to apples. Maybe Pedro's an old 34; I say he's not, because he's still effective. If he was coming off a Kris Benson 2005, then maybe Willie's rope is shorter; but he's not. Either way, it's not a good premise to base your argument on.

Rotblatt Feb 10 2006 10:49 AM

]I love these really stupid exercises in hypothetical bullshit sometimes, because there's no right answer. My hypothetical bullshit had, like, 4 right answers.

Frayed Knot Feb 10 2006 11:01 AM

Nothing wrong in theory with hypotheticals. What makes the ones here bullshit is that they're not looking for answers they've started with them and are concocting whacko situations designed to "prove" their point by pretending that not only is there one and only one correct answer but that it's somehow cast-in-stone knowledge that Willie will react to it in a different manner than would any other person with even a casual knowledge of baseball.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 11:18 AM

="Frayed Knot"]Nothing wrong in theory with hypotheticals. What makes the ones here bullshit is that they're not looking for answers they've started with them and are concocting whacko situations designed to "prove" their point by pretending that not only is there one and only one correct answer but that it's somehow cast-in-stone knowledge that Willie will react to it in a different manner than would any other person with even a casual knowledge of baseball. Nonsense. I've already elicited the opinion that Willie would somehow do exactly what each of the other 29 ML managers would do, no more, no less, just the standard boilerplate cast-in-stone response of any manager to an unprecedented and disturbing situation, a mind-blowingly, almost psychotically defensive stance. That alone is fascinating to witness--you folks would rather invent whacky stuff I could never even imagine, rather than find fault with Willie's stones.

Nymr83 Feb 10 2006 02:26 PM

]Brian McCann, who's having a monster year, is at the plate stop naming all my fantasy sleepers people!

Yancy Street Gang Feb 10 2006 02:44 PM

="Yancy Street Gang"]Let's take a look at Davey Johnson's testicles: On June 24, 1984, when the Mets were in a pennant race (tied for first place with the Phillies, a half game ahead of the Cubs), George Foster was batting .217. http://ultimatemets.com/gamedetail.php?gameno=3589&tabno=C Danny Heep, nine years younger, was hitting .323, with about one fourth as many at bats as Foster. Did Davey bench the highly-paid Foster for the more productive Heep? Nope. In July of that year, Foster had 95 at bats. And Heep had 40. (And Foster, incidently, hit .337 in July 1984 while heep hit .250.) Even the much-admired Davey Johnson has played an expensive non-productive veteran over a younger, cheaper, and more productive alternative. And, at least in the short term, it worked for him. Was Davey Johnson gutless to have stuck with George Foster in late June of 1984?

Elster88 Feb 10 2006 02:48 PM

No because Davey Johnson reminds us of the time when the Mets were winning, so he never had a lack of guts and management gave a crap about fans and blah blah blah.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 02:53 PM

I wouldn't say Davey was gutless, in the context of his many gutsy moves, but he would probably say that he wishes he'd pushed Foster out the window sooner. He'd probably also say that he was lucky that Foster outrageous "racism" nonsense gave him a rationale for doing something that was difficult but ultimately wise for the team. Folks, it's just my opinion, which you're free to disregard, but I don't think Willie has much backbone, much vision, much intelligence, or much of a chance to become an excellent manager with those handicaps. I'd like to turn ths one around and ask why you think, on ther basis of what you saw last year, that he IS especially wise, or perceptive, or courageous, because I must have missed it.

KC Feb 10 2006 02:58 PM

Dateline: February 10, 2006 Bret "The Greek" Sabermetric states Randolph lacks, "the necessary tools to be a good manager."

Willets Point Feb 10 2006 03:02 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Folks, it's just my opinion, which you're free to disregard, but I don't think Willie has much backbone, much vision, much intelligence, or much of a chance to become an excellent manager with those handicaps. I'd like to turn ths one around and ask why you think, on ther basis of what you saw last year, that he IS especially wise, or perceptive, or courageous, because I must have missed it. He isn't, its just your particular hypothetical was for a situation that wouldn't distinguish Randolph much from any other manager, thus not being very good as a basis for Randolph's particular weaknesses. That plus that in your best "caustic fucktard" manner you've been particularly hostile and pissed a lot of people off the past couple of days means that most CPF'ers really are dissuaded from arguing on merit when your basically calling us idiots.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 03:06 PM

Willets Point wrote: when your basically calling us idiots. You might interpret some of my language as "basically" calling you anything you choose, Willets, but I haven't actually called anyone anything offensive today, for example, but have been called a dickhead (by you) a shithead, and various other choice bits of abuse. Would you care to borrow a mirror?

metirish Feb 10 2006 03:08 PM

Can Willie take or get any credit for Cliff Floyd last season?, I think he can, Floyd loved playing for him, stayed healthy and had a great season.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 03:11 PM

metirish wrote: Can Willie take or get any credit for Cliff Floyd last season?, I think he can, Floyd loved playing for him, stayed healthy and had a great season. If Willie gets the credit for Floyd's good health, plus the pleasant weather at the end of June, then I have to ask who gets the blame for Pedro's sore arm, and Trachsel's back, and Cameron's busted head? Oh.

metirish Feb 10 2006 03:14 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Feb 10 2006 03:25 PM

Now you are just being silly Bret, Floyd being happy contributed to hiis health and fast bat....

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 03:17 PM

Willets Point wrote: your best "caustic fucktard" manner you've been particularly hostile and pissed a lot of people off the past couple of days means that most CPF'ers really are dissuaded from arguing on merit Also, I missed this first time around: You mean I'm responsible for your collective irrelevant and mindless posts? "Ooooh, that Bret, he makes me so mad, I'm going to say something I'll feel foolish about!"

Willets Point Feb 10 2006 04:06 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 10 2006 04:25 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Willets Point"]when your basically calling us idiots. You might interpret some of my language as "basically" calling you anything you choose, Willets, but I haven't actually called anyone anything offensive today, for example, but have been called a dickhead (by you) a shithead, and various other choice bits of abuse. Well, the actual quote I didn't call you a dickhead directly, I had you calling yourself a dickhead. At any rate you should know by now that "caustic fucktard", "dickhead," etc. are terms of love and affection here. Seriously though, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but what's bugging you? You seem extra angry these past two days and I don't think its because I called you a dickhead. OE: Added a "not" before "trying to pick a fight". Maybe it was a Freudian slip.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 04:23 PM

Nah, rolls like water off a duck's back. I dunno. If you check out my post times, you'll see that I';ve been up pretty much the last two days straight, but I can be pretty prickly when I get a full night's sleep, so that's no excuse. Sometimes you people just make me so mad, I could piss brake fluid. How does that work for you?

Willets Point Feb 10 2006 04:24 PM

Made me laugh. Get some sleep if you can.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 10 2006 04:24 PM

Pissing brake fluid?? How does that work for you?

Bret Sabermetric Feb 10 2006 04:27 PM

metirish wrote: Now you are just being silly Bret, Floyd being happy contributed to hiis health and fast bat.... You know, sometimes I honestly can't tell if you're just goofing around with me or if you really mean some of this nonsense. Willie gets credit for the unexpected good health, but gets no blame for the unexpected bad health of his team? No, I'm not going there. You're saying shit like this to goad me into making an intemperate remark. I refuse. Have a lovely day, everyone here. Peace out. God love you all.

metirish Feb 10 2006 04:35 PM

I would never try and goad you Bret.....hahaha....