Author Topic: 2009 MLB Thread  (Read 106040 times)

nec13

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2397
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #360 on: June 29, 2009, 06:47:33 PM »
Here's a rumored list of the remaining 102 names, culled from a website of potentially questionable repute.

http://rotoinfo.com/read_article.php?articleId=318

This list looks bogus to me. I doubt we would see that many star players on such a list. Consider that the Mitchell Report was comprised mostly of journeyman/AAAA players. But it's interesting fodder, nonetheless.
Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor.

scratchbomb

  • Achilles Tendon Bursitis
  • Posts: 786
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #361 on: June 29, 2009, 07:53:37 PM »
Here's a rumored list of the remaining 102 names, culled from a website of potentially questionable repute.

http://rotoinfo.com/read_article.php?articleId=318

This list looks bogus to me. I doubt we would see that many star players on such a list. Consider that the Mitchell Report was comprised mostly of journeyman/AAAA players. But it's interesting fodder, nonetheless.

Plus it looks suspiciously similar to that supposed list that "leaked" just before the Mitchell Report was released
scratchbomb.com: a potentially explosive collection of verbal irritants

Gilly

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2110
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #362 on: June 29, 2009, 09:02:34 PM »

I gave up Cody Ross, Pedro Feliz, Heath Bell, and Micah Owings, and got back David Wright, Justin Upton, Francisco Cordero, and Johann Santana

You have to be kidding right Dave? I mean you have to be, there's no way that's a real trade.

dave from knoxville

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 5108
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #363 on: June 29, 2009, 09:34:15 PM »

I gave up Cody Ross, Pedro Feliz, Heath Bell, and Micah Owings, and got back David Wright, Justin Upton, Francisco Cordero, and Johann Santana

You have to be kidding right Dave? I mean you have to be, there's no way that's a real trade.


We play in a keeper draft auction league; when you draft a player, you have the rights to him for up to three years, at that price, at which point he must go back in the draft pool. Players in their third year get the designation "o". Each player must draft a team of 23 players with only $65, making the average player salary about $2.85. $10 is a really high salary (out of 276 players, there are only 7 $10 players this year.) I am in seventh place, but reasonably close to 2nd (1st is running away with it.) The guy who traded with me is in 11th (10th is 12 points behind 9th) so he is out of it and playing for next year. Wright and Upton are "o" players. worthless to him since he can't keep them. Cordero was a concession to get the other guys, although his salary is $8, and I probably won't keep him, and Santana is $10.50, and I definitely won't keep him. But the guys I gave up, Bell, Owings, Feliz, and Ross, have respective salaries for the next 2 years of .25, .25, .75, and 1.50. As of the end of last week, I had their approximate $ values at 8, 1, 3, and 5, so he's got $15-$20 bucks worth of players for less than $3, and he will have an additional $62 to spend.

So it sets me up for this year with players that were mostly worthless to him, and it sets him up for next year, provided those guys stay in the NL.

Does that help? Or are you suggesting that I got screwed in the deal?

scratchbomb

  • Achilles Tendon Bursitis
  • Posts: 786
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #364 on: June 30, 2009, 09:19:07 AM »
I don't know what anybody else thinks, but I think you made out like a bandit on that one.
scratchbomb.com: a potentially explosive collection of verbal irritants

jbissell

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 1807
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #365 on: June 30, 2009, 11:24:26 AM »
I don't know what anybody else thinks, but I think you made out like a bandit on that one.

It's the kind of trade that would get vetoed in a normal league because it's so incredibly lopsided in dave's favor.

dave from knoxville

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 5108
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #366 on: June 30, 2009, 12:04:27 PM »
I don't know what anybody else thinks, but I think you made out like a bandit on that one.

It's the kind of trade that would get vetoed in a normal league because it's so incredibly lopsided in dave's favor.

A "normal" league? What are you implying?

jbissell

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 1807
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #367 on: June 30, 2009, 02:25:41 PM »
I don't know what anybody else thinks, but I think you made out like a bandit on that one.

It's the kind of trade that would get vetoed in a normal league because it's so incredibly lopsided in dave's favor.

A "normal" league? What are you implying?

That the owners in your league are sideshow freaks.

nec13

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2397
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #368 on: June 30, 2009, 02:31:49 PM »
jbissell, what did you think of Ozzie Guillen's recent remarks about Cubs fans? I went to a Cubs-D'Backs game at Wrigley Field in 2007 and found that the Cubs fans I encountered were, for the most part, friendly and knowledgeable.
Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor.

jbissell

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 1807
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #369 on: July 01, 2009, 11:10:00 AM »
jbissell, what did you think of Ozzie Guillen's recent remarks about Cubs fans? I went to a Cubs-D'Backs game at Wrigley Field in 2007 and found that the Cubs fans I encountered were, for the most part, friendly and knowledgeable.

I just tune Ozzie out these days so I'm not entirely sure which remarks you're talking about but if it's the "Wrigley is nothing more than a bar, no one cares about the game", he's been beating that drum for years.  Every year during interleague, he pulls out his anti-Wrigley schtick and it's guarenteed to generate some ink and flood sports radio.  I understand what he's saying and agree to a certain extent, but it's obviously a gross generalization.

In my mind every team, especially one with a large fanbase/national presence, has it's true fans who know their shit (there is certainly a subset of this group that are total FWD) and then a variety of tourists/bandwagon fans.  Wrigley is a very touristy park, especially compared to US Cellular, because of its surrounding area (definitely more yuppie) and the fact that in the last decade it has really been pushed as a "good-time destination".  Not many visitors would want to party at bars on the South Side.  This is especially apparent during summer weekends when prices are jacked up and I hardly ever bother trying to get tickets for those games anymore. 

I know plenty of Sox fans that jumped on the bandwagon during their World Series run and are back to not caring much about the team, unless they beat the Cubs in interleague, then they're just insufferable.  I haven't been to a Sox game (or Cubs/Sox @ Wrigley) since 2001 so I don't really have a good feel for how their crowds are these days.  The Cubs certainly attract a certain class of creeps (date-rapey frat guys and their ladies) that paint the rest of us in a bad light.  It also depends on your seats.  The bleachers are obviously douche city, but the section I usually sit in (1st base side, under the overhang) is usually full of good people who keep their scorecards and aren't worried about polishing off 12 beers before the 7th inning stretch.

jbissell

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 1807
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #370 on: July 01, 2009, 11:12:51 AM »
I think it was an inopportune time to trade for David Wright. He isn't hitting for any power and he probably isn't going to get you many RBI, because there isn't anyone above him getting on base. However, he does have a very high batting average and OPS.

Right now, I'd say he's the third best player in that deal.

I actually got Wright and Upton together for steals and a boost to my batting average.


I don't think people realize how many steals Wright has this year.  Sure, his lack of power has been disappointing but he's been making up for it in other areas (speaking from a fantasy view).

scratchbomb

  • Achilles Tendon Bursitis
  • Posts: 786
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #371 on: July 01, 2009, 11:46:26 AM »
I think it was an inopportune time to trade for David Wright. He isn't hitting for any power and he probably isn't going to get you many RBI, because there isn't anyone above him getting on base. However, he does have a very high batting average and OPS.

Right now, I'd say he's the third best player in that deal.

I actually got Wright and Upton together for steals and a boost to my batting average.

I don't think people realize how many steals Wright has this year.  Sure, his lack of power has been disappointing but he's been making up for it in other areas (speaking from a fantasy view).


Yeah, he'll still steal 30 bases easy, and he's leading the league in batting average, somehow. All of a sudden, he's striking out like crazy, though. Trying to do too much, probably.

scratchbomb.com: a potentially explosive collection of verbal irritants

Gilly

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2110
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #372 on: July 01, 2009, 12:53:36 PM »
That makes more sense Dave, I was wondering what was going on there. I still think you came out way ahead since none of the players you gave up are good prospects and all of them will not be playing at the level they are in two months. The other owner would have been better served to just grab a bunch of prospects from a team that had them instead of a bunch of guys playing well beyond their talent even at a cheap price. So, nice trade.

Oh, and if you can get a guy like David Wright for pennies on the dollar you take that everyday no matter what his stats look like right now.

jbissell

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 1807
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #373 on: July 02, 2009, 12:43:58 PM »
Very excited about the Cubs big move to counter the DeRosa deal.  Jeff Baker joins the stable of exciting utlity guys that can't hit currently populating the roster.

hugman

  • Guest
Re: 2009 MLB Thread
« Reply #374 on: July 02, 2009, 01:07:50 PM »
DeRosa down.  Paging Matt Holliday.