ashbury

Kirby Puckett on line one... oops, the phone went dead. / too soon?

That, to me, is what 2013 was always about. Finding things out. Taking the time, as needed.

The article with the mentioned Gardy quote didn't provide any further context. I expect the context would have shed better light. In addition to what's already been said here, I'm thinking that Gardy might have been referring to situational pitching where expectations have to be kept realistic. Say the first two batters reach and he's now got a second and third situation with the heart of the order coming up; if it's late innings and a one-run lead needs to be preserved then it may be right to go for a strikeout or two even at the risk of a home run, but if it's the first inning then the shutout isn't that important if you can limit the damage, so just pitch normally and keep the ball low but near the strike zone and take your chances. Gardy could have probably phrased it better if that's what he was getting at, sure.

Dozier! And with that, gotta go.

If you're asking how the moderators react, well, it's going to be case-by-case. Satire is by nature caustic, and the best satire burns your skin off without your even realizing you were the target until too late. (Another way of saying why what I tried was just too heavy-handed.) Simply poking a little fun, ought in principle to pass muster, but even then it's risky: "fun" is in the eye of the beholder. If you really think the target of your comment will smile, even grudgingly, maybe it will be OK. But if your intent is just to straighten somebody else out, I dunno - just stick to the facts as you see them, would be my advice, and keep the direct personal comments and the alleged humor out of it. I definitely recommend not trying assess the specific gravity of the content of anybody's coinpurse.

I'm thinking of my sweetie, with whom I've got a date tonight, so I won't be joining in the festivities here.

Great insight, arog. I don't know whether your friend's analysis carries up through the chain of command, but it's about one step removed from an Expectation Value bang-for-the-buck approach to the multitude of possible signings.

Who do you think will have the higher peak salary of the two?

Probably he doesn't improve the 2015 team. Instead, he helps keep the revenue stream where it needs to be, by bridging the 2012 team to 2014 with (hopefully) two years of starts that are better than 64 starts by P J Walters or others like him and keeping away from the dreaded 100 loss level.

Trades of someone like Stanton are rare enough that an exact match may be difficult. There have been young established players traded for perceived or rumored "character" reasons. Gary Sheffield, Garry Templeton, Colby Rasmus are three that come to mind - Shef was traded twice for prospects before he was 25, Templeton was traded for Ozzie Smith before he became OZZIE SMITH, Rasmus wasn't anywhere close to the level of Stanton.

Well, Babe Ruth, already mentioned, was traded at age 24. (OK, sold, not for a prospect.) But, you mean in the modern era of salaries controlled by the CBA. I'll keep thinking. Palmeiro?

Or Deep Purple. I hated the trade at the time too. I wanted to see the Twins deal from their strength, but Garza was the one I'd have kept untouchable, Baker probably too. Of course, the other teams' scouts probably had a similar ranking and were offering squat for Slowey or Blackburn.

In a thread elsewhere:

Rather than threadjack this or other discussions, I put up a response in my blog. Go there and tear me a new one if you feel so motivated.

In response to a forum reply that I felt crossed a boundary, where the writer questioned the courage of Andrew Albers, instead of just deleting the post I decided to try a bit of "see how you like it". Since it stirred up some controversy, I am posting here the private message I later sent: Brock and I were both basically reacting to one sentence: Albers could have at least had the balls to fight for it if he really wanted it. Nothing else in your several posts was an issue for me at least. And your choice of the word "balls", while also off-color and thus a mild problem, isn't the issue either; you could have said Albers could have at least had the courage to fight for it if he really wanted it. and it would still have been a problem. Please review the Updated Comment Policy if you are unclear. Rule #1 is 1. Personal attacks or insults towards other commenters, the post author, journalists, teams, players, members of baseball organizations or agents. (You can be critical, but not personal.) There is just no place in the forums at TD for a comment like yours about a player's courage. Your reaction to my questionable choice of a "see how you like it when it is directed at you" response demonstrates that the advice I was given to just delete comments that harm the tone of any given thread may work best in the long run; it's not some omniscient power but simply a way to keep threads from degenerating. Maybe your response was in that same vein but I don't think so; you just seemed to not like it to have your own courage questioned or to have someone presume to know what goes on inside your head. Yet that's what you wanted to do regarding Albers' ninth inning. Please instead accept the criticism in the spirit it was intended, to recognize when a comment you're about to post approaches an area where a moderator will need to step in. Most people manage to steer far clear, and mostly you do too I think.

In response to a forum reply that I felt crossed a boundary, where the writer questioned the courage of Andrew Albers, instead of just deleting the post I decided to try a bit of "see how you like it". Since it stirred up some controversy, I am posting here the private message I later sent: Brock and I were both basically reacting to one sentence: Albers could have at least had the balls to fight for it if he really wanted it. Nothing else in your several posts was an issue for me at least. And your choice of the word "balls", while also off-color and thus a mild problem, isn't the issue either; you could have said Albers could have at least had the courage to fight for it if he really wanted it. and it would still have been a problem. Please review the Updated Comment Policy if you are unclear. Rule #1 is 1. Personal attacks or insults towards other commenters, the post author, journalists, teams, players, members of baseball organizations or agents. (You can be critical, but not personal.) There is just no place in the forums at TD for a comment like yours about a player's courage. Your reaction to my questionable choice of a "see how you like it when it is directed at you" response demonstrates that the advice I was given to just delete comments that harm the tone of any given thread may work best in the long run; it's not some omniscient power but simply a way to keep threads from degenerating. Maybe your response was in that same vein but I don't think so; you just seemed to not like it to have your own courage questioned or to have someone presume to know what goes on inside your head. Yet that's what you wanted to do regarding Albers' ninth inning. Please instead accept the criticism in the spirit it was intended, to recognize when a comment you're about to post approaches an area where a moderator will need to step in. Most people manage to steer far clear, and mostly you do too I think.

Moderator note: this thread spun quickly into name calling, and this needs to stop now.

This move is probably more about opening a slot on the 40-man for Mastro than about who replaces him on the 25-man. And probably even more about moving him to a contender, as a professional courtesy.

When there's a going-away party in your neighborhood, I'm guessing you're the guy they tap to emcee.

You're not a dead ringer for Kurt Winter but you could be related. / edit - no pun intended for the "dead ringer" description - RIP Kurt

Hey, three strikeouts to close out the ninth. WTP?

Carnac: Guess Who. Ed: I dunno, Who? Carnac: No, Guess Who. Ed: Who? The guy on first? Carnac: No, Guess Who. Ed: I don't know. Third base? Carnac: No, Guess Who. Ed: I QUIT!!!!!1!

I blame my rally avatar. One more baserunner and out he goes, with most of the blame actually going to CTTF.

Some of us use 100% accurate avatars.

Who cares which one you are - who's the babe in the middle? / edit - and to save Chief the trouble, "no, not the dude below her"