ashbury

The love that dare not speak its name?

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.

In a thread elsewhere:

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.

For later reference:

For later reference:

From the game thread today, regarding Dozier batting second:

From the game thread today, regarding Dozier batting second:

I liked it too. My comment about meds was serious in exactly whatever degree Bark's was serious about getting off them.

Go for it, my brother. I felt it was fair to look at top 28-year-olds, whether or not they were up for new contracts, as comps for Sanchez. I suppose there is the folklore that players let up once they are comfortable, but I don't really go for that.

Nurse is right that $80M wouldn't do it. But the angle I was taking was whether to go after him at all, once a 5-year contract at significant per-year price was established. As for WH's point about Zito, I was trying to take a less-anecdotal approach and consider an off-season five years earlier than when I was writing, and use that to try to project five years from then. Seven pitchers is SSS of course, but when the argument is that Sanchez is special due to his young age at 28, SSS may be all you get. I guess I'm trying to claim that SSS > anecdote. Since I'm not sure what longitudinal means in this context, I have to take a pass on your last paragraph. It's true that one bad contract like Zito's does not have to kill a team, and revenues/contracts have historically tended to rise, but it makes threading the needle just that much harder; 18 million here and 18 million there and pretty soon you're talking big money. Thanks for the comments.

This is a repeat of a forum post I made in December 2012. I'm blogging it now mostly for my own convenience; I took the time to look up several pitchers and I don't want to have to search again when I try to remember what I learned. The question was, if you were GM would you have matched the 5/$80M deal for Detroit's Anibal Sanchez? The context now is, when if ever would you sign a pitcher to a long term deal, given that there is room in the budget until the rookies start to earn big dough ... My snap reaction was yes I would sign Sanchez. Then I tried to think about how Terry Ryan sees it, in terms of risk. Sign him to 5 years, then the last year of the contract you'll be paying him (say) $15M or $16M in 2017. This is right in the heart of the new window of competitiveness, right? Will that $16M be part of the winning formula? Or will it be a boat-anchor preventing you from making a deal to push this juggernaut team to a second straight title? Well, roll the clock back 5 years to 2007. Not that all of these pitchers were available to sign at the time, but let's focus on who was completing his 28-year-old season, just as Sanchez is now. Limit it to guys who clearly were established starters. These 28-year-olds were: Carlos Silva Johan Santana Gil Meche John Lackey Jeremy Guthrie Mark Buehrle Erik Bedard Isn't this kind of a Murderer's Row of pitchers who teams actually *did* make an investment in? And with the exception of Buehrle, aren't they the ones that, 5 years later, fans of their current teams wail and gnash their teeth over? Now put yourself in Ryan's shoes. Are you really going to pull the trigger on Sanchez for 5 years? As I said above, I would. And this quick little bit of research reaffirms my reminder to myself, that when Terry Ryan and I disagree about something, take another good hard look.

This is a repeat of a forum post I made in December 2012. I'm blogging it now mostly for my own convenience; I took the time to look up several pitchers and I don't want to have to search again when I try to remember what I learned. The question was, if you were GM would you have matched the 5/$80M deal for Detroit's Anibal Sanchez? The context now is, when if ever would you sign a pitcher to a long term deal, given that there is room in the budget until the rookies start to earn big dough ... My snap reaction was yes I would sign Sanchez. Then I tried to think about how Terry Ryan sees it, in terms of risk. Sign him to 5 years, then the last year of the contract you'll be paying him (say) $15M or $16M in 2017. This is right in the heart of the new window of competitiveness, right? Will that $16M be part of the winning formula? Or will it be a boat-anchor preventing you from making a deal to push this juggernaut team to a second straight title? Well, roll the clock back 5 years to 2007. Not that all of these pitchers were available to sign at the time, but let's focus on who was completing his 28-year-old season, just as Sanchez is now. Limit it to guys who clearly were established starters. These 28-year-olds were: Carlos Silva Johan Santana Gil Meche John Lackey Jeremy Guthrie Mark Buehrle Erik Bedard Isn't this kind of a Murderer's Row of pitchers who teams actually *did* make an investment in? And with the exception of Buehrle, aren't they the ones that, 5 years later, fans of their current teams wail and gnash their teeth over? Now put yourself in Ryan's shoes. Are you really going to pull the trigger on Sanchez for 5 years? As I said above, I would. And this quick little bit of research reaffirms my reminder to myself, that when Terry Ryan and I disagree about something, take another good hard look.

Get back on your meds, my brother.

> Never say never but, if history has any indication, the likelihood of him pitching effectively in April appears low. Now, got any stock tips, as the market appears to be nearing a top?

This quote from Ozzie should close the discussion. "I love USAFChief. I respect USAFChief. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill USAFChief for the last 60 years, but that S.O.B. is still here."

Pelfrey and Deduno aren't quite interchangeable, since the latter is not on the 40-man roster. Someone (probably not Pelf) would need to be dropped if Deduno is added. That makes them related but separate issues.

No idea whether BBF is the source for that hideously ugly photoshoop or if they just stole it fair and square like I did.

Pelf is entitled to refuse a AAA assignment, though he does have an option remaining if he does choose to accept. It is probably too far-fetched to believe that Gardy left him in to face Fielder so that if the worst happened Pelf would maybe be persuaded to accept the demotion, but that thought still crosses my mind.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3953[/ATTACH] I've been asked about my daily choice of avatar(s). That joke has pretty much run its course so I'm not going to continue it indefinitely, and I thought I should just put the lengthy explanation here as a blog entry for possible future reference. I started out without any visual embellishment to my postings. After a while I decided to try it out, after seeing others' choices. I didn't like my own photo for the purpose, and the first one I settled on, inspired indirectly I suppose by USAFChief's lovely older woman, was the equally lovely Amy Farrah Fowler. [ATTACH=CONFIG]3954[/ATTACH] Amy seems to capture the analytic tone I aim for in my posts (when I'm not being goofy). Why not Sheldon Cooper, if "analytic" is the aim? I don't know, I just find her character funnier, and I liked the incongruity of picking a female. I went back and forth with variations, such as this one. [ATTACH=CONFIG]3933[/ATTACH] Anyway, I later decided I needed an avatar to counterbalance my snark instead of amplifying it. I found this one, during a phase when TD policy was being enforced to achieve a kinder gentler forum, [ATTACH=CONFIG]3936[/ATTACH] and it felt right for the purpose and I used it for quite a while - you can say the rudest things and the sunshine just takes the edge right off. However, I went back to wanting something that said "no, I meant it that way." I settled for a while on McKayla Maroney, an internet meme after her Olympics medal ceremony went a little wrong: [ATTACH=CONFIG]3937[/ATTACH] I tried a similar one with McKayla and Obama [ATTACH=CONFIG]3948[/ATTACH] and I found one of Hrbek with the same looking frame of mind [ATTACH=CONFIG]3949[/ATTACH] I played around with a couple of other avatars of interest only to someone in my particular location: Tahoe Tessie [ATTACH=CONFIG]3945[/ATTACH] our local answer to the Loch Ness Monster, and Archie the mascot of the AAA Reno Aces [ATTACH=CONFIG]3946[/ATTACH] He's gross. I also tried this one. [ATTACH=CONFIG]3947[/ATTACH] Now, around this whole time, a TD advertiser was selling t-shirts. Bad Idea. (The company name, not a critique.) They used one model who was particularly striking, so much so that I figured it would kind of violate TD policy if it was not in an actual ad. So, naturally, I adopted her as an avatar. [ATTACH=CONFIG]3938[/ATTACH] As my project leader at my first job at Control Data would probably still say, she's a real day-brightener. (He would have been fired in the first week, nowadays, nice guy or not.) Notice the artful Twins logo I added, covering up the company blurb. To my surprise, this actually provoked a large quantity of (positive) feedback - and here I was trying to make a post-feminist statement or something. This photo was especially popular during game threads, garnering comments and making people not notice Aaron Hicks hadn't had a hit yet. It may have been due to her large bosoms, I can't quite be sure. At any rate I felt weird having her as my permanent avatar. So I hit upon the idea of using her strictly as an in-game avatar - a good luck charm. This, unfortunately, coincided with a bad few games for the Twins. So I tried mixing things around, using her as a reliever after she failed in the starter's role; she was there for Tyler Robertson's last home run, so I banished her from that role too. For a while she was the game-winning celebration avatar, where she couldn't cause the team any trouble. I still hate the idea that female members of TD would avoid the game threads on my account, though. Meanwhile, the Sunshine avatar got re-purposed for Kevin Correia - KC and the Sunshine Band, get it, get it? (Not unless you are over 40, probably.) It worked well in that role so I didn't want to change that. I also attached another internet meme, Allison Stokke [ATTACH=CONFIG]3939[/ATTACH] to Pedro Hernandez, who also did well with her as a good luck charm. (In addition to being pretty, Allison was a straight-A student in high school and got accepted at Berkeley, and set a freshman HS national record for the pole vault, prompting one wag to comment that she was the winner of the genetic lottery.) Yes, I added the tasteful TC artwork to her uniform too. I have not succeeded in finding a suitably lucky avatar for Mike Pelfrey; I tried the Free Beer one, and here's a more recent example: [ATTACH=CONFIG]3943[/ATTACH] but it did not help past the 5th inning yesterday. Worley has had mixed success with this one of a Yoga-ist [ATTACH=CONFIG]3940[/ATTACH] courtesy of Willihammer, but the Vanimal still gets the early-inning jitters so I may keep searching. I've tried this other t-shirt model for Scott Diamond [ATTACH=CONFIG]3944[/ATTACH] without resounding success for the pitcher (but plenty of positive feedback from other posters.) Oh, and here is another day-brightener who I tried as a good luck avatar but brought only bad luck (I think it was for Pelfrey again): [ATTACH=CONFIG]3950[/ATTACH] As for the bats, I have tried a change of pace for a "rally avatar" when the Twins need some runs in the late innings; I had high hopes for this one [ATTACH=CONFIG]3942[/ATTACH] but nothing materialized, and the following avatar was in place when Arcia hit a 3-run shot in the 9th [ATTACH=CONFIG]3941[/ATTACH] but it was not enough for a win, and in a more recent game it was used again but Arcia languished in the on-deck circle when no one ahead of him reached, so the jury is still out. I used the one-and-only Don Mossi one game: [ATTACH=CONFIG]3992[/ATTACH] I think that mainly covers it. I still had an idea or two for future games, but aside from that the joke is pretty much played out and I am retiring it, particularly as it is about as offensive to some as if I used photos of minstrels. But for people who want to see the Bad Idea girl in the future, well, she's blogged right here as an encore: [ATTACH=CONFIG]3938[/ATTACH] I do not however endorse this form of horndoggery.

I agree with you 100%. It is crazy.

Thanks. Some players seem to attract many negative anagrams - Florimon as you noted seemed to result in nothing but bad ones, and Tyler Robertson likewise had more than a fair share. Is there a correlation to on-field talent? Not on purpose, but maybe it's fate. Doesn't bode well for Brian Duensing, in that case. The uncensored version is at: http://www.skypoint.com/members/ashbury/anagrams I welcome any additions someone comes up with.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2012/01/26/19/ca/original_shcool_photo.jpg Previously I posted anagrams of the 2013 Twins active roster. Here are permutations on some recent additions: Oswaldo Arcia Iowa Carloads I Also A Coward A Cow Loads Air Scott Diamond Candid Mottos Misadd Cotton Condom Tit Ads Pedro Hernandez Preharden Dozen Pardoned Her Zen End Red Porn Haze Anthony Swarzak What's Zany? Akron! Hawk Annoys Tzar Who Yanks Tarzan?