2012 MLB Thread (Cabrera Gets Triple Crown, first since Yaz 1967)

[Ksyrup]

I think I'd rather platoon Girardi and Scoscia.

[Logan]

Anyone else entertained by Buster Olney being so butt hurt about the YES guy beating him on the Pettitte news?

[stevew]

I think it's a good idea to have insurance against Garcia/Hughes/Nova/Kuroda/Pineada. I like those guys, but CC is the only sure thing in the rotation. And I hope that Pineada's velocity issues arent a big deal.

[Logan]

The Mets and Madoff trustee Irv Picard have reached a $162 million settlement just ahead of the start of the trial. Reported that payment can be made through their recoveries as losers in the same, which means the Wilpons will pay about $29 million.

[JPhillips]

I really don't understand how stolen goods works when it comes to rich people. If I bought a stolen car, whether I knew it was stolen or not, I'd have to give it back to the rightful owner.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Logan

Anyone else entertained by Buster Olney being so butt hurt about the YES guy beating him on the Pettitte news?

I don't think that's the issue at all.

There's been a general sense among sports writers that ESPN has increasingly taken credit for things they are not reporting first, as if it's their right as king of the jungle to be the industry spokesman telling all of us what's just happened. It's been a running joke on twitter that whenever someone scoops ESPN, that writer's nickname fo teh day on ESPN is "Sources" - because that's the generic phrasing ESPN uses to pretend like they are breaking the news first.

The most egregious example was when Bruce Feldman, an ex-ESPN guy who worked personally with Mike Leach on a book that documented how ESPN and Craig James lied about Leach to get him fired, broke Leach's hiring at Washington State. Everyone and their mother knew leach gave that news to Feldman to break, and that the last people he'd want breaking that news was anyone at ESPN. Yet ESPN ran with the breaking news as "sources" and refused to credit Feldman.

I didn't follow specifically what happened with Olney, but I read something over the weekend about this issue in general that I absolutely believe - this practice of being "first," which was so important back in the day when being first actually meant something, doesn't really matter any more to the general public. It's nothing more than a courtesy issue between professionals. No matter who breaks news, it's tweeted several hundred times in the next 5 minutes, and the number of tweets you get about it just depends on how many people you're following. that YES dude can get all pissy if he wants, but the fact is, Olney's covering baseball and all he knnows is his followers expect to hear the news from him ASAP. No one really cares who gets the credit except the writers/reporters. I knew about Pettitte from about 3 dozen "sources" within 90 seconds of YES breaking the news.

I think reporters need to re-think what it means to be a reporter in 2012. Getting the scoop and having an exclusive no longer means you got something into print and beat the competition by 24 hours until they can get something printed the next day. I'ts literally a 10 second exclusive these days, and no one knows or cares who got it first.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'ts literally a 10 second exclusive these days, and no one knows or cares who got it first.

I disagree on that point. First (and right) becomes the primary go-to source over time. That means additional traffic (for the entity) and additional value (for the reporter).

[Ksyrup]

That's all internal, though. I agree that someone cares - but it's not the public.

[Ksyrup]

I'm just as likely to click on the 224th person to write a quick article about something as I am the first. And if I missed the first or am not following that person, I'm not going to seek them out as an authority.

Now, some stories are more substantive and the original person is obviously going to get the pub, and deservedly so. The Miami scandal stuff comes to mind. And for something that in-depth, even ESPN will credit the reporter. But 95% of what's out there is just throw-away news. Where Peyton signs, who just got traded, who's suspended, etc. I don't care where I read it first. When Peyton signs, I just want to know NOW. I'll worry about the details later. And probably go to ESPN.com just because I'm so used to it.

[fantom1979]

Gotta agree with Ksyrup here. I don't really care who breaks a story first and don't pay attention to that stuff at all. I visit the same websites/tv stations during my rotation and as far as I know those websites are the ones breaking the story (when in reality they might have been 224th).

[Ksyrup]

Poor Royals. Now Soria is having elbow issues.

[Ksyrup]

Well-timed article on the twitter/news thing:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/t...rms-with-less/

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's all internal, though. I agree that someone cares - but it's not the public.

No, that is the public. Not consciously perhaps, but it goes to credibility/image/prestige and that influences the behavior of the public.

[Ksyrup]

It used to. And it still does, since twitter's not nearly caught up with websites for news yet. But my argument is that twitter's changing all of that. And that's where these guys are getting into spats over what is becoming an outdated concept.

Look at what ESPN's turning to more and more - analysis. Sportscenter is now more about pitching it to the "studio in a studio" concept for these guys to analyze news, because that can last hours and days and weeks, whereas who broke the news only lasts maybe 20-30 minutes (on an ESPN Radio or ESPNews-type platform). Twitter is where the news is breaking first, and by the time ESPN.com puts it up, it's been retweeted on twitter thousands and thousands of times. That's why I moved to twitter, because I'd hear about something posted here, and go to a website for the news, and nothing was there for 15-20 or more minutes (or longer).

I think the future is going to be where prestige is defined by always being on top of the news, as opposed to breaking it, analysis, and where the real credit for breaking stories is going to go, is the Charles Robinson types who hit on huge stories with substance and multiple layers that translate into long-form articles. The days of waiting around for Tuesday's Diamond Notes from Peter Gammons are long gone. Although even that kind of product has it's pace - Peter King doesn't break much news, but MMQB is a staple for many people after the weekend's games. Same with Stewart Mandel for college football.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It used to. And it still does, since twitter's not nearly caught up with websites for news yet. But my argument is that twitter's changing all of that.

Brand new Pew study today shows that only "9% of online consumers of news in the U.S. “very often” get their news via Facebook or Twitter." Considering that the active U.S. users of FB vs Twitter is about 5:1 weighted for FB, you're probably looking at only 2-3% of the population that actually gets news regularly from Twitter, and that's probably being generous.

Twitter is where the news is breaking first

But if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it ...

I think the future is going to be where prestige is defined by always being on top of the news, as opposed to breaking it, analysis, and where the real credit for breaking stories is going to go, is the Charles Robinson types who hit on huge stories with substance and multiple layers that translate into long-form articles.

And I think you're grossly overestimating the attention span or interest level of the vast majority of the population about just about anything.
edit to add: One thing that the second graphic does point to that kind of ties with your p.o.v. is that roughly 1/5 of those who follow a link don't even know/remember where it came from.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Poor Royals. Now Soria is having elbow issues.

Gone for the year

Royals pitcher Joakim Soria could be headed for Tommy John surgery | royals.com: News

[sterlingice]

Well, crap. I guess the Broxton deal was a good idea after all

SI

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Brand new Pew study today shows that only "9% of online consumers of news in the U.S. “very often” get their news via Facebook or Twitter." Considering that the active U.S. users of FB vs Twitter is about 5:1 weighted for FB, you're probably looking at only 2-3% of the population that actually gets news regularly from Twitter, and that's probably being generous.




But if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it ...



And I think you're grossly overestimating the attention span or interest level of the vast majority of the population about just about anything.
edit to add: One thing that the second graphic does point to that kind of ties with your p.o.v. is that roughly 1/5 of those who follow a link don't even know/remember where it came from.

I'm not overestimating attention span. Twitter is perfect for short attention spans. But there will always be a place for well done investigative journalism and that's where the value (at least in terms of journalistic integrity) will need to be focused. The local beat writer is dying off thanks to the dwindling of newspapers and the rise of national writers with just as much access. A lot of the best local guys are being taken by the national outlets.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Gone for the year

Royals pitcher Joakim Soria could be headed for Tommy John surgery | royals.com: News

I'm not sure this changes much for the Royals. He wasn't the same pitcher last year and most weren't expecting him to improve any this year. Our bullpen wasn't the issue last year. Starting pitching was the area that needed improvement. We'll see if they did that.

[Ksyrup]

What the Royals should have done is recognize how much importance some teams place on closer and traded his ass a year or 2 ago for something useful. That's probably the biggest tragedy in his injury from a real-world perspective.

[fantom1979]

Miguel Cabrera's injury

Spoiler

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

What the Royals should have done is recognize how much importance some teams place on closer and traded his ass a year or 2 ago for something useful. That's probably the biggest tragedy in his injury from a real-world perspective.

There were all sorts of deals that people pretended were on the table and there is no confirmation there ever was. Matt Klassen put it best on Fangraphs:
"While the previous off-season`s Jesus Montero-for-Soria rumor was obviously and hilariously… how can I say this politely… “dubious,” the contract did give Soria substantial trade value."

Yes: closer, losing team, luxury, and all that. There's no good retort to that. I can feebly put together that he was a fan favorite and probably did genuinely put butts in the seats as well as but I know that doesn't offset the cost.

And then there's the whole concept of the binary compete-for-the-postseason or be completely-stripping-down-and-rebuilding mentality that may or may not do irreparable harm to a fan base. Never mind the calls for the team's head for not spending enough on MLB talent and stealing revenue sharing money and all that if you strip everything down any time it looks bad because the future will /always/ be brighter. But those are a lot more complicated.

He did sign a ridiculously team friendly deal that has already returned $20M of value. If he doesn't get hurt, he does have significant value over the next three years and easily outperforms his contract. Jesus Montero was not coming to the Royals for Joakim Soria and a pu pu platter of a B and a couple of C prospects just doesn't do much for me. We have a ton of organizational filler and we're in the midst of determining whether they can actually play. Every major player (SPs, most position players except maybe C) at pretty much every level below AAA in every major league organization is "a prospect" or some sort or else they would have already been replaced by the next one. So just trading Soria for something, anything, is just as foolish.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

Miguel Cabrera's injury

Spoiler

Ugh. I shouldn't have clicked the spoiler tag as that was pretty gruesome

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

Miguel Cabrera's injury

Spoiler

That might need some stitches.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

There were all sorts of deals that people pretended were on the table and there is no confirmation there ever was. Matt Klassen put it best on Fangraphs:
"While the previous off-season`s Jesus Montero-for-Soria rumor was obviously and hilariously… how can I say this politely… “dubious,” the contract did give Soria substantial trade value."

Yes: closer, losing team, luxury, and all that. There's no good retort to that. I can feebly put together that he was a fan favorite and probably did genuinely put butts in the seats as well as but I know that doesn't offset the cost.

And then there's the whole concept of the binary compete-for-the-postseason or be completely-stripping-down-and-rebuilding mentality that may or may not do irreparable harm to a fan base. Never mind the calls for the team's head for not spending enough on MLB talent and stealing revenue sharing money and all that if you strip everything down any time it looks bad because the future will /always/ be brighter. But those are a lot more complicated.

He did sign a ridiculously team friendly deal that has already returned $20M of value. If he doesn't get hurt, he does have significant value over the next three years and easily outperforms his contract. Jesus Montero was not coming to the Royals for Joakim Soria and a pu pu platter of a B and a couple of C prospects just doesn't do much for me. We have a ton of organizational filler and we're in the midst of determining whether they can actually play. Every major player (SPs, most position players except maybe C) at pretty much every level below AAA in every major league organization is "a prospect" or some sort or else they would have already been replaced by the next one. So just trading Soria for something, anything, is just as foolish.

SI

I wasn't referring to any particular deal. I don't buy the idea that the Royals couldn't have gotten something of real value for him if they actually marketed him. You get a pretty minimal offer is all you're receiving is "kick the tires" due diligence on a guy you aren't willing to trade. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in between Montero and pu pu platter, which would have been worth it. Actually, to get value out of him, they should have tried making him a starter.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like Crow is going back to the bullpen to fill in the spot opened up by the Soria injury......

Aaron Crow will return to the Royals' bullpen with the injury to Joakim Soria | royals.com: News

[cartman]

The Rangers lock up Derek Holland with a 5 year/$28.5 million deal. He really came into his own the second half of last season and all throughout the playoffs.

[Ksyrup]

Kudos to MLB for stepping up and contributing a ton of money to help our county complete construction on a new softball field. It will be the high school team's field, but it's at the county park and all of our girls will be using it (Caitlin's middle school team will be using it this weekend for a tournament). The field is amazing.

Here's a local news story about it:

http://

[spleen1015]

Hey Red Sox fans or anyone else....

My daughter's teacher is married to Nate Spears. I see that he has had a decent spring. What are his chances for making the ML roster after spring training?

[fantom1979]

Doesn't sound like Spears has much of a chance to make the Red Sox

“He’s knocking on the door,” Valentine said. “Not here, but there are other people who are watching in need of that player. I think he’s done a lot of stuff here this spring.”

http://www.news-press.com/article/20120321/SPRINGTRAINING/303210030/Spears-plays-time?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports


Seems like he can play just about any position. Maybe he can land as a utility player on another team.

[Easy Mac]

Chipper Jones is retiring at the end of the year. I'm not sure people understand how good he's been.

Chipper Jones To Retire After 2012 | FanGraphs Baseball

[Ksyrup]

You posted that in the wrong thread. Where's the I Feel Old one?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

You posted that in the wrong thread. Where's the I Feel Old one?

Soooooooo old. But, yeah. First Ballot HOF good.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm also not sure people understand how much Brittle should have retired a year or two ago rather than handcuff the club with his salary & increasingly unreliable body.

It's been 9 years since he last managed a 150 game season, but when your salary is more than double that of all but two players (Uggla & Hudson) on the roster, I'd say 140-150 isn't unreasonable for a position player. It's also been a decade since he last managed to hit over .200 in the post-season.

Thanks for the good years but good riddance at this point afaic.

[Ksyrup]

So you're saying the team had 6 years' worth of data telling them that Jones was a risk to play less than 150 games a year, and he was brittle, and he was turning 38, and yet he still forced them to pay him $42M for the next 3 years? Wow. What a fucking batard.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

So you're saying the team had 6 years' worth of data telling them that Jones was a risk to play less than 150 games a year, and he was brittle, and he was turning 38, and yet he still forced them to pay him $42M for the next 3 years? Wow. What a fucking batard.

The Braves haven't had competent management in quite some time. Also, since signing that contract (in April 2009) his b.a. has fallen 40 points below his career average, and nearly 100 points since the contract drive year he had in 2008. (His OPS is down some 200 points over the previous three year period, down over 100 points during this contract vs his career average).

The contract has been an albatross for quite a while now.

[Ksyrup]

And that's the risk both sides took when they signed it. he was also just 2 years removed from 3 consecutive 1.000+ OPS seasons. If he was at that level during this contract, one could easily make the argument that he would be worth far more than $42M.

If he plays as many games this year as he did last year, his vesting option would kick in. But he's voluntarily giving that up before the season. That's a reason to be grateful, on top of, you know, 17-18 HoF seasons with the team.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And that's the risk both sides took when they signed it.

An incredibly stupid risk IMO since, at his age, the decline was certainly not a tremendous surprise (although the rapid rate of it might have been).

on top of, you know, 17-18 HoF seasons with the team.

Correction: several HOF seasons during an 18 year career

[Ksyrup]

Correction: A HoF career consisting of 17-18 seasons with the team.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Also, since signing that contract (in April 2009) his b.a. has fallen 40 points below his career average, and nearly 100 points since the contract drive year he had in 2008. (His OPS is down some 200 points over the previous three year period, down over 100 points during this contract vs his career average).

The contract has been an albatross for quite a while now.

That was an interesting contract when he signed it. They must have did it out of loyalty. He was still a decent hitter but all of the signs were there that he was a liability defensively, losing a lot of speed, and a complete injury risk at the point of his career. He probably should have spent the final 4 years of his career being a DH but I think the Braves felt loyalty to keep him around.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Correction: A HoF career consisting of 17-18 seasons with the team.

Several fewer would have been preferable.

The fact that he's one of the most purely obnoxious jackasses to ever wear a uniform for any Atlanta based team certainly adds to that.

[k0ruptr]

Something is wrong with Adam Dunn - as of yesterday he's only struck out once this spring. #Apocalypse

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

Something is wrong with Adam Dunn - as of yesterday he's only struck out once this spring. #Apocalypse

Has he been hurt? 1 strike out in 2 abs or what?

Seriously though, the rumors were that he came into camp much slimmer. Not really sure what this only 1 strikeout means. Pretty sure the sox want him to be the power hitter they paid for and not a .240 hitter contact hitter without his prior power.

Now if he can get back the old power he had without striking out like a madman he could put up a huge year.

Really very little evidence if you look at last years numbers that he would ever be a solid hitter again. Believe it or not his shitty start to the year actually progressively got worse by the month.

Adam had a horrible 2011 to say the least. Just horrible. It is amazing that he was able to get almost 500 plate appearances with a triple-slash of .159/.292/.277. Amazingly, Dunn's slugging percentage came in under his on-base percentage. Several theories exist for the huge decline including his early-season appendectomy. Whatever the reason, he was just never able to pull it together in 2011. Is there anything to build upon for 2012? He had a career high strikeout rate with career lows in isolated slugging percentage and batting average on balls in play. He hit worse in the last month (.128/.317/.191) than in the first month (.160/.300/.267). He will be a huge player to gamble on for the 2012 season, but probably a mistake to count upon. Make sure you have an entire starting team in place before picking him, but don't be afraid to pick him and his 35-homer potential. (Jeff Zimmerman)

I get a laugh reading some of these comments about his 2011 season. This is from fangraphs.

[Suicane75]

I take it JIMGA doesn't like Chipper so that colors his feelings but if I had gotten to see Mike Schmidt play for 3 more years at the level of Chippers last 3, I'd be all for it.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Several fewer would have been preferable.

The fact that he's one of the most purely obnoxious jackasses to ever wear a uniform for any Atlanta based team certainly adds to that.

Vick? Jon Koncak?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Vick? Jon Koncak?

Vick is a class by himself, not sure that "obnoxious jackass" really covers that one.

My memories of Jon Contract ...err Koncak, are more about the horrendous deal he had rather than him being particularly obnoxious, but maybe that stupendously bad deal is just coloring my recollection over the years.

I was thinking more along the lines of "players you'd really just like to punch in the face every time you see them" sort of obnoxious, not so much worthless excuses for human beings or incredibly bad contracts (which would also snag Mike Hampton).

[stevew]

Koncak was paid about 2M on a 10M cap. And I'm not sure what kind of exceptions were available at that point. I gotta wonder if that deal is even more damaging than Joe Johnson's monster. Due to TBS, I always watched the Hawks a ton. Did they offer that deal to Koncak, or was it some kind of RFA match? I don't remember him even being an average player.

[k0ruptr]

And on cue! Adam Dunn with an opposite field homer off a lefty?!?! Who is this monster ?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Did they offer that deal to Koncak, or was it some kind of RFA match? I don't remember him even being an average player.

Found this description on a blog, Lord only knows I didn't remember the context

part of the reason the Hawks went all-out to resign Koncak was because their bitter rivals, the Detroit Pistons, were also trying to acquire his useless services (I think they were just trying to trick the Hawks into handicapping themselves to resign the big stiff...a strategy that worked to sinister perfection)

[k0ruptr]

Dunn: 2 homers, 1 a grand slam - both off a lefty.

I'm scared.