Tee Ball Bunt Machine

My vision of change: Obama completely casts aside his Chicago political ideals-wait, that wont happen, and hes already proving it. The country is screwed. Jeez, I'm not a fan of Obama at all, but what the heck has done to prove anything already at this point?

While it certainly seems like a nice idea, you'll forgive some of us who might think this is more PR than policy planning. But I'll give it a shot to see if anything is actually made of it.

You're hot for a week. Not 3 months. I think Hermida's second half in '07 demonstrated his abilities. I'm confident he will live up to what he is capable of... When it's only 3 months in a span of 3 seasons, yes, it is just getting hot. Players do get hot for more than a week or even a month. Just like some players get cold for inordinate amounts of time. I know everyone here couldn't understand that in 05 when Mike Lowell had an off year and everyone was sure he was done...What happens after another year with a 750ish OPS for Hermida? Then he's just 25? Or 26? At what point do you say that a guy who usually doesn't hit well year after year (regardless of what he may be capable of) and whose defense looks lazy needs to go? How many seasons? At what age? He's had a starting job in RF for 3 years, and look at the whole of what he's done. So why can't Hermida have been cold all of last year? Why was Lowell just really cold but actually a good player? I know everyone is saying he's had 3 full seasons, but one of those "full" seasons included 300 AB as a 22-year-old. He'll be 25 to start this season; many players have not even come to the bigs yet by 25. So, yes, 2007 could've been an incredible hot streak far above and beyond his ability; but, 2008 could easily have been a cold streak, way below his ability. To trade a player, still under team control at age 24, while his value is probably the lowest it's ever been is silly. 2005 21 CAR SOU AA FLA 118 386 77 113 29 2 18 63 111 89 .293 .457 .518 .975 23 2 92% http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=6515 Maybe he was just insanely hot that year, too, but I'm willing to take one more years worth of chances. Remember, any prospect you might get for him could just as easily be a "bust" like Jeremy. FWIW, what happened to those stolen bases? He had a ton and at a very high percentage throughout the minors. The problem is that to believe that 2008 was a cold streak, you have to believe that so was the rest of his MLB career, so all of 2006 and the first half of 2007. You can complain about the sample size in 2006 and that it's not a fair comparison, but I think if anything it's also idicative of the problem he has as far as durability. I also think it's disingenuous to want to disregard a sample size of 300+ ABs while your only evidence that he is "that good" is a span of 256 ABs after the ASB in 2007 where Hermida had a 956 OPS. If you want to compare him to Mike Lowell? Ok, Mike Lowell had an OPS over 800 the 3 years before 2005, 4 of the 5 years before that, and it was over 860 in the last two (2003 & 2004). Just look at his career numbers and you see that 2005 is the year that didn't fit, it wasn't that he had "overperformed" or simply been hot for the last 5 years. Mike Lowell also had the added factor of being a Gold Glove defender, whereas Hermida is...well...not. Please don't make an excuse out of his age. Everyone though he was ready in 2006, and he wasn't. Maybe he will be great when he's 29 or 30, I don't know. But I don't have any confidence that he will be ready next season and I imagine the FO shares that feeling. Again, if 2008 was a cold streak then so was 2006 and the first half of 2007 (where he maintained a 744 OPS). So it's not just as easy to believe that, at least not for me. It's also not silly to trade a young player when his trade value is lowest if you only expect it to get lower. And while you may be willing to take a chance, I don't think now is the time for second and third chances. This team had nine blown saves and finished about 8 games back of the WS champions. This team should expect to compete next year, and if you're playing to win, you can't afford to just commit to give a guy who keeps dissapointing another chance when you have options that are possibly better. And for your question on his SB numbers, I would guess that he became a less inclined to run (or the coaching staff less inclined to send him) after he's been on and off the DL since 2006 started.

Since this thread is (apparently) all about our relations and intervention (or potential intervention) abroad, I'd like to ask people what they would think of the following hypothetical scenario: Suppose there is a man, who is seen as a rich man by everyone he knows. His family apparently lives well, and he is kind to his friends, regularly writing many of them thousand dollar checks at least once a year, while also spending lavishly on his family's lifestyle. Now suppose that for the year, this man's spending will be around a half a million dollars more than what he made, and suppose that he already has accumulated a ten million dollar debt. Do you think the man has been acting responsibly? What do you think will ultimately be his fate and the fate of his family? Now consider that our country is regularly handing out checks to the Israelis and to all their Arab neighbors, and all those other countries in the world. Is that responsible when we are TEN TRILLION dollars in debt? We have this illusion that we are a rich country with so much to spare and so much to give the rest of the world, when in fact we are drowning in debt. No matter what you think about various international conflicts, who you think is right or wrong, we need to learn before it's too late that we cannot afford to be involved in every conflict in the world. No matter what you think of Israel, after 50 years of existence and being the most powerful military force in the Middle East, it's time for them to take care of their own issues and for us to get out. If they want to bomb Syria, Lebanon, and put more settlements in Palestine, then let them do it and deal with the consequences. If they want to make peace with their neighbors and give the Palestinians a separate nation, then let them do it. It's not and never has been our business.

That's the libertarian position. The government historically became involved with marriage for public health reasons. I could be wrong, but I think it was for the purpose of prohibiting marriages between certain classes of people. While some, such as relatives, may have been for health reasons, class distinctions as in Britain and racial distinctions here in the US had nothing to do with health concerns.

It should be more than entertained if the price is right. While I would expect someone else to bid higher, I would say that if Penny is willing and afordable that we would be stupid not to bring him in.

Real fiscal conservatives would have little concerns with immigration under a true free market economy. As long as they stick to their platform they could bring in more minority voters. I think they would actually attract more of them because their policies would then stand in contrast to the protectionists on the left.

I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party"?when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents. A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.- Ronald Regan I think there is a lot of truth to that. I hope the Rep party doesn't redefine itself in a way that lose their identity and core values in order to 'broaden' their appeal Exactly... but do you want the GOP to do something to attract Hispanics? Maybe they could just try being conservative and support small government again. Maybe they could realize that government isn't capable of overpowering the market and other forces that drive immigration and that doing so will always be counterproductive. And while they're at it, they could stop pandering to the xenophobes who also think that it's the role of government to "protect their jobs".

No. I wouldn't even give up Uggla alone to get Martin. Uggla is a top 3 MLB 2B and Martin isn't even top 5 among catchers. The only reason to go after Martin would have to be offense, but even then, Baker was better at the plate in his limited time this season (Baker's 839 OPS vs Martin's 781). Not saying I'd do this deal, but I'd put Martin in the top catchers in baseball. Mostly though because of the lack of quality catchers right now. Who are the five better? If you judge offensive catchers by their 2008 OPS, among those with 400 or more plate appearances you have: #1 Brian McCann - 896 #2 Chris Ianetta - 895 #3 Geovany Soto - 868 #4 Kelly Shoppach - 865 #5 Joe Mauer - 864 #6 Ryan Doumit - 858 #7 Chris Snyder - 800 #8 Russel Martin - 781 If you expand this comparison to include Catchers with only 200 or more plate appearances you also get: Mike Napoli - 960 and of course John Baker - 839

"socially conservative" (socialist) :lolup Glad I could give you a laugh. Maybe you make the assumption that those two things are some how opposed, but really, where is the conflict for a "benevolent" leader who wants to use his power to give away free money to buy everyone a home and buy old people their drugs (at any cost) while also wanting to protect the people from the evils of gay marriage, pornography and gambling on the internet? Socialism, which is about redistribution of wealth, is in no way in conflict with the "Socially Conservative" agenda of protecting adults from themselves and their choices. It is also what we've been seeing from our government for at least the last 8 years.

a couple of ideas: The Green President I think he's trying to generate a new American industry focusing on green technologies. I think that's the legacy he's aiming for. He wants to create a green economy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I am 100% supportive of this. I hope this isn't taken too seriously, that he or anyone else believes that government can actually create a viable industry where one doesn't already exist.

Well, there's also "hope", not to say that Change or Hope really amount to meaning anything policy-wise.

I don't see it, just isn't needed here. I'd rather not wait until pitching becomes a "need" and there is much less available for cheap.

I don't see it, just isn't needed here. I'd rather not wait until pitching becomes a "need" and there is much less available for cheap.

No. I wouldn't even give up Uggla alone to get Martin. Uggla is a top 3 MLB 2B and Martin isn't even top 5 among catchers. The only reason to go after Martin would have to be offense, but even then, Baker was better at the plate in his limited time this season (Baker's 839 OPS vs Martin's 781).

Can we say retread? We don't need him right now with all the young pitching. I doubt he will want to be a mop up guy, nor would he be willing to be paid as such. Right now i would say no, if something happenms in ST and he is still out there, then maybe. Be willing? How much money do you think he can pull in anywhere after what he's done in NY? I think he could very conceivably be available for peanuts, and if he is, might as well give him a shot. Even if you don't trust him to be durable, this team can always use a decent arm in the bullpen.

You're hot for a week. Not 3 months. I think Hermida's second half in '07 demonstrated his abilities. I'm confident he will live up to what he is capable of... When it's only 3 months in a span of 3 seasons, yes, it is just getting hot. Players do get hot for more than a week or even a month. Just like some players get cold for inordinate amounts of time. I know everyone here couldn't understand that in 05 when Mike Lowell had an off year and everyone was sure he was done...What happens after another year with a 750ish OPS for Hermida? Then he's just 25? Or 26? At what point do you say that a guy who usually doesn't hit well year after year (regardless of what he may be capable of) and whose defense looks lazy needs to go? How many seasons? At what age? He's had a starting job in RF for 3 years, and look at the whole of what he's done.

Eh, you never know...Pavano should be well rested at least. If it's an option for us, invite him to ST and see what happens. I do hope we do something about keep Rhodes.

I'll agree that McCain seemed like the absolute worst candidate to me from the very beginning of the primaries, and it really does make me wonder if its not being too much of a conspiracy nut to believe that they really wanted to lose this year, because I felt exactly the same with Kerry, that out of him, Dean, Edwards, & Clark, that Kerry was the absolute worst choice to oppose Bush and the surest to lose.

The GOP needs to decide what it wants to be, and I hope that isn't moving more towards the socialism that is acceptable at the apparent "center". It has to decide whether it's going to be for big government that enforces "traditional" values with the force of government, solves all our problems, and makes us moral and for a foreign policy of "getting those evil-doers" or whether it will be a party for small government, maximum liberty, and recognizing that we cannot (and should not) run the world. Because the illusion that those two philosophies can coexist under that "big tent" is dead. I would honestly be happy to see the GOP fall apart completely and open the way for another party (or two) to replace them if the GOP doesn't redefine itself as giving more than lip service to the philosophy of liberty and small government. I believe they need to reach out to Hispanics, a minority which is going to grow exponentially during the next decade. Most of Hispanics tend to be moderate conservatives. How do you reach them, without pissing off the anti-immigration hawks of the right? I agree, and I would say that the answer is to educate those "hawks" to the fact that their problems aren't being caused by immigrants, and that immigrant workers area scapegoat. Of course, I suppose there is a problem that it is mainly GOP officials in government that have made them scapegoats for the failures of government. Yeah, I would expect that the only real one-issue voters would be the pro-life crowd. Many religious institutions would endorse McCain on that facet alone. However, arguably these were the voters that prevented a total blowout. I believe the GOP must be realistic about this. And run on a platform of reducing abortion, rather than overturning it. The next administration will probably move further left on abortion issues, which most pro-choice people will probably be against it. I also believe that the religious right must treat this issue differently, they must educate and stop condemning. They would be more successful that way. There is a better way to deal with abortion, but simply accepting that it is going to be legal to kill a baby that might already be capable of surviving outside of the womb isn't it. I'm willing to argue that many of the "social ills" that "conservatives" argue against and want to prohibit are no one's business and should be legal, but abortion isn't one of those. Unless you believe that a child doesn't become a living human being until they come out of the womb (and I don't) then you acknowledge that at least some abortions are murder, and that is something that should be condemned.

I assure you I don't need to go out to ask what anyone else's Libertarian views are on any issues. My statement was merely a centering of the issues in this post. The Vick situation, although portrayed in the media as an animal 'right's' situation, was moreso a gambling issue. So, to give the Libertarian view on this, it is a much simpler issue than say abortion or animal rights. It is much more like prostitution, in that it deals with adults making consenting decisions, so it is not an issue that any Libertarian should be struggling with in terms of having any form of moral dilemma on. Animal issues are much more complex, in that the Constitution, which mostly provides negative rights, does not mention animals at all. The status of animals as property stems from English common law (obviously much further than that, but in terms of of our jurisprudence we don;t have to look much further than that), and nothing in the Constitution should stop a State from giving animals a status that goes beyond mere property. Whether they should or not is the question.But if say Florida decides animals have a status highter than non-animalian property, then they can regulate the treatment of animals. Again to me this is one of those murky issues like abortion, where the balance is the government's right to interfere with the private person vs. the right to life. Animals are considered property because what else can they be? They are clearly not people, and they are terminally incapable of expressing any legally recognizable will or consent (with perhaps the rare exception of a few SL-speaking apes). I see the animal debate like the fetus debate. There are these strange quasi statuses that the framers did not think of. I disagree that there is any relationship between the two. In the case of the fetus, even the staunchest Abortion advocate has to concede that a healthy fetus left to its natural development becomes a human being and that human life is something our laws should protect. The question is when do you start to consider that fetus a human being with human life that should be legally protected. That's not an issue when it comes to animals. An animal will never become a human and there remains debate about the value of animal life and to what extent it should be legally protected.

How would McCain be any better? He would quite simply have to be. At least McCain would challenge the congress, Obama wont do that. Like McCain challenged the Democrats and our socialist President on the bailout bill? Where has that "Maverick" been arguing for fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget through SIGNIFICANT spending cuts? Oh that's right, he was too busy saying the government should be buying up everyone's morgage loans and then they can mail their payments to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. This is what passes for a conservative these days, and GOP talking heads want to blame this loss on the fact that McCain didn't talk about Bill Ayers and Obama being a secret Muslim enough? I don't like Obama, and even if he tried to do everything exactly as he has said, I don't really agree with any of his policies. But coming after Bush, he's gonna have a very low threshhold to meet to look like a good president. As long as he doesn't do anything too horrendous, he'll probably get to hang around. His Congress may not be so lucky, but we'll have to see. I voted Barr, both because I believe in the libertarian philosophy on the role of government and because I recognize that there isn't any significant policy difference between Sen McCain and President-elect Obama. And people who still believe that the Republicans and the Democrats actually oppose one another in any meaningful way need to wake up. Here's hoping the GOP collapses entirely within the next 2 years and opens up the way for another conservative party to replace them. Or at least majorly overhauls their leadership and policies.

Interesting theory. Let's put it to the test. 4 infielders going for the all time record in HRs while the team is in contention for the play offs, in the final homestand of the season, against a division rival. Can't fill your criteria much better than that. How did that work out?? Good thing there are alot of Phillies fans here and there was a Saturday night concert to attend. But Marlins fans actually at the games?? C'mon... That 4 infielders thing wasn't played up by anyone. Also, we weren't in contention for the playoffs as much as we were longshots. That said, I don't buy that Manny would have spiked attendance for more than a few weeks. I think Manny would've spiked attendance by getting us into the playoffs. As for Hermida, he's not coming off of an "off-year", he has simply had an off-career. A career OPS below 800 and he's not exactly a defensive wiz either. Considering he had a .870 OPS just one year prior, you could argue it was an off-year for him. And all of us who actually watched this team play in 2007 know that it was basically all the result of an absurd second half. Pre-All Star break 2007, his OPS was his typical 744. Post ASB his OPS was 956. Now if you want to sit here and expect him to be this 900+ OPS hitter that he was for 2? months, I would say that you should expect dissapointment. I will expect (far more reasonably I think) that he will generally continue to hit an OPS around 750, maybe at times close to 800, as he has the entire rest of the time he's been in the majors.

I was confused and though you were talking about Uggla too. Anyway, yeah, Ross should be starting in RF and Hermida should be off the team.

I wouldn't predict that it'll go this way, but I can say that I would honestly not be surprised if Obama had 84 Reagen-esque win with 49 States and McCain only carrying Arizona. And I will be stunned if McCain wins in anyway.