Eileen from Divine Comedy of Errors asked me a few questions:
1. If you were in charge of the Red Sox and had unlimited funds to sign one player, who would you choose? Assume all current MLB players are available.
- I'll point you to my earlier post, Another Impossible Dream?. I'd sign Alex Rodriguez with absolutely no hesitation to a six year deal, minimum. and move him back to shortstop. I'd trade Lugo for a power-hitting first baseman (Helton? Might need a third team on the deal, the Rockies need pitching more than a shortstop - I'd probably platoon Helton with Youk for half the season, reevaluate after the All Star break, then use Helton or Lowell as trade bait to deal with needs).
If not A-Rod, I'd sign Johan Santana for another ten years. Beckett, Santana, and Matsuzaka would mean fifty-four to sixty wins a season for plenty of years.
2. If you switched careers, what would your new job be? (stay with the realm of plausibility for this one)
-Teacher, I like to teach, and I'm super good at messing with their young impressionable minds.
I'm not a teacher because I need money to buy a house and, you know, food.
3. Who was the best teacher you ever had?
-Brother Fred Eid, high school, freshman, junior, and senior year. He taught math, art, and moderated the newspaper and photography club. His presentation on limits is the reason I majored in math. He moved like a hummingbird, never wasted one moment, moving from the classroom to the news room to the studio to the athletic field and back. He probably didn't sleep. He was a gifted artist and educator, and if I had half of his energy you'd all think I was a coke fiend.
4. If you had to live in a foreign country for the rest of your life, which one would it be?
-Ireland - I hear the Guiness tastes better there. -or-
Japan - super technologically advanced, volcanoes, earthquakes, giant mutated lizards - yeah, I could totally handle living in Japan.
5. Do you have any unusual pet peeves?
-Not that I'm aware of. I hate stupid people, and Yankee fans, but I don't think that's unusual.
Ah. Driviers making poorly, or incorretly executed left-hand turns. Drives me crazy. Enter the intesection, then proceed with your turn, don't cut off oncoming traffic trying to get over! GAH!
Turning Left
When making any left turn, you must first yield
the right-of-way to any...
• Oncoming vehicle
• Vehicle already in the intersection
• Pedestrians or bicyclists crossing your
intended path of travel
from Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles Rules of the Road chapter 4
Ok, that's it, want to play along? Rules of the game:
1. Send an email saying, “Interview me”, or words to that effect.
2. I will respond by emailing you five questions of my choosing.
3. You will update your blog with the answers to the questions.
4. You have to include this explanation, and an offer to interview someone else in the same post.
5. When others comment asking to be interviewed, you will ask them five questions...
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
A cluttered mind is like a cluttered house - or, in my case, exactly like it
I think my brain works faster during baseball season. In the crowded little one-family that is my mind, there are rooms full of clutter. The friends' room, where I keep everybody's names and faces, and the how-I-know-thems, is up on the top floor (really a converted attic with tall exposed ceilings, an old couch and armchair and coffee table, and plenty of natural light streaming in, perfect for mingling); the work room, which isn't really a room as much as it's an alcove or nook, with a small electric typewriter, solar-powered calculator, and some cluttered papers - it's also got a lovely view of the yard outside which is usually filled with kids playing wiffleball, or cute birds and animals doing distracting interesting things; the kitchen, living room, dining room, etc.
There are also lots of bedrooms. Of course, since there's only me (and the mingling friends in the attic) the bedrooms are mostly used for storage. One room's got a bunch of comic books and video games; one's got piles of text books from high school, and the notebooks from college I haven't lost - that's also the room that's got my driver's ed "rules of the road" handbook" and maps of Massachusetts highways (at least, I think they're buried in there); one room's got all my childhood memories, though they've been pushed back against one wall as the amount of trivia I've accumulated over the years has built up (Vincent Price played the Batman villian Eggman on the Adam West tv series);
another room has got most of my sports stuff: soccer cleats and shin guards from my under-12 season, broken street hockey nets tangled with street hockey sticks, uniforms from some of my youth hockey teams, basketballs, soccer balls, a ton of tennis balls, wiffleballs, old bases, old baseball gloves, team jackets, rollerblades, and so on.
But. There's a room up here that I don't use for clutter. It's in the same hallway, but there are two differences: the door is usually shut during the winter, and it's clean and neat and tidy.
It's the baseball room.
It's a small room, a little bigger than a small closet. It's got a large window with lead counter weights in the frame. It's got a small three-drawer desk with an old radio on it. There's plenty of floor space to spread out rosters, or stats cards. Blank scorecards are set neatly on a shelf above the desk that also holds a framed team photo of the 2004 World Champion Red Sox. On the wall facing the window there's a faded Boston Braves pennant, and a Boston Red Sox pennant from my first ever baseball game at Fenway Park. On the back wall there's a little bookcase that's got mostly biographies of major leaguers (like Ted Williams, Honus Wagner, and Joe DiMaggio) and a couple books on baseball (Summer of '49, Ball Four), Baseball Prospectus for the last five years, and a few binders on the bottom shelf with some baseball cards I've still got kicking around.
It's where I got to watch games. There's a copy of the Rules of Baseball on the desk for quick reference if needed, and a box each of black, blue, and red pens (for the keeping score).
It's one of my favorite rooms. I don't clutter it up with stuff, ever. Even when all the other rooms seem full and I just don't have anywhere to put your name, and why I should care about you, I leave that room alone.
Nope, instead I'll wander around for a little while holding that bit of info, and toss it when I judge it too much work for too little benefit (which is why I don't remember friends' significant others, or new coworkers); or that it's important enough to remember, and get rid of some other bit of information I've got kicking about to make room (which is why I forget telephone numbers - sorry, Adina).
But no matter how much junk I stuff into closets, or how many bits of personal history I've got to toss out, I'll keep that baseball room clean.
With the door open, I've got more space to move around, and I've got a quiet place to sit meditate. Things make more sense in that room, and I think better when it's open.
-t
There are also lots of bedrooms. Of course, since there's only me (and the mingling friends in the attic) the bedrooms are mostly used for storage. One room's got a bunch of comic books and video games; one's got piles of text books from high school, and the notebooks from college I haven't lost - that's also the room that's got my driver's ed "rules of the road" handbook" and maps of Massachusetts highways (at least, I think they're buried in there); one room's got all my childhood memories, though they've been pushed back against one wall as the amount of trivia I've accumulated over the years has built up (Vincent Price played the Batman villian Eggman on the Adam West tv series);
another room has got most of my sports stuff: soccer cleats and shin guards from my under-12 season, broken street hockey nets tangled with street hockey sticks, uniforms from some of my youth hockey teams, basketballs, soccer balls, a ton of tennis balls, wiffleballs, old bases, old baseball gloves, team jackets, rollerblades, and so on.
But. There's a room up here that I don't use for clutter. It's in the same hallway, but there are two differences: the door is usually shut during the winter, and it's clean and neat and tidy.
It's the baseball room.
It's a small room, a little bigger than a small closet. It's got a large window with lead counter weights in the frame. It's got a small three-drawer desk with an old radio on it. There's plenty of floor space to spread out rosters, or stats cards. Blank scorecards are set neatly on a shelf above the desk that also holds a framed team photo of the 2004 World Champion Red Sox. On the wall facing the window there's a faded Boston Braves pennant, and a Boston Red Sox pennant from my first ever baseball game at Fenway Park. On the back wall there's a little bookcase that's got mostly biographies of major leaguers (like Ted Williams, Honus Wagner, and Joe DiMaggio) and a couple books on baseball (Summer of '49, Ball Four), Baseball Prospectus for the last five years, and a few binders on the bottom shelf with some baseball cards I've still got kicking around.
It's where I got to watch games. There's a copy of the Rules of Baseball on the desk for quick reference if needed, and a box each of black, blue, and red pens (for the keeping score).
It's one of my favorite rooms. I don't clutter it up with stuff, ever. Even when all the other rooms seem full and I just don't have anywhere to put your name, and why I should care about you, I leave that room alone.
Nope, instead I'll wander around for a little while holding that bit of info, and toss it when I judge it too much work for too little benefit (which is why I don't remember friends' significant others, or new coworkers); or that it's important enough to remember, and get rid of some other bit of information I've got kicking about to make room (which is why I forget telephone numbers - sorry, Adina).
But no matter how much junk I stuff into closets, or how many bits of personal history I've got to toss out, I'll keep that baseball room clean.
With the door open, I've got more space to move around, and I've got a quiet place to sit meditate. Things make more sense in that room, and I think better when it's open.
-t
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Casting: A New Meme (sort of)
I'm inventing a new meme. This is what happens when creativity is clubbed to death like a pitiful baby seal on the ice floes of the Antarctic by poachers (here, represented by my constant work flow, and manager with a head cold).
It goes like this:
1. Think of a group of about eight people you know, friends, coworkers, aunts, uncles, and older cousins, whoever. Include yourself.
2. If you, as a group, were the cast of Lost, who would you be? Who's Jack? Locke? Claire? and why? Are the group of people that sit two rows over in your office the Others? Is your ex-Iraqi military friend Sayid - or is he really more of a Boone character, because he's sort of annoying and you wish you could just write him out of the show already. Are you Kate, because you're tough and running from the law - or are you Jack, because your father is an alcoholic?
3. If you don't watch Lost, substitute either, Heroes, if your friends can travel through time and turn invisible, Grey's Anatomy, if all you and your office mates do is hook up with each other and then whine about it, or 24, if any of your friends is an honest-to-goodness Jack Bauer caliber superhero.
That's it. Tada!
(Oh, also, if you don't watch Lost but are planning to in the future, just skip this post. I don't want to spoil anything for you.)
If My Group Of Blog Friends And I Crash Landed On A Mysterious Island Somewhere In The Pacific:
Me: I'd be Jack, obviously, since I am totally capable of using assorted pieces of plane fuselage to amputate limbs during emergency life-saving medical procedures. Also, I'd look badass with some tattoos, and I'm a natural leader. And also I loved Party of Five. If I can't be Jack I'd totally be Ben, that manipulative bastard.
Donny would be Locke. Donny's Boy Scout background gives him the outdoors edge, plus he's an introspective, meditative type of individual who ponders the big questions, like our man Locke. Donny's also got a shot at Tom as he's the only one that could grow the character's beard.
John, though, might also be Locke, as they share the same first name, and John once donated a kidney to his dad. Ok, I'm lying. John's also got a shot at Sayid, as he speaks two languages, but might have some trouble trying to pull of the bad-ass half of Sayid's character.
Adina is probably Sun, because they are both Korean. This would also, automatically, make Mr. Anonymous Jin, but that's a good fit. I'm certain Mr. Anon could catch fish for everybody and would look great in handcuffs. Alternately, Adina would be Hurley, as she'd be the first one to start hoarding rations.
Jackie gets to be Rouseau, the crazy woman who lives in the forest and shoots trespassers. That really seems like a perfect fit for the Baltimorean.
Samantha's medical background and OR experience put her in contention for the role of Jack, Juliette, or if she's not squeamish about torture, Sayid.
Felecia would be either Sun (a biology degree would help with the homeopathic cures) or Juliette (the experience with reproductive systems is a lock). Or, with her impending move to the other side of the country, possibly Michael.
Erin would almost definitely be Kate, because she's got the build for it, and she seems like she'd be dangerous holding a grudge. Erin's also got a shot at Charley, Desmond, or Jack's dad, for substance abuse, but the edge would got to drunky-drunk Desmond.
Jenny's Tom, the guy who's seemingly in charge until you figure out the big picture. Also possibly Sawyer, because she likes lots of stuff, and would make the smart play early and grab what she could - and they both wear glasses.
Jayne's Claire. Quiet, unassuming Claire, who's rarely heard from, but almost certainly has a bigger role to play in the future...
Lindsay is Shannon, who falls for the foreign tough guy, or more probably, Charley due to the loves-music thing. Lindsay probably wouldn't love Charley's music though. Except track #2 "A Monster Ate The Pilot."
Jane gets credit for being an observant reporter, like Mikhail, but seems more like one of the good guys just trying to figure stuff out. That seems to fit with Hurley a bit, once she wins the lottery. On the other hand, Jane's accent places her firmly in the Australian camp, which means she's Claire.
And, Eileen, a world traveller like Desmond. Likes soccer, sailing, and Charles Dickens, likes pushing buttons. Desmond to a tee.
-t
If you were mentioned, consider yourself tagged.
It goes like this:
1. Think of a group of about eight people you know, friends, coworkers, aunts, uncles, and older cousins, whoever. Include yourself.
2. If you, as a group, were the cast of Lost, who would you be? Who's Jack? Locke? Claire? and why? Are the group of people that sit two rows over in your office the Others? Is your ex-Iraqi military friend Sayid - or is he really more of a Boone character, because he's sort of annoying and you wish you could just write him out of the show already. Are you Kate, because you're tough and running from the law - or are you Jack, because your father is an alcoholic?
3. If you don't watch Lost, substitute either, Heroes, if your friends can travel through time and turn invisible, Grey's Anatomy, if all you and your office mates do is hook up with each other and then whine about it, or 24, if any of your friends is an honest-to-goodness Jack Bauer caliber superhero.
That's it. Tada!
(Oh, also, if you don't watch Lost but are planning to in the future, just skip this post. I don't want to spoil anything for you.)
If My Group Of Blog Friends And I Crash Landed On A Mysterious Island Somewhere In The Pacific:
Me: I'd be Jack, obviously, since I am totally capable of using assorted pieces of plane fuselage to amputate limbs during emergency life-saving medical procedures. Also, I'd look badass with some tattoos, and I'm a natural leader. And also I loved Party of Five. If I can't be Jack I'd totally be Ben, that manipulative bastard.
Donny would be Locke. Donny's Boy Scout background gives him the outdoors edge, plus he's an introspective, meditative type of individual who ponders the big questions, like our man Locke. Donny's also got a shot at Tom as he's the only one that could grow the character's beard.
John, though, might also be Locke, as they share the same first name, and John once donated a kidney to his dad. Ok, I'm lying. John's also got a shot at Sayid, as he speaks two languages, but might have some trouble trying to pull of the bad-ass half of Sayid's character.
Adina is probably Sun, because they are both Korean. This would also, automatically, make Mr. Anonymous Jin, but that's a good fit. I'm certain Mr. Anon could catch fish for everybody and would look great in handcuffs. Alternately, Adina would be Hurley, as she'd be the first one to start hoarding rations.
Jackie gets to be Rouseau, the crazy woman who lives in the forest and shoots trespassers. That really seems like a perfect fit for the Baltimorean.
Samantha's medical background and OR experience put her in contention for the role of Jack, Juliette, or if she's not squeamish about torture, Sayid.
Felecia would be either Sun (a biology degree would help with the homeopathic cures) or Juliette (the experience with reproductive systems is a lock). Or, with her impending move to the other side of the country, possibly Michael.
Erin would almost definitely be Kate, because she's got the build for it, and she seems like she'd be dangerous holding a grudge. Erin's also got a shot at Charley, Desmond, or Jack's dad, for substance abuse, but the edge would got to drunky-drunk Desmond.
Jenny's Tom, the guy who's seemingly in charge until you figure out the big picture. Also possibly Sawyer, because she likes lots of stuff, and would make the smart play early and grab what she could - and they both wear glasses.
Jayne's Claire. Quiet, unassuming Claire, who's rarely heard from, but almost certainly has a bigger role to play in the future...
Lindsay is Shannon, who falls for the foreign tough guy, or more probably, Charley due to the loves-music thing. Lindsay probably wouldn't love Charley's music though. Except track #2 "A Monster Ate The Pilot."
Jane gets credit for being an observant reporter, like Mikhail, but seems more like one of the good guys just trying to figure stuff out. That seems to fit with Hurley a bit, once she wins the lottery. On the other hand, Jane's accent places her firmly in the Australian camp, which means she's Claire.
And, Eileen, a world traveller like Desmond. Likes soccer, sailing, and Charles Dickens, likes pushing buttons. Desmond to a tee.
-t
If you were mentioned, consider yourself tagged.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Reeder Update: MLB
The Red Sox are off to a great start, playing lots of early afternoon baseball, and I'm stuck here in the office with no television.
So, rather than sit and mope about yahoo box scores being my only source of MLB info, I'm issuing a call for help to my national audience:
Help me find one good sports blog for each team in the American League. (Additionally, the National Leage ;)
I've got a few on my reeder now for the Red Sox like Curt Schilling's 38pitches, Rob Bradford's Bradford On Baseball, and Soxaholix.
I also managed to grab a Kansas City Royals blog a few weeks ago, written by Joe Posnanski, The Soul of Baseball.
And one of my longtime favorites is the Houston Astro's blog Plunk Biggio, which is "Dedicated to Craig Biggio and his (probably unintentional) Quest to break the all time major league career record for getting hit by pitches."
So, to any of Bostonians that follow out-of-town teams, or any of you out-of-towners that follow your local teams, or anybody out there that follows any team, what do you read?
We've got a series with the Toronto Blue Jays starting tonight (I'm still not used to their new logos) so that might be a good place to start. (And I'm always on the lookout for other Sox blogs. Can't have too much of a good thing!)
My current reeding list:
Baseball & Sports
Dan Shanoff
Beyond the Box Score
Fire Joe Morgan
Uniwatch
AL East
Boston Red Sox
-38pitches
-Brownie Points
-Drunken Bleachers
-Feeding the Monster
-The Joy of Sox
New York Yankees
-Blogging the Bombers
Toronto Blue Jays
Baltimore Orioles
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
AL Central
Detroit Tigers
Chicago White Sox
Minnesota Twins
Cleveland Indians
Kansas City Royals
-The Soul of Baseball
AL West
Los Angeles Angels(of Anaheim)
Seattle Mariners
Oakland Athletics
Texas Rangers
NL East
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Atlanta Braves
Florida Marlins
Washington Nationals
NL Central
Chicago Cubs
Milwaukee Brewers
St. Louis Cardinals
Houston Astros
-Plunk Biggio
Cincinnati Reds
Pittsburgh Pirates
NL West
San Fransisco Giants
San Diego Padres
Los Angeles Dodgers
Arizona Diamondbacks
Colorado Rockies
I'm 3 for 30. Batting .100 so far.
-t
So, rather than sit and mope about yahoo box scores being my only source of MLB info, I'm issuing a call for help to my national audience:
Help me find one good sports blog for each team in the American League. (Additionally, the National Leage ;)
I've got a few on my reeder now for the Red Sox like Curt Schilling's 38pitches, Rob Bradford's Bradford On Baseball, and Soxaholix.
I also managed to grab a Kansas City Royals blog a few weeks ago, written by Joe Posnanski, The Soul of Baseball.
And one of my longtime favorites is the Houston Astro's blog Plunk Biggio, which is "Dedicated to Craig Biggio and his (probably unintentional) Quest to break the all time major league career record for getting hit by pitches."
So, to any of Bostonians that follow out-of-town teams, or any of you out-of-towners that follow your local teams, or anybody out there that follows any team, what do you read?
We've got a series with the Toronto Blue Jays starting tonight (I'm still not used to their new logos) so that might be a good place to start. (And I'm always on the lookout for other Sox blogs. Can't have too much of a good thing!)
My current reeding list:
Baseball & Sports
Dan Shanoff
Beyond the Box Score
Fire Joe Morgan
Uniwatch
AL East
Boston Red Sox
-38pitches
-Brownie Points
-Drunken Bleachers
-Feeding the Monster
-The Joy of Sox
New York Yankees
-Blogging the Bombers
Toronto Blue Jays
Baltimore Orioles
Tampa Bay Devil Rays
AL Central
Detroit Tigers
Chicago White Sox
Minnesota Twins
Cleveland Indians
Kansas City Royals
-The Soul of Baseball
AL West
Los Angeles Angels(of Anaheim)
Seattle Mariners
Oakland Athletics
Texas Rangers
NL East
New York Mets
Philadelphia Phillies
Atlanta Braves
Florida Marlins
Washington Nationals
NL Central
Chicago Cubs
Milwaukee Brewers
St. Louis Cardinals
Houston Astros
-Plunk Biggio
Cincinnati Reds
Pittsburgh Pirates
NL West
San Fransisco Giants
San Diego Padres
Los Angeles Dodgers
Arizona Diamondbacks
Colorado Rockies
I'm 3 for 30. Batting .100 so far.
-t
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Red Sox: 2008, Another Impossible Dream?
Over the course of the winter there's nothing like the incessant grinding of the Red Sox rumor mill - you've got your yearly Manny trade buzz, Coco Crisp daydreams, and musings about finding a Gonzalez-caliber defensive shortstop with Lugo's bat and speed. It seems that in the last few weeks of spring training this year things really kicked into high gear, especially with the will-he-or-won't-he Papelbon (anti)drama.
Some of the better rumors included:
Clemens! Can we sign him if he decides to pitch this year!?!?!
Should we trade for Houston's Brad Lidge? Sure he's had a rough season so far, but maybe he'll turn it around! That's why we took a shot with Snyder, right?
How about a deal that will send Lester, Hansen, and Manny to Chicago for Soriano?
Move Lowell and Mirabelli to bring back Edgar Renteria!
There's some crazy stuff out there.
One of the most ludicrous stories I've heard this year is the suggestion that we should deal Manny for the Seattle Mariner's Ichiro, straight up.
First of all, I don't ever want to see Manny in any uniform other than Boston's, and, second of all, and way more importantly, Ichiro is a free agent at the end of this year! We'd be dealing one of the greatest hitters in baseball for four months of a declining former-greatest hitter that we'd then lose at the end of the season to free agency!
Ridiculous.
But, it got me to thinking. What if we really were interested in Ichiro. We could pick him up at the end of the season in free agency. We've certainly demonstrated that we're willing to pay over-and-above top dollar for Japanese talent. As long as John Henry's writing the checks, I say, the moon's the limit!
What if money weren't an option? Put on your Steinbrenner caps now (I kid, I kid, I wouldn't be caught dead in a Yankees cap - or pinstripes) and think about writing an awfully big check for the 2008 free agent class:
Johan Santana - declined an extension with the Twins at $9 million a year for two years. Would probably command $20 million per in free agency.
Torii Hunter - another Twin on the move, Coco's detractors would certainly cheer to see him flying around in center field. Unless of course you could get
Andruw Jones - who will probably be the biggest free agent signing of next year, whoever lands him. There's also
Adam Dunn - who's off to a great start this year for the Reds in the NL. And, of course,
Ichiro Suzuki - I was only kidding about him being on the decline. Sure his numbers have decreased for each of the last four seasons, but he's just gone from being light-years ahead of everybody else, to being miles beyond everybody else. And man, he's fast.
You've also got Roger Clemens (who should definitely end his career in Boston, though I really believe the Red Sox brass wouldn't be too disappointed if he ended up somewhere else, because at least then the organization won't have to field the inevitable performing enhancers probe), Carlos Zambrano (about a zillion sports writers' pick to win the Cy Young), Freddy Garcia (top of the rotation pitching! get 'em while they're young!), and, oh, Mariano Rivera - (he probably won't be coming to Boston).
Oh, oh yeah, I forgot to mention, there is one more potential free agent, maybe, possibly worth a look, you know, if your home town team is in the habit of picking up a new shortstop every single season (I'm looking at you, Theo):
Alex Rodriguez.
Whoa. Whoa. Enough with the throwing of the batteries. Two points:
1. Rodriguez is the best shortstop to ever play the game of baseball.
2. There is no second point, Alex Rodriguez is the best shortstop to ever play the game of baseball!
Now imagine. Just for a second. With all these guys on the table. Here's what the roster could look like:
C Jason Varitek (.269/.348/.450)
1B Kevin Youkilis (.275/.379/.423)
2B Dustin Pedroia (.191/.258/.303)
3B Mike Lowell (.273/.339/.463)
SS Alex Rodriguez (.305/.386/.573)
OF
Manny Ramirez (.314/.411/.600)
Andruw Jones (.267/.345/.505)
JD Drew (.286/.393/.512)
Ichiro Suzuki (.331/.376/.438)
DH David Ortiz (.283/.374/.550)
SP
Josh Beckett (57-45, 3.85)
Johan Santana (78-31, 3.20)
Daisuke Matsuzaka (17-9, 3.62)*
Roger Clemens (348-178, 3.10)
John Lester (7-2, 4.76)
Curt Schilling (207-138, 3.44)
Tim Wakefield (151-134, 4.30)
RP
Joe Nathan (124, 210.2, 1.97)
Brad Lidge (104, 134, 3.29)
Javier Lopez (4, 132, 5.66)
Craig Hansen (0, 41, 6.59)
JC Romero (2, 456, 4.60)
Brendan Donnelly (4, 295, 2.87)
Kyle Snyder (0, 181.2, 5.94)
CL
Jonathan Papelbon (35, 68.1, .92)**
Some quick notes to wrap it up:
-The above stats are career numbers through 2006 from Retrosheet (except Matsuzaka's - see * below).
Hitters (AVG/OBP/SLG), SP (W-L/ERA), Bullpen (Saves, IP, ERA)
-No, I have no idea how to trade for Brad Lidge and keeep Hansen at the same time. Both phenomenal closers (one pre-, one -post) with phenomenal sliders, you figure Houston wouldn't hate to swap them straight up) but it would be cool to have both.
-Lidge (7th) and Nathan (8th) would set up for Papelbon. No question.
-I'd be ok with losing Clemens to the Astros (or retirement) by next year, and Schilling, potentially, and replacing either with Carlos Zambrano, or Freddy Garcia.
-I'd try to hang on to Wily Mo Pena and Doug Mirabelli, and stick Ichiro with them as bench guys. Platoon Wily Mo with Drew in right, and Ichiro with Jones in left.
-I was under the impression that the Sox are thinking about moving Lowell sometime this year, but I have no idea who they'd get to replace him. He' certainly the best third baseman in free agency after this season.
-I also kept my eyes open for first basemen, thinking if they do drop Lowell they could shift Youkilis to third and open a spot for a heavy hitter, but I like it the way it is.
-Pedroia. Sure, his numbers look terrible (especially compared to the rest of the lineup), but the guys upstairs have faith in him, so I'm ok with that.
-Finally, recognizing that six of these guys would be signing ridiculous free agent contracts, I would say the payroll for 2008 might be somewhere in the range of eight hundred seventy-three billion dollars.
*My prediction for Matsuzaka's 2007 MLB season
**Papelbon's numbers are from 2006 only
Some of the better rumors included:
Clemens! Can we sign him if he decides to pitch this year!?!?!
Should we trade for Houston's Brad Lidge? Sure he's had a rough season so far, but maybe he'll turn it around! That's why we took a shot with Snyder, right?
How about a deal that will send Lester, Hansen, and Manny to Chicago for Soriano?
Move Lowell and Mirabelli to bring back Edgar Renteria!
There's some crazy stuff out there.
One of the most ludicrous stories I've heard this year is the suggestion that we should deal Manny for the Seattle Mariner's Ichiro, straight up.
First of all, I don't ever want to see Manny in any uniform other than Boston's, and, second of all, and way more importantly, Ichiro is a free agent at the end of this year! We'd be dealing one of the greatest hitters in baseball for four months of a declining former-greatest hitter that we'd then lose at the end of the season to free agency!
Ridiculous.
But, it got me to thinking. What if we really were interested in Ichiro. We could pick him up at the end of the season in free agency. We've certainly demonstrated that we're willing to pay over-and-above top dollar for Japanese talent. As long as John Henry's writing the checks, I say, the moon's the limit!
What if money weren't an option? Put on your Steinbrenner caps now (I kid, I kid, I wouldn't be caught dead in a Yankees cap - or pinstripes) and think about writing an awfully big check for the 2008 free agent class:
Johan Santana - declined an extension with the Twins at $9 million a year for two years. Would probably command $20 million per in free agency.
Torii Hunter - another Twin on the move, Coco's detractors would certainly cheer to see him flying around in center field. Unless of course you could get
Andruw Jones - who will probably be the biggest free agent signing of next year, whoever lands him. There's also
Adam Dunn - who's off to a great start this year for the Reds in the NL. And, of course,
Ichiro Suzuki - I was only kidding about him being on the decline. Sure his numbers have decreased for each of the last four seasons, but he's just gone from being light-years ahead of everybody else, to being miles beyond everybody else. And man, he's fast.
You've also got Roger Clemens (who should definitely end his career in Boston, though I really believe the Red Sox brass wouldn't be too disappointed if he ended up somewhere else, because at least then the organization won't have to field the inevitable performing enhancers probe), Carlos Zambrano (about a zillion sports writers' pick to win the Cy Young), Freddy Garcia (top of the rotation pitching! get 'em while they're young!), and, oh, Mariano Rivera - (he probably won't be coming to Boston).
Oh, oh yeah, I forgot to mention, there is one more potential free agent, maybe, possibly worth a look, you know, if your home town team is in the habit of picking up a new shortstop every single season (I'm looking at you, Theo):
Alex Rodriguez.
Whoa. Whoa. Enough with the throwing of the batteries. Two points:
1. Rodriguez is the best shortstop to ever play the game of baseball.
2. There is no second point, Alex Rodriguez is the best shortstop to ever play the game of baseball!
Now imagine. Just for a second. With all these guys on the table. Here's what the roster could look like:
C Jason Varitek (.269/.348/.450)
1B Kevin Youkilis (.275/.379/.423)
2B Dustin Pedroia (.191/.258/.303)
3B Mike Lowell (.273/.339/.463)
SS Alex Rodriguez (.305/.386/.573)
OF
Manny Ramirez (.314/.411/.600)
Andruw Jones (.267/.345/.505)
JD Drew (.286/.393/.512)
Ichiro Suzuki (.331/.376/.438)
DH David Ortiz (.283/.374/.550)
SP
Josh Beckett (57-45, 3.85)
Johan Santana (78-31, 3.20)
Daisuke Matsuzaka (17-9, 3.62)*
Roger Clemens (348-178, 3.10)
John Lester (7-2, 4.76)
Curt Schilling (207-138, 3.44)
Tim Wakefield (151-134, 4.30)
RP
Joe Nathan (124, 210.2, 1.97)
Brad Lidge (104, 134, 3.29)
Javier Lopez (4, 132, 5.66)
Craig Hansen (0, 41, 6.59)
JC Romero (2, 456, 4.60)
Brendan Donnelly (4, 295, 2.87)
Kyle Snyder (0, 181.2, 5.94)
CL
Jonathan Papelbon (35, 68.1, .92)**
Some quick notes to wrap it up:
-The above stats are career numbers through 2006 from Retrosheet (except Matsuzaka's - see * below).
Hitters (AVG/OBP/SLG), SP (W-L/ERA), Bullpen (Saves, IP, ERA)
-No, I have no idea how to trade for Brad Lidge and keeep Hansen at the same time. Both phenomenal closers (one pre-, one -post) with phenomenal sliders, you figure Houston wouldn't hate to swap them straight up) but it would be cool to have both.
-Lidge (7th) and Nathan (8th) would set up for Papelbon. No question.
-I'd be ok with losing Clemens to the Astros (or retirement) by next year, and Schilling, potentially, and replacing either with Carlos Zambrano, or Freddy Garcia.
-I'd try to hang on to Wily Mo Pena and Doug Mirabelli, and stick Ichiro with them as bench guys. Platoon Wily Mo with Drew in right, and Ichiro with Jones in left.
-I was under the impression that the Sox are thinking about moving Lowell sometime this year, but I have no idea who they'd get to replace him. He' certainly the best third baseman in free agency after this season.
-I also kept my eyes open for first basemen, thinking if they do drop Lowell they could shift Youkilis to third and open a spot for a heavy hitter, but I like it the way it is.
-Pedroia. Sure, his numbers look terrible (especially compared to the rest of the lineup), but the guys upstairs have faith in him, so I'm ok with that.
-Finally, recognizing that six of these guys would be signing ridiculous free agent contracts, I would say the payroll for 2008 might be somewhere in the range of eight hundred seventy-three billion dollars.
*My prediction for Matsuzaka's 2007 MLB season
**Papelbon's numbers are from 2006 only
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Stacked
There's a pile of papers sitting at the end of my desk, just past my phone and my right elbow. It's a big stack, maybe a foot-and-a-half high, but it's not in the way of anything.
I inherited the stack of papers. They do nothing but sit there. No one has come looking for them, they are totally inert. I'd guess they belonged to the previous tenant - or one of the many previous tenants. I also got a notebook and a furry pen with a goofy looking cat topper when I switched to this desk. (They were in the lower left hand drawer.)
I'd like to point this out again: They're not in the way. Of anything. At all.
Which is why, I assume, my manager came over and said, "Hey, you should give these papers back to whoever they belong to, whoever sat here before you. The cash team might need them and they're probably in the way."
They're not, actually, in the way. I don't even use that side of my desk. I've got two pens, a stenographer's notebook, and a bottle of Gatorade on my desk. They're all on the left.
Maybe he just doesn't like the look of a big inert stack of papers on the desk. If that's the case, though, I hardly think making their removal my responsibility is appropriate.
The big stack of papers isn't bothering anybody but you? Maybe you should take care of it then. I've got other things to do, relevant, important things.
Like posting.
-t
I inherited the stack of papers. They do nothing but sit there. No one has come looking for them, they are totally inert. I'd guess they belonged to the previous tenant - or one of the many previous tenants. I also got a notebook and a furry pen with a goofy looking cat topper when I switched to this desk. (They were in the lower left hand drawer.)
I'd like to point this out again: They're not in the way. Of anything. At all.
Which is why, I assume, my manager came over and said, "Hey, you should give these papers back to whoever they belong to, whoever sat here before you. The cash team might need them and they're probably in the way."
They're not, actually, in the way. I don't even use that side of my desk. I've got two pens, a stenographer's notebook, and a bottle of Gatorade on my desk. They're all on the left.
Maybe he just doesn't like the look of a big inert stack of papers on the desk. If that's the case, though, I hardly think making their removal my responsibility is appropriate.
The big stack of papers isn't bothering anybody but you? Maybe you should take care of it then. I've got other things to do, relevant, important things.
Like posting.
-t
Monday, April 09, 2007
Lost
Lost.
Everytime I've opened a window to start up a blog post for the past few weeks one word comes to mind.
Lost.
There's a notion, that wherever you might wake up and find yourself, dazed and confused, even in the middle of the night, I can't for the life of me understand how you could possibly consider yourself "lost."
Right? You wake up in the middle of the desert. It's hot. There's lots of sand. But you know where you are, you know? You wake up someplace surrounded by trees, maybe you're in the mountains, you think "Shit. I'm in the middle of the woods." but the very next thing you think is "Pick a direction, start walking, I'm bound to hit a road sooner or later."
And you'd be right.
Now, I'm not saying you'll necessarily survive. You could wake up in the middle of the Sahara with no water or food and maybe thousands of miles from the nearest caravan route...
But you'd at least know where you were.
You're never lost, is my point.
I guess.
One for a challenge, of course, I bent to the task of figuring out exactly where you'd have to be to not know where it was you be'd.
Way out in the solar system? You'd probably look around, notice you're stranded on a frozen rock, you can't tell which point of light is your home sun, and that gaudy Texas-shaped novelty brass belt buckle isn't weighing you down quite as much as you'd remembered, and guess you're at least close to the Kupier Belt.
How far out would you have to go to be totally lost?
I discount being lost in a dream, because you're right, you might totally feel lost, but that's just the feeling, not the place.
So what's next? Maybe an informed person can't ever be lost.
Which is maybe ok - but I'll keep thinking about it.
-t
"Lost" isn't a place you can get to in the United States, but according to the U.S. Census Bureau you can visit Lost River City, Iowa; Lost Lake Woods, Michgan; Lost City, Oklahoma; and a few others.
Everytime I've opened a window to start up a blog post for the past few weeks one word comes to mind.
Lost.
There's a notion, that wherever you might wake up and find yourself, dazed and confused, even in the middle of the night, I can't for the life of me understand how you could possibly consider yourself "lost."
Right? You wake up in the middle of the desert. It's hot. There's lots of sand. But you know where you are, you know? You wake up someplace surrounded by trees, maybe you're in the mountains, you think "Shit. I'm in the middle of the woods." but the very next thing you think is "Pick a direction, start walking, I'm bound to hit a road sooner or later."
And you'd be right.
Now, I'm not saying you'll necessarily survive. You could wake up in the middle of the Sahara with no water or food and maybe thousands of miles from the nearest caravan route...
But you'd at least know where you were.
You're never lost, is my point.
I guess.
One for a challenge, of course, I bent to the task of figuring out exactly where you'd have to be to not know where it was you be'd.
Way out in the solar system? You'd probably look around, notice you're stranded on a frozen rock, you can't tell which point of light is your home sun, and that gaudy Texas-shaped novelty brass belt buckle isn't weighing you down quite as much as you'd remembered, and guess you're at least close to the Kupier Belt.
How far out would you have to go to be totally lost?
I discount being lost in a dream, because you're right, you might totally feel lost, but that's just the feeling, not the place.
So what's next? Maybe an informed person can't ever be lost.
Which is maybe ok - but I'll keep thinking about it.
-t
"Lost" isn't a place you can get to in the United States, but according to the U.S. Census Bureau you can visit Lost River City, Iowa; Lost Lake Woods, Michgan; Lost City, Oklahoma; and a few others.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
My World Takeover Bid Just Got One Step Closer To Realization
Seriously, you guys, I'm still recruiting. Think about how badass you'd look as my minions when you strap this thing on:
TAM Custom Rocket Belt
grabbed that from Warren Ellis
I'm still thinking about helmet designs. Maybe something from Bob Bassett:
The pieces are coming in to view, it's only a matter of time.
TAM Custom Rocket Belt
grabbed that from Warren Ellis
I'm still thinking about helmet designs. Maybe something from Bob Bassett:
The pieces are coming in to view, it's only a matter of time.
Forty-six and counting
I've developed a new system for tracking sleep-debt. It's sort of like keeping track of birthdays. A way to communicate how tired you are.
First, imagine an ideal period of sleep and waking. For the purposes of this example we'll say you're awake from 8AM to 10PM and asleep until 8AM. Every day this happens you've neither earned or lost any sleep time, you're starting from zero.
That's 10 hours of sleep and 14 of awake time. Good to be well-rested.
So, anyway, the system rates how tired you feel. Let's say you sleep until 10AM instead of 8AM. When you wake up you've gained two hours of sleep, or, you're negative two hours tired.
On the other hand, if you stay up past your 10PM bedtime, until 11PM, say, you've lost an hour of sleep, so even if you wake up at 8AM like you would on a normal day, you're one hour tired.
If you go for a week waking up at 8AM and going to bed at midnight, you're losing two hours of sleep per day, and not gaining any. If you sleep until 2PM on Saturday you've regained six hours, but you're still four hours in the hole.
Of course, it's cumulative, so if you've spent the last three weeks going to bed two hours too late, waking up an hour too early, only getting back three hours on the weekends, and today waking up an extra hour-and-a-half earlier to drive your stupid brother to school because "It's raining" you're now forty-six-and-one-half hours tired.
Except you're not you, you're me.
46.5, and it's only Wednesday. I now have to sleep for almost two days straight to break even.
This wouldn't be such a problem if they let me sleep on the job.
-t
First, imagine an ideal period of sleep and waking. For the purposes of this example we'll say you're awake from 8AM to 10PM and asleep until 8AM. Every day this happens you've neither earned or lost any sleep time, you're starting from zero.
That's 10 hours of sleep and 14 of awake time. Good to be well-rested.
So, anyway, the system rates how tired you feel. Let's say you sleep until 10AM instead of 8AM. When you wake up you've gained two hours of sleep, or, you're negative two hours tired.
On the other hand, if you stay up past your 10PM bedtime, until 11PM, say, you've lost an hour of sleep, so even if you wake up at 8AM like you would on a normal day, you're one hour tired.
If you go for a week waking up at 8AM and going to bed at midnight, you're losing two hours of sleep per day, and not gaining any. If you sleep until 2PM on Saturday you've regained six hours, but you're still four hours in the hole.
Of course, it's cumulative, so if you've spent the last three weeks going to bed two hours too late, waking up an hour too early, only getting back three hours on the weekends, and today waking up an extra hour-and-a-half earlier to drive your stupid brother to school because "It's raining" you're now forty-six-and-one-half hours tired.
Except you're not you, you're me.
46.5, and it's only Wednesday. I now have to sleep for almost two days straight to break even.
This wouldn't be such a problem if they let me sleep on the job.
-t
Monday, April 02, 2007
Back room politics
I'd like to make a case for a return to back room politics. It's worked in the past, it makes good financial sense, and, if executed correctly, can practically guarantee the winner of an election.
Historically, the national convention for each major political party here in the U.S. is the time and place for a rigorous discussion and ultimately a determination of the party's representative in the national election. More recently, the conventions have become nothing more than floor shows as the candidates have already been determined by the primaries. In either case, everybody knows who their candidate is at conventions end, which gives the party one message, one candidate, one goal, to focus on and promote.
And really, that's all I'm asking for - I just want to see it done eighteen months earlier in a secret meeting by the five most powerful members of the party.
A quick glance at the 2008 Democratic field yields two strong front runners, Obama and Clinton, each with their own strengths (popular appeal and fundraising, respectively), and a handful of others who may still have some time to either gain some momentum, or distract from the real race: Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd.
Call a secret meeting. Round them all up. Everybody, all your potential contenders. Bring in Gore and Kerry too. Do it early, before anyone has announced. Sit them all down in a room and say, "Listen. We're going with Edwards. Get on board."
Why not? You've then got a unified party from the very start. You've got all your strongest candidates supporting one guy, you've got the fundraising, the charm, the appeal, all working for one guy. You'll have one name on the ballot for the primaries, you won't have to compete for recognition, you won't have to field any attacks from within the party, you're golden.
It's win win win, because once the party's in power, all the other hopefuls get cushy jobs, or ridiculously awesome jobs, or super powerful jobs, or whatever, and they're next in line for the 2016 elections. It fixes everybody's problems. Think about it:
Run an Edwards/Clinton ticket for 2008; Edwards gets the financial support he needs from Clinton's fundraising. Nobody has to fight Obama in a popularity contest, the country gets its first female Vice President, which is a fine legacy for Clinton to leave, paving the way for generations of women to come, and the rest of the field, Gore, Kerry, et al, get a strong friend in the White House.
Once in power, you just need to worry about setting yourself up for a continued reign. Obama is getting flak for inexperience; How will he look in 2016 after serving four more years in Congress, then four as Vice President? How about a two year Senate term, then two years as ambassador to the UN, or China, then a Vice Presidency? If not Obama in 2016, maybe Gore. In the intervening eight years he'd do well to continue an independent campaign for the environment, but might do just as well with the same campaign as a high-ranking member of the Cabinet.
Maybe something like this:
2008
Edwards/Clinton : POTUS/VPOTUS
Obama : Senator
Kerry : Chairman, Ways and Means
2012
Gore/Obama : POTUS/VPOTUS
Clinton : Secretary of Health and Human Services
2016
Obama : POTUS
Any oversights? Glaring omissions? (Anybody want to set up a meeting?)
-t
Historically, the national convention for each major political party here in the U.S. is the time and place for a rigorous discussion and ultimately a determination of the party's representative in the national election. More recently, the conventions have become nothing more than floor shows as the candidates have already been determined by the primaries. In either case, everybody knows who their candidate is at conventions end, which gives the party one message, one candidate, one goal, to focus on and promote.
And really, that's all I'm asking for - I just want to see it done eighteen months earlier in a secret meeting by the five most powerful members of the party.
A quick glance at the 2008 Democratic field yields two strong front runners, Obama and Clinton, each with their own strengths (popular appeal and fundraising, respectively), and a handful of others who may still have some time to either gain some momentum, or distract from the real race: Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd.
Call a secret meeting. Round them all up. Everybody, all your potential contenders. Bring in Gore and Kerry too. Do it early, before anyone has announced. Sit them all down in a room and say, "Listen. We're going with Edwards. Get on board."
Why not? You've then got a unified party from the very start. You've got all your strongest candidates supporting one guy, you've got the fundraising, the charm, the appeal, all working for one guy. You'll have one name on the ballot for the primaries, you won't have to compete for recognition, you won't have to field any attacks from within the party, you're golden.
It's win win win, because once the party's in power, all the other hopefuls get cushy jobs, or ridiculously awesome jobs, or super powerful jobs, or whatever, and they're next in line for the 2016 elections. It fixes everybody's problems. Think about it:
Run an Edwards/Clinton ticket for 2008; Edwards gets the financial support he needs from Clinton's fundraising. Nobody has to fight Obama in a popularity contest, the country gets its first female Vice President, which is a fine legacy for Clinton to leave, paving the way for generations of women to come, and the rest of the field, Gore, Kerry, et al, get a strong friend in the White House.
Once in power, you just need to worry about setting yourself up for a continued reign. Obama is getting flak for inexperience; How will he look in 2016 after serving four more years in Congress, then four as Vice President? How about a two year Senate term, then two years as ambassador to the UN, or China, then a Vice Presidency? If not Obama in 2016, maybe Gore. In the intervening eight years he'd do well to continue an independent campaign for the environment, but might do just as well with the same campaign as a high-ranking member of the Cabinet.
Maybe something like this:
2008
Edwards/Clinton : POTUS/VPOTUS
Obama : Senator
Kerry : Chairman, Ways and Means
2012
Gore/Obama : POTUS/VPOTUS
Clinton : Secretary of Health and Human Services
2016
Obama : POTUS
Any oversights? Glaring omissions? (Anybody want to set up a meeting?)
-t
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)