Lammycat Posted February 11, 2009 Author Share Posted February 11, 2009 Makes no sense for them, the one thing they don't need is another outfielder or 1B. Dunn, Young, Johnson, Milledge, Dukes, Patterson, Willingham, Wily Mo Pena, and Austin Kearns, Most teams only carry 12-13 hitters, and they've got 9-10 between just OF and 1B, with most of them already under contract.It could be argued (uh oh...) that Dunn is better than any of the other OFs, though, which makes the other guys dispensible. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Makes no sense for them, the one thing they don't need is another outfielder or 1B. Dunn, Young, Johnson, Milledge, Dukes, Patterson, Willingham, Wily Mo Pena, and Austin Kearns, Most teams only carry 12-13 hitters, and they've got 9-10 between just OF and 1B, with most of them already under contract. Yeah he should have gone to the cubs. They need more outfielders Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 It could be argued (uh oh...) that Dunn is better than any of the other OFs, though, which makes the other guys dispensible. Dunn probably steps in and is their best player right now, but that means they got Willingham for no reason, because he can't play anything but LF or 1B. Unless they want Dunn to play RF, in which case he becomes significantly less valuable because he's probably the worst RFer in baseball. Ideally, you have an outfield of Dunn, Milledge, and Dukes, but then you are wasting Willingham's bat. The rest of the guys are 4th or 5th outfield type guys, but most of them are already under contract and probably guaranteed a roster spot. Or you put Dunn at first and have Willingham at LF, but that only works if you are hoping that both Nick Johnson and Dmitri Young are hurt, but then you are basically spending 27 million dollars for Dunn to play first and Johnson and Young to sit out. Their moves this offseason have been really odd, and I'm not sure they've improved. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 11, 2009 Author Share Posted February 11, 2009 Kearns, Wily Mo, Dunn = Reds..... Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I got confused and a little bit scared for a second. I thought you meant they were still Reds. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Well, the Nats have a long tradition of shitty Washington baseball to uphold. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Hey, Jorge. Keep an eye out on Sox farmhand Jorge Castillo. He's an FIU alum. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Cool. Got a link to a scouting report? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 He's a marginal prospect, at best, but he did light the world on fire in short season rookie ball and then a small stint at A. Might be a guy to watch this season at A or high A. He was a 7th round pick last year, I think. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 26th. I think the White Sox were too busy drafting Kenny Williams' son in the 7th. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Ah, right. Only 19 rounds off. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I've read (don't have a link presently) that using greenies eventually wear a player down. It';s speed. It's used to pep a guy up. I don't see how it makes a player stronger or alters the body to be super-human in any way. I'm not condoning them, but there is a pretty big distinction betweem the two, as far as I can tell (which is limited on greenies). So greenies are a lesser sin because they don't work as well? Did the players in question (either the meth-heads or the roiders) know that when they committed their infractions? Anyway, I'll also sign on for Wieters in the AL. Don't know enough about who's coming up in the NL to make a pick. And the Mexican assrape story doesn't make much sense as a source for Alomar's HIV -- if he got it way back then, I wouldn't think he would have been able to stay healthy for such a long career, especially in light of the fact that there's no way he was getting treatment for it, since he refused to even find out if he had it. The impression I got was that the accuser disclosed the rape for the purpose of humiliating Alomar even further than the lawsuit itself does. Not that I feel very bad for him if these allegations turn out to be true. Yeah, Dunn is an awesome hitter but it creates a bit of a mess for the Nats. I think the reasoning behind it is that the Nats front office is terrible and probably didn't think things through before they made the signing. Either that or they already have a prospective trade lined up for one or a few of those guys. I'm guessing the former though. Link to post Share on other sites
Smokestack Joe Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Brewers signed Pitcher Bradon Looper. i sorta like it as it puts Seth McClung back in the pen. but no, doesnt replace Ben Sheets and CC. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 So greenies are a lesser sin because they don't work as well?Essentially, yes. They don't alter the body in ways that contribute to out-performing players not using them. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Why would a player take them if they don't alter the body in a way that contributes to outperforming players who aren't using them. You don't really believe that. Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Why would a player take them if they don't alter the body in a way that contributes to outperforming players who aren't using them. You don't really believe that. The same reason baseball players smoke pot maybe? Meaning people take drugs for all sorts of reasons, not just performance enhancement. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The players themselves say they used them to keep themselves from getting fatigued. They must be lying. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 The players themselves say they used them to keep themselves from getting fatigued. They must be lying.How does that alter their bodies to hit a ball harder, throw a ball harder, heal quicker, etc.? Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 How does that alter their bodies to hit a ball harder, throw a ball harder, heal quicker, etc.? It alters their mind which allows them to focus better than other players which allows them to hit balls harder. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 It alters their mind which allows them to focus better than other players which allows them to hit balls harder.Like coffee/caffeine? Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Like coffee/caffeine? No. Coffee/caffeine are not illegal. Just like eating 50 steaks for a protein overload is not illegal, but injecting your ass with illegal protein supplements equal to 50,000 steaks is. ETA: Lammy, I agree with you on much of this stuff, but I am having a hard time understanding how you draw the line between amphetamines and steroids. They are both illegal substances used to give players an edge. Safer to draw your line on the other side. Obviously, in my mind. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 ETA: Lammy, I agree with you on much of this stuff, but I am having a hard time understanding how you draw the line between amphetamines and steroids. They are both illegal substances used to give players an edge. Safer to draw your line on the other side. Obviously, in my mind.I guess I don't see pep pills (though illegal) as affecting the playing field (pun intended) to the utter degree that steroids have. They gave players more energy, supposedly. Like caffeine might. They (as far as I've read/heard) do not alter the body to the point that one could jump from 49 HRs in a season to 73 (or similar comparisons). Pep pills are/were illegal and banned and penalties should fit getting caught using them. I am not justifying cheating but continue to believe that degrees and affects (on the sport) of cheating need to be taken into account. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Why not just be all pissed off about both? I think a lot of the non-response to amphetamines has to do with the fact that there is a ton of evidence to suggest stars of the past used them, the ones who so many like to hold up as shining examples of what baseball should be. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 Why not just be all pissed off about both? I think a lot of the non-response to amphetamines has to do with the fact that there is a ton of evidence to suggest stars of the past used them, the ones who so many like to hold up as shining examples of what baseball should be.Why do you assume I'm "all pissed off" about one? I see a stark contrast in the two. Neither gets me "all pissed off," though. My convictions are merely as set as yours. You don't like my take on it and that won't change. It also doesn't alter my feelings on steroid use as opposed to other forms of cheating. Non-response? I've responded. It has nothing to do with who used steroids and who used greenies. At least for me. I think if there is a collective "non-response" from the masses it's because nothing suggests that taking amphetamines compares to taking steroids in terms of the affect (or lack of affect) both have had on the sport. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Greenies and steroids are both chemicals that physically alter your body in a way that, according to the players that took them, helps make you a better player. I think steroids probably do so to a greater extent, but I still can't get over how quick you are to write off other forms of cheating. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts