Better case. Better career.
Bonds. Clemens. Sheffield. Would give a long look at Kent. McGriff would be after Kent. I have, admittedly, had a hard time with Wagner, and with a binary ballot it would give me reason to consider a Yes for him and the precedent that would set for me when it comes to future relievers.
Outside the room. He still cannot get traction in the room where it happens. It's maddening.
I've outlined earlier in the chat why something about this moment right now, like the smell in the air before a storm, hints that there is still a move ahead for the Cardinals.
That's the goal. I was just checking a bit on this. The Grichuk deal was done earlier. It will likely be announced officially tomorrow. They usually do all of that at once. They're working toward a deal with Ozuna -- the trickiest of the group -- and then Lyons and Wacha as well. Wacha went to a hearing last year. I just stepped aside from the chat to update the story at StlToday.com about the story that looks at the approach the Cardinals are taking these days with arb.
This team is a nudge better, so you're looking 87-88. Close enough to 90 that a breakout year or one more addition would get them above it.
One more mini-break ought to do it, and then I'll be typing furiously from Florida in February.
Why would he want to do that? If he thinks he's capable of having the same season again, then you're talking about a windfall of money beyond that in the third and final year of arbitration,. Why would the Cardinals want to do that? If he shrinks back and doesn't echo last year's production, then you're paying for the peak cost and not getting any, none, zero give back on free agency as collateral. That doesn't make much sense for either side, really.
I don't get the reference.
This is an interesting question. From talking to pitchers and pitching coaches about this -- and one would presume trainers influence the opinions of those folks -- the answer is different in spring than it is in April than it is in August than it is later in the season. Deeper into the season, the easier it is to rebuild that stamina after some time off, and we see this when you consider some of the shorter rehab assignments that pitchers have later in the season. Some of that is the calendar. A lot of that is the arm strength is built up and maintained and can be recaptured quicker than when the arm is just getting strong, workload is just starting, at the beginning of the season or spring. So, I think what you suggest has some merit -- but it would take a lot of organization and a team willing to try. Many years ago, Dave Duncan and I talked about how a "shadow rotation" would work and how many arms you would need to pull it off. The idea wasn't to have a six-man rotation but rather to have a four-man rotation with a three man "shadow" rotation that would fill the middle innings and at least one of them would always be available. Could you pull that off? Would that be beneficial?
For the counting stats and how they compare a) to his peers and b) with the organization.
I will be there. Always enjoy the Fort Myers trip. Good ballparks. Good to see the writers on that side of the state. Will look for you.
It does not. Both players know the system and how it works. This is based on service time and how Grichuk has been in the majors longer. If Pham has a season like he just did, he'll do quite fine in arbitration one year from now. Players are keenly aware of how the process works -- for them eventually, against them early.
I know two of my teachers have sent me notes about my ... inventive ... grammar. I'll pass along the note to Hochman. That was a story that should be shared, and it's always good to hear when they are. I always try to keep in mind that the next story I write might be the one that a student clips and posts and follows into a career into journalism. It's possible. I had a few of those when I was a kid. I had one from Steve Wulf about baseball that I even highlighted phrases that made me want to be a baseball writer. I had it pinned to my desk in high school. I had it pinned to my desk in college. It was a reminder of what was possible.
And his grammar was pristine.
I'm not sure it would. But that's not my point. The binary ballot would alleviate so many of the issues that the ballot currently has, but until then we work with the ballot we have and with the ballot we have and the rules in place I'm OK being a big conversation voter. That is comfortable for me.
One of the best hitters of his generation. His numbers stand up well against his peers. His numbers stand up well against other Hall of Famers, and I understand that he spent a lot of time at designated hitter, but what he did within that role was beyond others in that same role. A comparison could be made to Hoffman. Within that role, which the game defined and the player excelled at, he was a Hall of Famer.
I don't purposefully ignore it. We are given some latitude with the sportsmanship clause, and I choose to use it as a way to shave the ballot down to 10. Now, in Schilling's case: I find the tweet he put out a year or so about journalists to be reprehensible. But as a journalist I know that not everyone is going to agree with my politics and I know that I won't every know truly what is in the heart of heart of some of the players that I do vote for. Not all wear their politics on their Twitter accounts like Schilling. So, I can take the road he chose not to -- I can consider his career on its merits, what he brought to the field, and not let what spills from his mouth land on my ballot. I do not consider how a player treated the media or was perceived to have treated the media. I have not yet run into a situation where I have had to consider voting for a player who treated me unprofessionally. I will have to cross that bridge when it arrives.
He is on my list of players deserving or on the cusp of the Hall. A fierce hitter.
Nine were strong. The debate for me really went into that 10th spot which ultimately went to Jones.