A related problem is that the lack of grist for the blogmill means anything new gets picked clean by the time I get around to it, and I'll thank you to pardon my mixed metaphor. So Ladson has a new mailbag, OMG and teh Triple Play have already had at it, and I'm feeling like the last jackal to the dead gazelle party. But what else am I supposed to talk about? A few thoughts:
There's a pretty nifty non-sequitur when Ladson responds to a question about Soriano's unwilling and as yet unagreed to position shift.
In 1994, when he was the GM of the Reds, Bowden signed shortstop Tony Fernandez to a free agent contract on March 8 of that year. The problem was, the Reds already had Barry Larkin at the position. Then-manager Davey Johnson put Fernandez at third base. Bowden said that Fernandez was very upset about playing a different position, but the Reds ended up finishing that season in first place.I can't possibly critique this better than Naranja:
I’ll assume Ladson’s logic is “Making a player unhappy by position change will not necessarily mess up a team” rather than “Making a player unhappy by position change means you will finish in first place!” You just have to read between the lines.Ladson projects our 2006 starting lineup. Keep it in mind in case you're still thinking about those season tickets.
As of now, I see this lineup:"Brandon Watson?" you might be asking yourself. "Who the hell is that and where's Ryan Church? Is he at church?" Church, it seems, will never get a fair chance from this team. No matter he does or is capable of doing, it's not good enough, and Frank and Boswell will continue to compare him to various slang terms for female genitalia. He's the Brendan Harris of baseball.
LF Brandon Watson
2B Jose Vidro
1B Nick Johnson
RF Jose Guillen
CF Alfonso Soriano
3B Ryan Zimmerman
C Brian Schneider
SS Cristian Guzman
Why are you so down on strikeouts? They're frustrating to watch, but they're not all that different from a ground out. -- Chris N., Alexandria, Va.I've got a question for you, Chris N. Why do you hate children?
Some starry-eyed fan asks why there's no hype around John Patterson. Ladson responds:
Let's face it, "The Big Nasty" has done the job for one year, and one year doesn't make him a premier pitcher. Let's not forget that Patterson wasn't very good the last month of the season. Let's see Patterson do it again, and then I'm sure he would get recognized as one of the better pitchers in the game.First, let me say that Ladson is completely right. Second, "The Big Nasty" is about the least appropriate nickname anyone could possibly think of for Patterson. While there are no set rules for this kind of thing, a man called "Big Nasty" must, by my reckoning, possess at least two of the following traits:
- Exceptional height
- Exceptional girth
- Exceptional amount of hair, facial or body
- A reputation for headhunting
- An unusually severe chewing tobacco habit
- A face only a groupie could love
- A felony conviction
Above: The Big Nasty wipes away a tear after thinking about his childhood pet, Mr. Whiskers.
I only mentioned it in passing before I got distracted by the Olympian pronouncements of the mighty Carroll, but this big board thingy is freaking great. Brian and Scott over the Farm Authority are providing something really useful rather than filling up the idle winter hours with wacky pictures and character assassination.