1.) PEDs effect is widely overblown. These aren't magic pills or a cheat code on an XBOX. PEDs can't teach hand-eye coordination or pitch recognition. Those are skills that are developed by a player. Not only that, but if PEDs are half as effective as MLB and media claims, then there wouldn't be the number of crappy players who have used PEDs and have had little to no success.
Cabrera might be a case of him just developing. He's not old by any means. The guy's HR numbers may go down, but his ability to get on base should be fine.
2.) With regards to the rotation, I could see us doing something like:
Johnson-Buerhle-Morrow-Romero-Happ. I don't think it will be smart for us to break up 3 lefties going out in consecutive starts.
Marcum won't be back, I believe a few 'insiders' have said AA and the Jays management don't like his attitude.
At this point, an Edwin Jackson on a 3 year deal isn't a bad option, but overall I'm pretty good with the rotation as is.
Hutchinson would've been nice to have as an option, sucks about his injury, hopefully he can come back. Drabek on the other hand I'm not enthused about. 2nd TJ surgery and I honestly have the feeling his career is done. The amount of pitchers who have had a career after 2 is quite short.
3.) Gibbons was a fine hire. He's tactically sound, uses platoons, and keeps players focused and accountable.
The Bush one was unfortunate. No argument there. Hillenbrand was a cancer. I don't think anyone can say other wise. For him to write what he did was pathetic. Lilly's behavior was also terrible. His ego was out of control. He actually came around and said that he was good with Gibbons and he and some other vets were fine with how Gibbons treated them. Thomas was a financial move and rightfully so. $10M owed to a guy who couldn't hit jack. He called out Gibbons because he wanted his money, not because he was actually hitting well. He was a clown.
Gibbons is a good hire. He needs to be a little more laid back, but he holds guys accountable. Nothing like Farrell's laid back approach.
Not only that, but looking back at some rosters without context doesn't make sense. In 2005 for example his most valuable player was Zaun(3.3 WAR), yet he improved by a fair bit over the previous season.
Overall, managers don't have a huge positive impact on the game anyway. Unless your one of the few excellent managers (Joe Maddon), as long as you don't serve to be negative influence (Jim "2nd batter has to bunt and starters don't go over 75 pitches" Tracy or Ozzie Guillen), your fine.
Gibbons has the tactical capability, and the ability to manage people (egos, accountability etc etc.) to make it work. As long as he's not challenging anyone to duels, we should be fine.
This team is exciting.
__________________ <-- Credit goes to The Nemesis.
is there anyone out there that thinks movember is really about cancer research?
it's about patriarchal vanity and exceptional marketing.
it seems as though the hay day of movember is ending. less and less people are participating. my prediction is that in 10 years there will be no movember.
is there anyone out there that thinks movember is really about cancer research?
it's about patriarchal vanity and exceptional marketing.
it seems as though the hay day of movember is ending. less and less people are participating. my prediction is that in 10 years there will be no movember.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toydarian
I just use it as an excuse to rock a mustache.
Pretty much this it's unfortunate. But October seems to be the month for guys to pull out their pink shirts that they love so much and November is an excuse for guys that can't grow a stache to attempt at one without being made fun of, or an excuse for the 5 oclock shadow men to grow the best George Parros they can without being told to shave.
Ugh, too many emergency calls to 911 so they want to make a new non-emergency number. How many of them are via Iphones because people accidentally hit the wrong button?
is there anyone out there that thinks movember is really about cancer research?
it's about patriarchal vanity and exceptional marketing.
it seems as though the hay day of movember is ending. less and less people are participating. my prediction is that in 10 years there will be no movember.
Not nearly enough IMO. I'd be curious of all the people that are growing staches just how many have talked to their doctor about prostate cancer and such. Too many people do nothing when it comes to cancer until it's too late.
Why complain about Movember? It's not like people are seeing the moustaches and thinking "Those make me not want to support cancer". Even if it didn't help at all, it would still be just a fun thing that doesn't hurt anybody, while giving people an excuse to rock badass moustaches. I see no negatives in moustaches and marginally beneficial cancer awareness.
Also, to change the topic randomly, I am already excited for Volbeat to come to Edmonton in march.
Since it is impossible to grow a moustache and not look like a loser or porn star movember is amazing. Every since puberty when you first started shaving every man at some point wants to grow a beard or stache but cant due to whats in style and looking good for work, school etc.
Ive been rocking a handle bar stache for 20 days and its been super fun, just shaved it down to a normal stache and in a week it will be gone. Did I raise money for cancer or talk to my doctor, no I didnt. But in this day and age everything has to be work of some kind and I enjoyed just growing a moustache so who cares if its for charity or not. Id imagine even if it isnt helping charities it isnt hurting
Why complain about Movember? It's not like people are seeing the moustaches and thinking "Those make me not want to support cancer". Even if it didn't help at all, it would still be just a fun thing that doesn't hurt anybody, while giving people an excuse to rock badass moustaches. I see no negatives in moustaches and marginally beneficial cancer awareness.
Also, to change the topic randomly, I am already excited for Volbeat to come to Edmonton in march.
is there anyone out there that thinks movember is really about cancer research?
it's about patriarchal vanity and exceptional marketing.
it seems as though the hay day of movember is ending. less and less people are participating. my prediction is that in 10 years there will be no movember.
I read a quote that Canadians raised over 18 million this november.
To be fair, it would help to know how much Canadians raise in other months to judge how much of a difference it's making.
It doesn't even matter really. Speaking as someone who's lost a lot of people to cancer, if one person goes and gets checked and catches it in times, or one person donates who otherwise wouldn't have, its worth it
Where does the money go is my question. Pharmaceuticals i.e. short to medium term "solutions", which is good but doesn't look for a root cause and is more about treatment, or research and prevention, which is where the real focus should be, where the money should go. Getting to the root of the problem. I remember shortly after Wendy Mesley recovered from her breast cancer she did a fantastic (albeit damning) multi-piece report on cancer research and all the funding/money, where it goes, how it gets distributed, the scientists, doctors employed by the big companies... Made me skeptical of continuing to donate... I do still, just out of good faith but I wonder sometimes. My Mom was diagnosed with breast cancer back in 06 (chemo right during the big playoff run), after all her own reading an research, she thinks CIBC run for the cure for instance, is almost a complete sham.
My good buddy pays a lot more attention to Jays centric media than I do. He told me through the twitter verse and Johnson's agent that Johnson is open to the idea of signing a team friendly extension if the Jays are competitors and it proves to be a good fit. I can't source this for you, its all from him.
I doubt any johnson extension is team friendly. He'll get paid. The only issue is how is his performance. They want to see at what level he is at before dropping big money.
Also, Hillenbrand(guy who had a run in with Gibbons) said Gibbons is a great manager and that Gibbons handled the situation like a pro, while he handled it poorly. Food for thought.
I doubt any johnson extension is team friendly. He'll get paid. The only issue is how is his performance. They want to see at what level he is at before dropping big money.
Also, Hillenbrand(guy who had a run in with Gibbons) said Gibbons is a great manager and that Gibbons handled the situation like a pro, while he handled it poorly. Food for thought.
So it sounds like all the players that have had a run-in with Gibbons all rave about him.
I doubt any johnson extension is team friendly. He'll get paid. The only issue is how is his performance. They want to see at what level he is at before dropping big money.
Also, Hillenbrand(guy who had a run in with Gibbons) said Gibbons is a great manager and that Gibbons handled the situation like a pro, while he handled it poorly. Food for thought.
No kidding. When your agent says his client could get the biggest deal for a pitcher in league history if he gets back to ace form, then if he gets close to it or all the way there then he gonna get big money regardless of when or where he signs the deal.
The only way he signs a friendly deal is if he is pretty solid next year but not his former dominant self, in which case they might still have to overpay him a bit.
I doubt any johnson extension is team friendly. He'll get paid. The only issue is how is his performance. They want to see at what level he is at before dropping big money.
Also, Hillenbrand(guy who had a run in with Gibbons) said Gibbons is a great manager and that Gibbons handled the situation like a pro, while he handled it poorly. Food for thought.
When I say team friendly I mean term length and the option.
<-- Credit goes to The Nemesis.
