Friday, July 09, 2004
Not a shutout, but I'll take itAfter three straight complete game shutouts, the Twins' starting pitcher last night, Terry Mulholland, actually gave up a run. For a little while, it looked like that's all Mike Maroth and the Tigers would need, but Minnesota's offense finally broke things open in the late innings, with the help of Detroit's defense.
Mulholland turned in a surprisingly good start, giving up just the one run in 5.2 innings of work, while striking out seven hitters. Grant Balfour relieved him, got the final out of the sixth inning, and then stayed in to pitch a scoreless seventh to pick up the win.
As he has been since the start of June, Balfour was absolutely dominant, getting three of his four outs on strikeouts. Balfour missed the first six weeks of the season with a shoulder injury and was rusty when he first returned, but since giving up three runs without recording an out against the White Sox on May 23, he has the following numbers ...
G IP ERA W L SO BBDuring the last couple weeks, as Balfour keeps coming into games and blowing people away, I've gotten a lot of e-mails about him, most of them asking something along the lines of "Who is this guy and what can you tell me about him?"
Those of you who have been stopping by here on a regular basis for a long time know that Balfour is a guy I have been a big fan of for a while now. I looked back through my archives and found a few of my thoughts on him throughout the past two years ...
From October 21, 2002:
If any Twins minor league reliever has a shot to be successful in the major leagues, it is Grant Balfour. He deserves to be given a full-time role in the Minnesota bullpen in 2003 and beyond.From January 24, 2003:
What [the Twins] really should do is forget all about [Jose] Cabrera and give a bullpen job to Grant Balfour, a minor leaguer that I think could be a very good reliever.From September 2, 2003:
[Joe] Mays gave up five runs in three innings against the Rangers on Saturday and mercifully got yanked from the rotation for the second time this season. The man who replaces him this time is Grant Balfour, a young right-hander who I really like quite a bit. Not quite at the Johan Santana-level, but he's up there.From March 19, 2004:
I would go with Grant Balfour instead of Rick Helling [in the starting rotation]. Helling has proven he is mediocre (5.17 ERA last year, 4.77 ERA career), whereas Balfour has been great in the minors and may actually be good if you give him a chance.There are more mentions of Balfour that I could quote, but I figure that's enough.
Needless to say I've been high on him for years now and it doesn't surprise me at all that he's doing a very nice job as a reliever. What I'd still like to see is the Twins give him a chance as a starting pitcher, but it took them so long to try him as a reliever that I'm not holding my breath.
Joe Nathan and Juan Rincon have been dominant all year and now Balfour is joining them as another fireballing righty who Ron Gardenhire can call on in a tight spot. If the Twins decide to promote Jesse Crain at some point in the second-half, that could give them an incredible foursome from the right side, as Crain currently has 17 saves and a 2.98 ERA in 42.1 innings at Triple-A Rochester, along with a 55-to-13 strikeout-to-walk ratio.
It would be nice to have J.C. Romero step things up and give the Twins someone to count on from the left side, but I really don't think it is as important as most people think. The Angels have had incredible bullpens over the last few years and they've rarely had a dependable lefty, and the Marlins did pretty well last year without a lefty in the bullpen. Plus, the nice thing about having all your good relievers be righties is that it limits the amount of micro-managing Ron Gardenhire can do.
A couple other Twins-related notes heading into the weekend ...
- Joe Mauer has the best throwing arm behind the plate that I've ever seen from a catcher who can actually hit, save for maybe -- maybe -- Ivan Rodriguez in his prime. Mauer is 7-for-16 (44%) throwing out runners this year, which is good but not great. However, he should be 9-for-16 (56%).
In both Wednesday night's game and last night's game, Mauer put a throw right on the bag, throwing out a runner by a huge distance, only to have the man making the tag screw it up. It was Nick Punto on Wednesday and Cristian Guzman last night. Both times, the throw was incredibly accurate and beat the runner to the bag, but both Punto and Guzman whiffed on the tag.
Actually, I think Guzman got the tag down, but he looked so awkward doing it that I can't blame the umpire for thinking he missed. Punto just flat-out missed the tag. It's a real shame, because I think if Mauer is able to build up an incredible caught-stealing percentage as a rookie, it will do a lot to discourage teams from running on him in the future. Of course, if he's throwing out 50% of the guys trying to steal a base, we probably want teams to run on him as often as possible.
Still, it stinks when a guy throws a rocket down to second base, perfect in every possible way, and the guy on the receiving end just totally blows the play.
- Remember how everyone was all excited when Luis Rivas had that amazing week-long stretch of hot-hitting last month? I said I'd keep quiet as long as he kept hitting, a point that has certainly passed. Rivas is now 8-for-45 (.177) since his 8-game hitting streak came to an end, and his season totals are back down to .271/.296/.427.
I have never seen a player who is able to simultaneously avoid criticism for his continued suckiness and then get everyone's hopes up with any tiny glimpse of decent play.
People are now talking about Rivas' 2004 season as a breakthrough and a reason to keep him in a prominent role for the future, as if he's made any sort of offensive improvement beyond some random good week in the middle of June.
I held my tongue for as long as I could, but I think it's time to snap back to reality. And it's not like I didn't warn you plenty of times. Hell, way back in July of 2003, after another of Rivas' "Hey, maybe he's turning things around!" stretches had everyone all excited, I wrote the following:
For every player, a "season" is made up of good stretches and bad stretches, good months and bad months. At any given time, you can stop and examine what a player has done over some period of time and conclude that they have made tremendous improvements or are struggling mightily. Maybe Barry Bonds is just 3 for his last 16 or Albert Pujols is hitting .443 in June. That doesn't make Barry Bonds a .188 hitter and it doesn't make Pujols a .443 hitter. It just means that, during a particular period of time, that is what they are hitting. Check back later and it may be reversed, because, if it didn't go in ups and downs, Albert Pujols would be a .443 hitter and we'd have to reprint all the record books.It's amazing to me that I wrote something like that over a year ago and it applies exactly the same now as it did then, which shows you just how eager everyone is to start thinking happy thoughts about Rivas.
But here are the facts ...
YEAR OBP SLG OPS GPAIn other words, the process might be different, but the end result is the same old Rivas.
He stinks, folks. He stunk in 2000, he stunk in 2001, he stunk in 2002, he stunk in 2003, and he's stinking in 2004. And you know what? I'm pretty certain he'll stink in 2005 too, but I'm just hoping it will be for a different team.
A quick non-Twins note ...
I am hoping that perhaps one of you loyal readers has some information on book publishing that you wouldn't mind sharing with me. As I've learned from this blog in the past, I should never underestimate the varying areas of interest and expertise that my readers have.
So, if you are in some way affiliated with a book publishing company of some sort or you have experience publishing something of yours and wouldn't mind helping me out with some information, drop me an e-mail when you get a chance.
See ya Monday ...
New article at The Hardball Times: News, Notes and Quotes (July 9, 2004)
Arizona (Johnson) -125 over San Francisco (Williams)
Total to date: -$2,850
W/L record: 121-163 (0-2 yesterday for -200.)
*****Comments? Questions? Email me!*****
Thursday, July 08, 2004
000000000000000000000000000There is nothing, and I mean nothing, like playing a watered down, injury-ravaged, last-place team to make you feel good about your favorite team.
Coming into the three-game series with the Kansas City Royals, Twins pitchers had a total of three complete game shutouts in their last 262 games, stretching back to the end of the 2002 season. They had zero complete game shutouts in their first 80 games this season.
And then the Royals came to town, without the recently-traded Carlos Beltran, without the injured Mike Sweeney, and without their bats. Or at least it seemed that way.
The Twins played three games against the Royals and the Royals failed to score even a single time. More importantly, or at least more amazingly, Brad Radke, Johan Santana and Kyle Lohse each completed their start. For those of you who aren't real good with piecing together facts, that means Minnesota pitchers reeled off three straight complete game shutouts.
IP H R ER BB SO HR PIT (ST)The Royals hit .144 during the series, with a total of 13 hits ... all of them singles. Radke, Santana and Lohse threw 71% of their pitches for strikes, walked a total of two batters, and struck out 24.
Just total domination, although it did sort of having that Danny Almonte in Little League feeling, in that the Royals had a makeshift lineup and aren't all that good to begin with. I mean, Kansas City started Damian Jackson as their DH in last night's game.
The funny thing about it is that this was one of the rare times when the Twins' offense actually did some damage this year, so the shutouts were, in some small way, sort of wasted. Not that I'm complaining, of course.
Along with the great pitching during the Kansas City series, there was one other performance of note ...
I am about as impressed with Joe Mauer as a person could possibly be. Whatever the opposite of how I feel about Luis Rivas, that's how I feel about Mauer. At this point, he can do no wrong.
As evidenced by the amount of runs the Twins allowed during the series, he is doing an outstanding job behind the plate, calling pitches and managing the game. He is also throwing strikes to second base whenever someone is brave enough to run on him.
At the plate, he's just amazing. So calm, so prepared, so patient. He takes borderline pitches, he isn't afraid to get deep into counts, he fouls off stuff he can't handle, and, most of all, he hits line drives all over the field.
I ranked Mauer as my #1 prospect in baseball prior to the season and spent much of the offseason talking about what an incredible talent he was and what an amazing player he could become. I said his skill-set was one that wasn't even comparable to great catchers in the past, because he possessed not only great skills, but such a wide assortment of them.
From the very first time most Twins fans laid eyes on Mauer, I think it was clear he was something special. He's just got that special something about him, a mix of confidence and ability, intelligence and patience.
He's a rookie, he's starting for a first-place team in a pennant race, he's a catcher, he missed two months with a serious injury, and he's 21 years old. And Mauer is hitting .340/.402/.638 in his first 30 games as a major leaguer.
Joe Mauer is significantly better than I thought he would be, and that seems almost impossible for me to believe.
Oakland (Harden) +220 over Boston (Schilling)
Detroit (Maroth) +110 over Minnesota (Mulholland)
Total to date: -$2,650
W/L record: 121-161 (0-3 yesterday for -305. If you're gonna lose, lose big. My three teams lost by a combined 35-3 score.)
*****Comments? Questions? Email me!*****
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
He Looked Good in the BoxscoreI had a big night planned. I had some turkey sandwiches and chips to eat, a big-screen TV to watch, and a full slate of programming.
First, at 7 p.m., the Twins versus the Royals, with Johan "The Official Pitcher of Aaron's Baseball Blog" Santana going up against Zack Greinke, a 20-year-old rookie who I ranked as the #13 prospect in baseball before the season.
Then, at 8 p.m., the first hour of the 2004 World Series of Poker on ESPN. As I've said before here, I am a big poker fan and I loved watching last year's WSOP. I wasn't sure how I was going to manage watching both at the same time, but I was excited to try.
So you know what happened? It started to rain a little bit outside, there were some dark skies and clouds, and my DirecTV went out. I kept the TV tuned to the Twins game and, every 10 minutes or so, the signal would come back on and I'd get to see a 94 MPH fastball blow by someone. And then it would go blank again.
No Twins. No Royals. No Johan. No Greinke. No poker. I did, however, eat both turkey sandwiches and all the chips.
Now, the really sad thing about all this is not that I missed the game, missed the poker or missed watching my favorite pitcher, but that Santana had an incredible, dominating game. In fact, statistically speaking (and that's the only way I can speak, since I didn't see it), it was the single best performance of his career.
IP H R ER BB SO HR PITIt was not only Johan's first career shutout, it was his first ever complete game. The 13 strikeouts tied a career-high, too.
Santana is on an incredible role right now and he is showing exactly why I've devoted thousands of words to him over the past two years and seemingly made hyping and promoting him my life's work.
Here's what he's done in his last seven starts, dating back to June 3 ...
GS W L ERA IP SO BB OAVGJohan is doing me proud. Breaking it down even further, Santana has 10+ strikeouts in four straight starts, for a total of 47 strikeouts in 32 innings.
With last night's shutout, Santana finally has his season ERA down below 4.00 for the very first time. He is 7-5 with a 3.89 ERA in 18 starts, with 125 strikeouts and just 29 walks in 115.2 innings.
Here are Santana's current American League ranks ...
- 1st in Strikeouts (125)
- 3rd in Strikeout-to-Walk Ratio (4.31-to-1)
- 8th in Innings Pitched (115.2)
- 12th in ERA (3.89)
- 13th in Wins (7)
And all of that is after he started the year with a 2-3 record and a 5.40 ERA in April and 5.79 ERA in May. The man is rolling, folks. Move aside and let The Man go through.
UPDATE: The DirecTV signal is still out, DirecTV has been called, and a DirecTV "service" person is scheduled to come here for the second time in two weeks. The "next available opening" was not, of course, today, which means I can't watch a damn thing until tomorrow night, at the earliest. Anyone know the number of a good cable company?
New article at The Hardball Times: The Magic Twenty (Shortstop)
Oakland (Redman) +200 over Boston (Martinez)
Chicago (Schoeneweis) -105 over Anaheim (Washburn)
Kansas City (Reyes) +160 over Minnesota (Lohse)
Total to date: -$2,345
W/L record: 121-158 (1-2 yesterday for +60, thanks to a big win with Denny Stark over Jason Schmidt.)
*****Comments? Questions? Email me!*****
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Vote 4 Lew?I write an awful lot about the Twins, both here and at The Hardball Times, and so a lot of people accuse me of being a "homer." Actually though, I think of myself as the opposite of a homer, whatever that might be.
As I've said before, I am such a pessimist when it comes to the Twins that I typically expect them to lose rather than win, and I almost always criticize their players rather than pump them up. See the "Shannon Stewart for MVP" debate from last year for a good example of this.
Here's another example of me not being a homer: Lew Ford is one of five American League players in the "Final Vote" contest over at MLB.com to determine the final member of the AL All-Star team. I know tons of Twins fans have been stuffing the electronic ballot box with votes for Lew, but I wouldn't vote for him. I just don't think he's deserving, regardless of what team he plays for.
Here's how Ford compares to the other eligible players ...
AVG OBP SLG GPA VORPNow, it's possible you could make the case that Ford's defense is good enough to move him up a spot or two, ahead of maybe Paul Konerko or even Travis Hafner, but I don't think he's good enough (or plays an important enough defensive position) to move into Frank Thomas' territory.
According to VORP, which judges players against others at their position, Thomas has been worth about 55% more than Ford on offense this year. That's just an awful lot of room for a leftfielder to make up on defense, even if he's going up against a designated hitter.
Plus, as I've said in the past, I'm a big believer in the All-Star game being for players who have established track records of excellence. Ford, although he has done very well in both his stints in the majors, still has just 363 career at-bats. Meanwhile, Frank Thomas is one of the best hitters of his generation, and has been putting up huge numbers for 15 years.
With that said, I have no problem with Twins fans (or anyone else) voting as many times as they want for Lew Ford. He may not be the most deserving, but he's still not totally undeserving, and his making the team might make up for the fact that, because of a weird set of circumstances, he's ineligible for the Rookie of the Year award this season.
With that said, I have a favor to ask of all the Twins fans who are placing all these votes for Lew Ford. While voting for Ford in the AL, take a moment to vote for Bobby Abreu in the NL. Think of it as a personal favor to me (and Bobby Abreu too, I guess).
If you need further convincing that a vote for Abreu is the right thing, read this ...
The Hardball Times: Rock the Vote
Cincinnati (Acevedo) +175 over St. Louis (Morris)
Arizona (Fossum) +140 over Los Angeles (Lima)
Colorado (Stark) +260 over San Francisco (Schmidt)
Total to date: -$2,405
W/L record: 120-156 (0-2 yesterday for -215.)
*****Comments? Questions? Email me!*****
Monday, July 05, 2004
E-MailsOver the holiday weekend, I got the single most offensive, ridiculous and confusing e-mail from a reader that I've ever received. In the interest of keeping this a family (and safe for work) site, I have censored the offensive words, but I'm pretty sure the Mensa members among us can still figure out the intended message. I have not altered the overall content in any other way.
Subject: READ THIS YOU F---ING LOSERI kid you not, that's an actual e-mail. I got it at 8:19 p.m. Friday.
I figure an e-mail as well thought out and researched as that one deserves a detailed response, so here goes ...
Frank starts off by asking, "Why don't you waste another 1,000 words ..." Please, 1,000 words? My columns have 1,000-word introductions. Obviously not a long-time reader.
I also like that he is, essentially, comparing me to Bill James and Theo Epstein ("Show us some more numbers and some more percentages, Mr. James and Mr. Epstein"), and acting as if that is something other than a huge compliment. Oh no, don't put me in the same sentence as one of the greatest baseball writers of all-time and the GM of the Boston Red Sox!
Frank then says, "You are pure 100% horses---, and your opinion, despite the illusion that you've obviously bought and sold yourself, as a dumbass "journalism student" from East Buttf--- USA, means nothing."
For one thing, I'm only 98.2% horses---. I was actually tested for horses--- levels a while back and was surprised to be so low. Also, I am from Midwest Buttf---, USA, because Minnesota is quite clearly not in the "East."
Here's my favorite line from the entire e-mail: "You and people like you are little more than a source of yucks for the more enlightened among us. You're probably a Bush supporter, right, a--hole?"
First, I love the idea that someone who could write that e-mail is one of "the more enlightened among us." If true, what does that say about the rest of us? I mean, aside from the world being doomed and all. Also, going from that long rant into talking about George W. Bush is an amazing non-sequitur. I mean, after the first two paragraphs of the e-mail, I would have given at least 10-to-1 odds on the rest of the e-mail not containing any political discussion. And I would have been wrong!
To the statement "I hope you and your family die from a slow form of cancer," I say that at least a slow form of cancer is better than a fast form of cancer, right? Frank is clearly showing his compassionate side here and I appreciate that.
And here's the big finale: "You're nothing more than another white punk with too much time and too much internet access. You suck Gleeman, you've lost any and all credibilty that I once assigned you. My mistake. Go f--- yourself and die slowly and horribly you f---ing punk c---sucker."
I was a little confused with the "you're nothing more than another white punk" part. I mean, am I to assume that Frank, the writer of this e-mail, is not "another white punk"? And if he is not, and is instead African-American or Asian or whatever, does this mean we can add "racist" to the list of wonderful attributes Frank has displayed in this e-mail?
Also, the part about me having "too much internet access," while very true, is also funny. You see, Frank, you actually sent this lovely message to me via ELECTRONIC MAIL and you are complaining about my writing, all of which is found ON THE INTERNET.
On a serious note, I find it rather amazing that the e-mail was actually so well-written. There were few, if any, spelling mistakes and he did fairly well on punctuation too. Normally you would expect something like this to be written on a third-grade level (no offense to any third-graders reading this), but this was clearly penned by someone with some writing background, or at least someone who graduated high school.
In fact, after reading it, my first reaction was that it was a big joke, a funny e-mail sent to me by a buddy of mine or something. I mean, despite the length of the e-mail, I still wasn't even sure what specific problem Frank had or what specific column caused him to become so upset. So I sent Frank a very short reply, hoping to elicit another response from him. Here's what I sent:
Subject: Re: READ THIS YOU F---ING LOSERSure enough, just a few moments later, the man who mocked me for having "too much internet access" replied to my e-mail.
Subject: Re: READ THIS YOU F---ING LOSERAnd just like that, we see the Mary Kate Olsen-thin line between having a fan and having someone who hates you. Apparently Frank was a big fan, big enough to send me "an unadulterated compliment a few weeks ago," but I made the massive mistake of simply reading his initial e-mail, instead of reading it and sending him a personalized response.
Well, I learn from my mistakes, so I sent off another reply to Frank:
Subject: Re: READ THIS YOU F---ING LOSERAgain, just moments later, I got the following response:
Subject: Re: READ THIS YOU F---ING LOSERNow, Frank does have a point, in that if I really made an effort and set aside a block time each day, I could read and reply to each and every e-mail I receive. Instead, I have chosen to simply read everything I get, including compliments from maniacs, and only reply to a portion of them that I feel need/warrant response.
Beyond that surprisingly lucid point, how hilarious is it that Frank suggests that by discarding "the nonsense" e-mails I would be more able to reply to e-mails like the one he sent me?
We've learned all kinds of things about Frank with this series of e-mails, the latest being that he enjoys corresponding with several prominent writers. Again, Frank makes a solid point, which is that I am hardly one to separate myself from the guys he lists.
Of course, I don't have Frank's original, supposedly complimentary e-mail on hand, so I can't even say that I ever received/read it, let alone whether or not I should have replied to it personally. Still, I will say that if all those writers Frank mentions take the time to read and respond to each and every e-mail they get, they are better men than I am (which we knew already, thanks to Frank's earlier attacks on my manhood).
Frank concluded his series of e-mails (I didn't respond to the last one, because I'm not that much of a glutton for punishment) by providing the entire basis of his anger: "I was just so pissed to be dismissed by you, I had to let loose."
So we learn that this entire thing, me losing a big fan and getting these crazy e-mails, could have been avoided if I had simply clicked "reply" after reading Frank's initial e-mail (assuming I ever got it, of course) and said something like, "Thanks for the e-mail. Glad you enjoy my writing!"
It seems almost too simple and I have to say, Frank's barrage of insanity did get me thinking about my e-mail-answering habits. I always just assumed that someone who sends me a quick compliment, like "Keep up the good work" or "I enjoy your writing" was simply doing so to let me know they like my work, not necessarily because they desperately need some sort of a response to what they've written. But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps even the shortest e-mail and the smallest compliment deserve a response.
I suppose, in some small way, sending an e-mail to a writer you enjoy reading is like donating money to charity. Some people simply donate money to a charity because they want to do something nice. At the same time, some people donate money simply to be recognized for donating money.
Now, lest anyone think this sudden epiphany on my part was all because of "Crazy Frank." No, a few hours before Frank's series of e-mails came rolling in, I got the following e-mail from another, less-insane reader named Andrew:
Subject: Tempted to Email You About the Sox/Twins seriesAnd that's it, that's the entire e-mail. It is essentially just a different, nicer way of saying all that stuff Frank said in his e-mails, which basically boiled down to "I was just so pissed to be dismissed by you, I had to let loose."
This way is a little more subtle thank Frank's, and it also sort of gives the sense that I am actually missing out on Andrew's thoughts on the White Sox/Twins series because of my previous indiscretion. I e-mailed Andrew back, trying to explain myself, and got the following response:
Subject: Tempted to Email You About the Sox/Twins seriesAgain, I had no idea that a simple response from me was so important. As Frank so eloquently put it earlier, I am just some "dumbass journalism student from East Buttf---, USA."
Here's the point ... I get literally dozens of e-mails per day. I get them from friends and family, from people in my various Diamond-Mind leagues, from readers of this blog, from readers of The Hardball Times, and from African dignitaries looking for financial help.
I read each and every e-mail I get (unless it appears to be spam) and I respond to a large number of them. However, I simply cannot -- or at least have chosen not to -- respond to them all. I could, I suppose, but would it be that much better to get some form e-mail from me thanking you for the e-mail? I think I would actually find that even more maddening if I were an e-mailer.
If simply sending me your thoughts and knowing that I read them is not enough, and you're desperate for a response to your e-mail, here are some general guidelines to follow ...
- Make it short. If I have to read 1,000 words about a subject in an e-mail, I'm very unlikely to respond to it. I'll read it, because I read everything that is sent to me, but usually afterward I don't have a whole lot to add. Occasionally, if the really lengthy ones are good, I'll reprint them here, of course. If you have a specific question, ask it. If you've got a comment, say it. But I am not really looking for dozens of Gleeman-length e-mails to read all day.
- Don't ask me about your fantasy team. If you have a question about the Twins, I'll be happy to answer it, but please don't send me an e-mail asking which middle reliever you should pick up, or if you should trade Juan Encarnacion for Jeff Conine. I have neither the time nor the interest to do that, and I don't mean that as a put-down to anyone with fantasy questions. It's just that there are many other people would be much happier answering fantasy-related inquiries. For instance, my colleague and friend Ben Jacobs over at The Hardball Times runs a "Fantasy Mailbag" each week and asks for questions from readers.
- Don't tell me what an idiot I am because I have a differing opinion from you. Now, I'm not saying you can't disagree with me on something or that you shouldn't tell me so, just that I am not usually interested in arguing with 25 people a day about something I've written. If I say something that is factually wrong, that's one thing. If I say something that you simply think is dumb, let me know about it, but don't always expect me to try to convince you otherwise via e-mail.
- Try to not sound like a complete, profanity-spewing, homophobic, racist lunatic. I think -- or at least I thought, before Friday -- that this one just went without saying. Incidentally, after this weekend, it might also be a good idea to change your name if it's "Frank."
Other than that, it's all a matter of whether or not I have something of substance to add in response to your e-mail. There's no great shame in simply sending someone an e-mail that they read and don't respond to, is there? I mean, if you send me a compliment, is it just to compliment me, or was the entire thing just a ruse to, as Andrew said, "Get a response out of me"?
Oh, by the way, I went back through my old mail and was able to Andrew's original e-mail. It was about the Freddy Garcia trade, it was right around 300 words long, and it started with, "I enjoy your writing but a few things slipped past you in your analysis of the Garcia trade."
So, while it wasn't a fantasy baseball question, Andrew hit on two of the other no-nos, with a lengthy e-mail and one that tells me what I've said wrong about something that is a matter of opinion. Again, it's not that Andrew's e-mail (or the e-mails like his) is a bad one or one that I don't enjoy getting, just that it's not the type of e-mail I feel compelled to respond to.
I've stated my opinion on the subject in question (the Garcia deal) and Andrew has several issues with my opinion. Am I now supposed to come back at him with an argument in favor of my side? I've already "argued" my side, in print, in a public forum, using thousands of words. Maybe it's just me being a jerk, but that's just not something I'm interested in doing again, after every article I write. He, like dozens of other people that day, sent me his comments on my article, I read them, took them into consideration, and that was the end of it. Or so I thought.
With all the said, I'm interested in making a little peace offering. You guys keep sending me all these e-mails, because I really do enjoy hearing from you (but not you, Frank). And if you try to keep them short and try to avoid asking me fantasy baseball questions, I'll make a concerted effort to respond to a larger percentage of them.
That sounds fair, right? Good, see ya tomorrow ...
New York (Glavine) -115 over Philadelphia (Abbott)
Tampa Bay (Brazelton) +125 over Baltimore (Cabrera)
Total to date: -$2,190
W/L record: 120-154 (0-2 on Friday for -200.)
*****Comments? Questions? Email me!*****