Skip to main content

43 replies

Murderers Row -1

Replies sorted oldest to newest

L like2rake1,000+ posts
Well, I think the 2 slot will be either Erick Aybar or Peter Bourjos, depending on what happens between Bourjos/Trumbo/Morales.

I think Angels will try to move Trumbo in a trade package for another starting pitcher. Bourjos is a premium defender in CF, is actually faster than Trout 1st to 3rd and 1st to home, evidently, and is capable of being a legit bunt/slash guy that puts the ball in play.

Howard Kendrick has hit in the two hole before, but his strikeouts keep increasing to where he's more suited to the 6 or 7 slot.

I think Kendrys Morales stays with Angels as a switch hitting DH, over Trumbo.
L like2rake1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by TPM:
My opinion is that the talent means little without the chemistry.


Well that's true, although I don't think team chemistry, or lack thereof was a real issue for the Angels last year. Losing Torii Hunter though, does take a bite out of the clubhouse leadership.

I'm definitely not "calling my shot" on a 2013 WS Championship for the Angels, especially after last year's inconsistencies. This signing is kinda surprising to me, but I can see how it drives pieces to fall together (trades)
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
I was making that statement for all teams loading up on talent this off season, I don't always think that it works.

There are definite pieces to the puzzle that need to fit to make it all work. What goes on in the clubhouse is very crucial to success.

Weren't the yankees the poster child for that? Spend mega dollars but often they came up short?
EdgarFanEdgarFan500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by like2rake:

"Well, I think the 2 slot will be either Erick Aybar or Peter Bourjos, depending on what happens between Bourjos/Trumbo/Morales. ...Howard Kendrick has hit in the two hole before, but his strikeouts keep increasing to where he's more suited to the 6 or 7 slot."


I think the 2-hole spot is still Kendrick's to lose, even though I agree that his strikeout trend is troubling. Problem is, neither Aybar nor Bourjos gets on base any better than Kendrick (over the last two years, OBP: Kendrick .331, Aybar .323, and Bourjos .317) and both also have strikeout issues (162-game average, over the last two years: 132 K for Kendrick, 129 for Aybar, and 168 for Bourjos). Personally, I think Bourjos is the one who'll get traded, and I think Aybar will man the #9-hole.

quote:
"I think Angels will try to move Trumbo in a trade package for another starting pitcher. Bourjos is a premium defender in CF, is actually faster than Trout 1st to 3rd and 1st to home, evidently, and is capable of being a legit bunt/slash guy that puts the ball in play. ...I think Kendrys Morales stays with Angels as a switch hitting DH, over Trumbo."


Not disagreeing with your assessment of Bourjos, but given the Angels' pitching issues, and the Mets' dire need for a CF (but desire to NOT pay the kind of money a guy like Bourne is asking), I'd expect the Mets to make a play for Bourjos, and the Angels to make a play for R.A. Dickey. That's why I think Bourjos is more likely to be traded than Trumbo. Plus, I believe this coming year is Kendrys Morales' last year of arbitration-eligibility, and he'll be a free agent in 2014. Trumbo has three more years of club control after this year (his three arb-eligible years), so they may want to keep him around to DH in case Morales goes elsewhere after 2013.

No matter WHO mans the 2-hole, or DH, or gets traded/kept, bottom line is: that is one TOUGH line-up.
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
Well, although it isn't a sure thing that money equals trophies...

Yankees
96
98
99
00
09

And during that 8 year hiatus from winning championships, the went to the series in 01 and 03.

Chemistry is easy to point to when you have a team like the '05 White Sox, came out of nowhere and dominated the playoffs. However, winning sure cures a lot of clubhouse ills.

P.S. someone close the door before we get a whole bunch of delusional Red Sox fans in here. Big Grin
Last edited by CPLZ
wraggArmwraggArm500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by TPM:
I was making that statement for all teams loading up on talent this off season, I don't always think that it works.

As opposed to doing what, exactly? Having everyone fill out Myers-Briggs questionaires ? How would you even try to build a roster on chemistry, supposing you were a clever enough GM to be able to predict successful clubhouse relationships? Its not like the baseball fairy drops in with a profile match whenever a GM goes, "Hey, I could use a lefty-hitting right fielder who'll go fishing wih Pedroia and laugh at Kevin Youkilis's jokes ..."

You build the most talented team you can, from what comes available, for the $$'s you've got. Period.
Last edited by wraggArm
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by wraggArm:
quote:
Originally posted by TPM:
I was making that statement for all teams loading up on talent this off season, I don't always think that it works.

As opposed to doing what, exactly? Having everyone fill out Myers-Briggs questionaires ? How would you even try to build a roster on chemistry, supposing you were a clever enough GM to be able to predict successful clubhouse relationships? Its not like the baseball fairy drops in with a profile match whenever a GM goes, "Hey, I could use a lefty-hitting right fielder who'll go fishing wih Pedroia and laugh at Kevin Youkilis's jokes ..."

You build the most talented team you can, from what comes available, for the $$'s you've got. Period.


That's not an accurate portrayal of how chemistry is factored in to a clubhouse in the building stage.

Some GM's, Kenny Williams for example, always talked of character in the clubhouse. He wanted character guys and often preferred vets with established track records as pickups.

That's a common way of predicting chemistry.

Although, I'll admit, that when the right deal came along, or sometimes desperation, Williams would go back on his "ideals".
wraggArmwraggArm500+ posts
My point is that "clubhouse chemistry" isn't some illusive secret that MLB GM's don't get, or need to be informed of. They've all seen the same movies we have, and more importantly, they have first-hand knowledge of why a clubhouse needs to click. They've dealt with unpublished conflicts and personality issues that would make your nose-hairs curl, and they've personally seen how those seem to melt away when a team has good chemistry.

They all "get" that sometimes its worth it to bring in a seasoned leadership guy with withering talent, or to take a chance on a Buster Posey-type with great spark potential, and most of them are smart enough to ponder a new player's impact on their organization. They would all LUUUUV to get the recipe on how to make it happen, especially if you could just "moneyball" it with some secret recipe.

But team chemistry is a lot easier to order up from the cheap seats than to make happen from the front office.
Last edited by wraggArm
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
Can you explain the success of oakland and baltimore?

The giants and cardinals?

Because the dodgers have the highest payroll this means they will be the next world champions?

There is so much more that goes into what makes teams winners and its not always the ones with the highest paid players or with the most talented.

Again lets continue this discussion next fall.
Last edited by TPM
Three BaggerThree Bagger1,000+ posts
You could build a team of great chemistry guys like Nick Punto, Scutaro, David Eckstein, Craig Counsel and others and while the team would have tremendous chemistry, desire and hustle, it would finish in last place. Talent gives the most chance at championships. The Oakland A's of the early 1970's won three World Championships in a row while fighting like cats and dogs. Many great teams have had personal conflicts that are famous and probably countless issues that fans never hear about. It's just that often when a team wins, the first words out of the guys mouths in the generic interviews they give is how "the guys were such great teammates" or how "we played as a team together" even when some of them can't stand each other. Remember, we didn't find out what a jerk Pete Rose or Michael Jordan was until after the days of glory were over. Chemistry is good to have but talent wins ball games.
Last edited by Three Bagger
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
I am not stating that talent has nothing to do with championships, but IMO it doesn't have everything to do with it as well. I pointed out the two teams above as examples that went farther than others with more talent, bigger payrolls.

Here's an interesting article. As always so much has to do with the manager as well and how he gets the entire team to buy into their philososphy.

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb....vkey=news_la&c_id=la
EdgarFanEdgarFan500+ posts
In general I am a guy who believes winning begets chemistry more so than the other way around, BUT I have to say that TPM's point here is kind of being lost in a "talent vs chemistry" dichotomy that really had nothing much to do with what she said.

I think talent is more important than chemistry, and I (perhaps mistakenly) tend to value talent more because it is measurable rather than intangible. HOWEVER, I'd be the last guy to say that chemistry is unimportant. I may not fully understand exactly how or when it contributes to winning, but I am sure it does.

I agree with TPM that the team that spends the most money often doesn't win. I'd add, though, that spending money is not a perfect proxy for acquiring the best talent (especially with free agent acquisitions who are on the north side of 30), and guys who make a lot of money are not necessarily bad clubhouse/chemistry guys, either.

If the Angels stay healthy, they are going to score a lot of runs. As their pitching staff stands now, though, they may also give up a lot of runs. They may not win as much as many people assume, and if the hitters start pointing fingers at the pitchers, things could go to he*l in a handbasket pretty quick.... Despite my usual skepticism about chemistry-based arguments, TPM's note of caution about this is pretty well-founded, IMO.
Tx-HuskerTx-Husker1,000+ posts
You don't hear many describe it that way, that's my description of it. But he talks frequently about how he is treated. He especially talked a lot about how he thought the fans and front office mistreated him at the end of the season...no complaints when he produced, only when he didn't. You would never hear coaches or players talk about it on the record, but media said they would off the record.

It also seemed to come about when he would have his mystery injuries. Don't get me wrong, he produces more than he doesn't. But he's high maintenance and it showed a lot as the season went on last year. I still wish he was a Ranger, but I honestly think the Rangers were wise not to go 5 years on him.
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Tx-Husker:
You don't hear many describe it that way, that's my description of it. But he talks frequently about how he is treated. He especially talked a lot about how he thought the fans and front office mistreated him at the end of the season...no complaints when he produced, only when he didn't. You would never hear coaches or players talk about it on the record, but media said they would off the record.

It also seemed to come about when he would have his mystery injuries. Don't get me wrong, he produces more than he doesn't. But he's high maintenance and it showed a lot as the season went on last year. I still wish he was a Ranger, but I honestly think the Rangers were wise not to go 5 years on him.


The best definition I ever heard, about what is an addictive peronality, was...

..an egomaniac with an inferiority complex.

I've seen that in many many people in my day and I'd have to say it's accurate.

Early recovery is a difficult time. While most get to experience it without the spotlight shining directly on them, I can't imagine what it would be like in the spotlight.

I'm not in any way making an excuse for the man, but I believe what you have described may be accurate based on what I know about recovery. Let's hope, for his sake, he continues to grow and learn how to deal with things better.
wraggArmwraggArm500+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by TPM:
Can you explain the success of oakland and baltimore?

The giants and cardinals?

Because the dodgers have the highest payroll this means they will be the next world champions?

There is so much more that goes into what makes teams winners and its not always the ones with the highest paid players or with the most talented.

Again lets continue this discussion next fall.

Yeah, I can explain those teams...they all had great chemistry. Their chemistry was so powerful that they were able to accomplish unbelievable things as a team.

If you could draft or trade for "chemistry", you would do it every time. If they would finally just start selling the stuff, you would order buckets of it to pour on your team during spring training.

You show me a big-market GM who stands up and says, "Hey, you know what...this paying for talent is a bunch of B.S...from now on, we're gonna look for clubhouse leadership and chemistry where no one else can find it..."

And I'll show you a man (or maybe someday a woman) who's looking for a job.
floridafanfloridafan5,000+ posts
I think many folks just hope he will be successful. After that HR Derby performance that introduced the country to him and his skill, he has become a person many like to root for.

Combine that with his past demons and continued struggles, many hope to see him overcome his failings.

His life is an interesting tale of the human condition.
Last edited by floridafan
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
The title of this thread was changed, not by me, but because there was a complaint that the title..

Murderers Row -1

was insensitive to the recent school tragedy.

Yesterday, a good friend of my son, a fellow West Point grad and s****r player, lost a leg in Afghanistan due to an IED. A more common tragedy these days.

My point is, at what point is sensitivity overdone? Is it appropriate to change our lives because of the bad deeds of single individual?

I say no. The whole idea of grandiose acts, whether it be the tragedies of yesterday or more common forms of terrorism, is to
A. Attract attention
B. Affect Society negatively

While we really have no control over A., because we know media will exploit the tragedy for ratings and average people will watch, similar to an auto accident phenomenon, we do have control over B.

When the London subways were bombed by terrorists, the Brits resolved to ride the subways to show that, no matter what you do, you won't change us. It is the appropriate response to terrorism, because it makes it ineffectual.

So, we take a fairly well know baseball term, Murderers Row and apply it to lineup potential every few years. Most people understand that it is being used as comparison to the famous lineup of the 27 Yankees.

Is it appropriate that we let the bad deeds of 1 individual change us enough so that reference to a part of our history is now deemed politically incorrect and insensitive? I think that is a perfect definition of irrational extremism.

I'm not here to make a mountain out of a molehill. However the slippery slope starts with one step. I believe, IMHO, in this case it is a misstep and needs to be shown for what it is in the stark light of day.

Do we now change any thread that refers to legs because I am overly sensitive to the fact that my sons friend lost his and references to legs remind me of the tragedy he suffered? I think not.

I choose to stand up to terrorism by not giving in and acting scared. I refuse to let it change me.

Regards,
Chip
Last edited by CPLZ
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
quote:
Originally posted by CPLZ:
The title of this thread was changed, not by me, but because there was a complaint that the title..

Murderers Row -1

was insensitive to the recent school tragedy.

Yesterday, a good friend of my son, a fellow West Point grad and s****r player, lost a leg in Afghanistan due to an IED. A more common tragedy these days.

My point is, at what point is sensitivity overdone? Is it appropriate to change our lives because of the bad deeds of single individual?

I say no. The whole idea of grandiose acts, whether it be the tragedies of yesterday or more common forms of terrorism, is to
A. Attract attention
B. Affect Society negatively

While we really have no control over A., because we know media will exploit the tragedy for ratings and average people will watch, similar to an auto accident phenomenon, we do have control over B.

When the London subways were bombed by terrorists, the Brits resolved to ride the subways to show that, no matter what you do, you won't change us. It is the appropriate response to terrorism, because it makes it ineffectual.

So, we take a fairly well know baseball term, Murderers Row and apply it to lineup potential every few years. Most people understand that it is being used as comparison to the famous lineup of the 27 Yankees.

Is it appropriate that we let the bad deeds of 1 individual change us enough so that reference to a part of our history is now deemed politically incorrect and insensitive? I think that is a perfect definition of irrational extremism.

I'm not here to make a mountain out of a molehill. However the slippery slope starts with one step. I believe, IMHO, in this case it is a misstep and needs to be shown for what it is in the stark light of day.

Do we now change any thread that refers to legs because I am overly sensitive to the fact that my sons friend lost his and references to legs remind me of the tragedy he suffered? I think not.

I choose to stand up to terrorism by not giving in and acting scared. I refuse to let it change me.

Regards,
Chip


I am just sick about this horrible thing that has happened.

I understand the points you have made above and what was meant by the title of the topic (which was begun before this terrible thing happended).

I personally had no issue with the title.
Last edited by TPM
RJMRJMHSBaseballWeb member since 2007
quote:
Originally posted by CPLZ:
The title of this thread was changed, not by me, but because there was a complaint that the title..

Murderers Row -1

was insensitive to the recent school tragedy.

Yesterday, a good friend of my son, a fellow West Point grad and s****r player, lost a leg in Afghanistan due to an IED. A more common tragedy these days.

My point is, at what point is sensitivity overdone? Is it appropriate to change our lives because of the bad deeds of single individual?

I say no. The whole idea of grandiose acts, whether it be the tragedies of yesterday or more common forms of terrorism, is to
A. Attract attention
B. Affect Society negatively

While we really have no control over A., because we know media will exploit the tragedy for ratings and average people will watch, similar to an auto accident phenomenon, we do have control over B.

When the London subways were bombed by terrorists, the Brits resolved to ride the subways to show that, no matter what you do, you won't change us. It is the appropriate response to terrorism, because it makes it ineffectual.

So, we take a fairly well know baseball term, Murderers Row and apply it to lineup potential every few years. Most people understand that it is being used as comparison to the famous lineup of the 27 Yankees.

Is it appropriate that we let the bad deeds of 1 individual change us enough so that reference to a part of our history is now deemed politically incorrect and insensitive? I think that is a perfect definition of irrational extremism.

I'm not here to make a mountain out of a molehill. However the slippery slope starts with one step. I believe, IMHO, in this case it is a misstep and needs to be shown for what it is in the stark light of day.

Do we now change any thread that refers to legs because I am overly sensitive to the fact that my sons friend lost his and references to legs remind me of the tragedy he suffered? I think not.

I choose to stand up to terrorism by not giving in and acting scared. I refuse to let it change me.

Regards,
Chip
Murderers Row is a baseball term that has lived for a hundred years. It has nothing to do with yesterday. To hell with political correctness. Geez, the next thing you there will be absurd people saying Christmas trees in public offend them and Christmas Break will be called Holiday Break.
Last edited by RJM
CPLZCPLZ1,000+ posts
Unfortunately, the threshold for things has been lowered to one person, without any regard for what's right or the impact it may have.

I recently had a conversation sitting outside a car wash waiting for my truck to come through.

The guy sitting next to me asked what the construction was, that was going on at the intersection of the busy road we were alongside. I told him a new stoplight was going in and that a new red light camera was going in at the same time. He thought about it for a minute and said...

"Well, I suppose if it saves one life, then it's worth it."

I answered...

"Well, the last fatal accident at that intersection was never. So, I doubt the hundred thousand travelers per week that will be inconvenienced by that light would agree with you. After all, what is the price of one life? Is it a hundred thousand, a million, a billion, a trillion? We can't go through life blindly submitting to every ideal saying, it must be worth it, if we never really assessed a cost, can we?"

"You have a point", he said.

But until that time, he was perfectly fine with the ideal that, whatever the cost, it sounds like the right thing.

Look before you leap, seems appropriate here.
Last edited by CPLZ
BaseballmomandCEPBaseballmomandCEP1,000+ posts
Sorry guys, it was me, and I am just going to chime in once here. I make no apologies for asking Julie to make that change.

I am not a big 'political correct' person. It just really hit me, in a physical way, to read that line every time I opened up HSBBW. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics, it just hurt to read it this day.

Our hearts are broken all across the country, but we live about 5 miles from the real murderer's row right now. We lost a neighbor. We know families who lost their little angels. Nobody here has been able to stop crying.

Nuff said. Change the title back if it means that much.

And feel free to rip me apart in true HSBBW old timers fashion if you'd like to. I have tough skin, I can handle it, and I actually won't reply any more because I don't have time.

Mary S

Trumbull CT
Three BaggerThree Bagger1,000+ posts
Folks,

Maybe we should not argue this point about the title of the thread at this time. I might be wrong as I have always said any idea could be discussed on an open forum and we do diverge from baseball once in a while. I know a person can just ignore the thread if they don't like the turn it's taken. But this tragedy is so horrible and repugnant to so many people that it seems we kind of trivialize it by arguing over something like the title of this thread. Each side of the argument has a point it is true, but maybe we should just leave this one alone.

As I said, I might be wrong about this and if people want to carry on with this path in the thread then do it but I'll have to stay out of this one.
CADadCADad5,000+ posts
I'm not nuts about this move. I really didn't think the Pujols move made a lot of sense given they already had two first basemen and I don't think this makes a lot of sense either. I know people don't think much of Wells but he'd be a .260 hitter with 30 hr playing full time and you aren't going to get much more out of Hamilton in Anaheim. I'd be surprised if he hits over .280. I would have much rather seen them go after Greinke. It does make a bit of sense if they can trade Bourjos for a good pitcher, but they needed to make a trade last season and didn't. There are too many repaired arms in the rotation.

My question is if these big splashy signings are coming from Dipoto or from Moreno?
Three BaggerThree Bagger1,000+ posts
CaDad,

I agree with some of your good points there although I am not as confident that Wells at 35 would still produce 30 Hrs with even a decent average. In his last season over 500 AB's two years ago, he hit .218, with a .245 OBP. Many insiders feel his bat has slowed down a lot and the only thing he hits consistently is mistakes.

I agree pitching is still something they may have to acquire in a trade and Bourjos is probably good trade material along with catcher Hank Conger, who for some reason hasn't been given that much of a chance.
Next

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×