"Buy Low" Lefties: Mulder vs. Lowry, the case for Lowry?

Mulder's the better pitcher, but I suspect that

at this point in his career his future, if he has one, is as a reliever.

Lowry, on the other hand, can still play a more valuable position (SP) but isn’t that great. He was, however, pretty solid when he first came up. Then he put up decent numbers with really bad peripherals. Then he got hurt. Then he was misdiagnosed and got more hurt.

Which Lowry would emerge if he joined the A’s? Well obviously the one who gets injured and is then misdiagnosed!

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 31, 2009 3:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe it'd be like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters?

by bobnothing on Oct 31, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Lowry would be brilliant with the A's because he's been pre-disastered...

Prithee, be not perturbed by yon third bagger.

by Poppy on Oct 31, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For actual money?

No, neither one of them.

As a non-roster invite to Spring Training with the chance to make the club? Sure, why not.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Oct 31, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 1, 2009 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just me...

but I have a soft spot for Mark Mulder. He was a great pitcher for us till he had the 2nd half from hell. I wouldn’t mind giving Mulder a minor league deal and give him a shot, ala Jerome Williams.

I'm the genius who said Chris Carter will slug .650 his rookie season.

by JamesCaprio on Oct 31, 2009 5:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Funny... I have a soft spot for Jerome Williams

Maybe he’ll have a good season in the Mexican League or Korea someday.

"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 1, 2009 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

I don’t mind signing either to a minor league deal. Cheap with high reward possibilities, that is what the A’s are kinda all about.

Worst case scenario they suck in the minors and you let them go and lose almost no money. It isn’t like we are going to sign Mulder to be the ace of our staff.

I'm the genius who said Chris Carter will slug .650 his rookie season.

by JamesCaprio on Nov 1, 2009 9:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+2

The foundational Western philosophical quote; "I think, therefore I am..." applies to everyone except Booby "the joke" Crozby

by MMunoz33 on Nov 1, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh

I described Brett Tomko as “throwing money down a well” the other day. This is worse than that. It’s pretty much lighting money on fire and then burying the ashes at the epicenter of Chernobyl, then posting the entire Russian army around it with orders to shoot to kill.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2009 6:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Tomko is AAA/emergency start fodder at best.

Why cant people get behind the idea of putting the onus on Braden and Anderson to be the “leaders” in the rotation? Braden’s already there pretty much and Anderson is just so good he wont need an older man giving him hints on what to do, thats what the pitching coach is there for.

I mean if you realllllllly want that “veteran presence” just sign Randy Johnson to be a swingman/long reliever.

by PL78 on Oct 31, 2009 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have a problem with signing a starter (in theory), given how bad the back of the rotation looks right now

I do have a problem with signing players who are terrible. Neither Mulder nor Lowry has been even an average player in the last four seasons.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Oct 31, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was really surprised that Tomko didn't get lit up repeatedly.

Maybe working with Curt Young/Ron Romanick really did fix some mechanical flaws.

I hope he gets over his injury this winter and has a nice year next year on whatever NL team he ends up with.

"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 1, 2009 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

a .228 babip is probably a good indicator of why he didn't get lit up.

"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper

"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles

by Cheezombie on Nov 2, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

most probably....

but the mechanical change is a variable we cannot fully troubleshoot for until Tomko pitches again.

"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 3, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Did he really have a mechanical change?

I mean his K and BB rates for 2009 are pretty similar to his past performances

"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper

"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles

by Cheezombie on Nov 3, 2009 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

but his K and BB rates before 2009 were pretty good. His problems before were bad luck and the gopher ball, and unfortunately he only solved one of those problems in 09…

by swatnick on Nov 4, 2009 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem

is that anything better than “not an average player” costs $8 mil a year nowadays.

WordUpThome: "TRENIDAD HUBBARD WENT TO HIS CUPBOARD TO FEED HIS POOR DOGS AND PETS...WHEN HE GOT THERE, THE CUPBOARD WAS BARE, AND THEY TRADED HIS DOG TO THE METS"

by Player To Be Named Later on Nov 2, 2009 10:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So?

The A’s have more than enough money to hire one of those guys. Maybe two.

Or they could keep filling their roster up with dreck filler that does nothing better than could have been done with minor leaguers.

Up to them, really.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 3, 2009 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think I made this post with signing Mulder/Lowry to be the “leaders” in mind?

If so, I better rephrase in a hurry…..

I agree with what most have posted here, offer either/or minor league deals and don’t expect anything.

Our back of the rotation is very questionable, and adding more arms increases the chance somebody can step into the rotation next year and contribute.

"If my uniform doesn't get dirty, I haven't done anything in the baseball game." - Rickey Henderson

by BillMoresi on Nov 1, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I feel the front is more questionable than the back

Add a good #4 and you just have another Cahill/Mazzaro/Gio in the mix. Add a #2, though, and suddenly Braden and Cahill/Mazzaro/Gio are pitching in spots they are better than, not worse than or equal to.

That’s always my goal: Be able to pitch a solid #2 3rd in the rotation, a solid #3 4th in the rotation, a solid #4 5th in the rotation.

With the Big 3, we always had that with an ace (Mulder or Hudson) #2, Zito at #3, Lilly/Lidle at #4.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 1, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why these particular arms, though?

These guys are injury-riddled nonentities at this point. Why not sign someone like Bedard, who is at least an injury-riddled entity?

There are actually a ton of injury-prone top-of-the-rotation-potential types available right now. Duchscherer, Harden, Sheets… the list goes on.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 1, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's what I'd be after: Available "possible #2s"

Bedard, Duke, Sheets all fit the bill. (Harden’s not coming back so I’m not even including him.)

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 1, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Id like to take this moment to vent

I haaaaate the notion of a #1, #4 etc starter. All it means is who stays healthy and puts up the best numbers out of your group. There’s no boundaries or statistical levels to base it on, who the fuck cares where they pitch in order? Injuries happen, rainouts etc, the order of SP’s is damn near meaningless until the playoffs.

by PL78 on Nov 1, 2009 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's really just a way of discussing ability/expectation

in a quick way. It has nothing to do with in what order they actually throw. A guy who is very good but not dominant enough to be an ace can be called a “#2” while a guy who can be excellent but is just too inconsistent can be labeled a #3, and so on.

For example, Jered Weaver & Ben Sheets are examples of guys who aren’t ace quality / healthy enough to be “#1s” but are still worthy of the front of the rotation, so we may call them “#2s,” while Scott Kazmir can be great but is pretty erratic so we might dub him a “#3.” It just gives you chance to look at the top 20%, next 20%, etc. in some efficient way.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 1, 2009 4:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

theres nothing efficient about it

its not regulated or substantiated by anything. its just idiots yelling numbers when they hear a name. its utterly nonsensical.

by PL78 on Nov 1, 2009 7:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think you understand its purpose

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 1, 2009 7:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

You’re in the habit of mercilessly disparaging things you don’t understand. It’s just a way of saying how good a pitcher looks. Is he somewhere in the top 20%-40% of SP’s? Then he’s labeled as a #2. It doesn’t matter if he’s actually the best guy on the squad, it’s just a way to classify pitchers based on talent.

No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.

by danmerqury on Nov 1, 2009 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

i understand what it is

i just dont agree with it because you can have 5 #1 types or 5 #5 types yet one of them will be the #1 and another the #5 because you have to have a rotation of 5 SPs.

Whats wrong with saying “He’s a good pitcher, better than 75% of the league”?

by PL78 on Nov 1, 2009 11:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Or maybe just,

“1st tier, 2nd tier, 3rd tier, 4th tier, 5th tier.” For simplicity, we can just call it “#1, #2, #3, #4, #5” — hey, problem solved!

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 2, 2009 7:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Of all the things to bizarrely rail against,

this is a really weird one. It’s not some new unproven statistic used in all personnel decisions. It’s just nomenclature. It’s just a way of quickly denoting a pitcher’s talent, instead of using the ham-fisted mouthful of “he’s a good pitcher, better than 75% of the league”.

And to claim that “theres nothing efficient about it” when efficiency is its main purpose? I don’t get it.

No, there's no light,
in the darkest of your furthest reaches.

by danmerqury on Nov 2, 2009 8:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Um... clearly you're not understanding it

If someone is an Ace, they’re better than 90+% of the league, a #2, 75-80% of the league and so on. Yes, you could have 5 #1s and that tells you you have one hell of a rotation. Don’t get caught up in rotation order, what type of pitcher they are isn’t relevant at all to where in the rotation they actually pitch. If you have an Ace pitching out of the 3rd slot of the rotation because you have two other Aces, that’s fantastic, if you have a #5 guy pitching in the 1st slot of the rotation because you have 4 other #5s, you’re screwed. All the ranking is, is where they’d ideally slot in if you were to use them in order from best starter to worst starter in comparison to all other starters in the league, not within the team itself.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 2, 2009 8:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

so tell me

what is the minimum requirement for an “ace”? What numbers are you using to prove that they are better than 90% of the league?

This isnt anything I put any real throught into, it just pisses me off hearing “he’s a #3 starter” when theres nothing behind it whatsoever. There’s no parameters or evidence other than “he’s the best, hes not as good, hes not as good, hes not as good, hes the worst”.

Why do we have to rank them like this?

by PL78 on Nov 2, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not a statistical based label

I’m sure someone could come up with one, but it’s not really about that. That’s why you hear people talk in terms of he’s a #2/#3 or a #3 with the upside of an Ace. It’s not any more precise/different than talking about prospects and evaluating their potential.

As to why? Isn’t that obvious? So that we can group pitchers and our expectations for them in a broad terms that say more than “he’s pretty good”. If you’re saying he’s a #2/#3, you’re basically saying he’s better than 75% of the league. It’s only a lot simpler and more universally understood what you’re expecting/evaluating. (And if you have a problem with that and not with saying “he’s better than 75% of the league”, I don’t get how).

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 2, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We don't have to rank them like this, PL78

Heck, if we prefer we can play croquet.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 2, 2009 5:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Careful there with the subtext....

PL78 has a valid point. The 25th-31st best SP according to WAR include names like Ted Lilly, Jason Hammel, Carl Pavano, and Jorge de la Rosa. Yet nobody calls them #1s. Randy Wells, Joe Blanton, and Kevin Correia are #2s according to WAR.

Now, this discrepancy is partly due to the inability of casual fans to see the value in pitching lots of innings and other factors. But when we slap a label on a guy like the # system, we need to analyze it just like we need to analyze all parts of the numbers we use.

The # system is seldom analyzed with the same rigor as other numbers and is often merely an opinion offered. That we should analyze it is how I read PL78’s view. And frankly, I agree with him.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Nov 2, 2009 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No, it just shows that the distribution

is not flat, it’s a bell curve. It’s not actually “top 20%, next 20%, next 20%…,” it’s more like “top 10%, next 25%, next 30%, next 25%, last 10%.”

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 2, 2009 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Only

…its not. You just made all those numbers up, there’s no set parameters for anyone to base these off of outside the “ace” one, which we all agree is the term given to the games best, like Johan Santana, CC Sabathia, Tim Lincecum (hopefully Brett Anderson) etc. But its because theres 5 SPs in a rotation people start using the other 4 numbers as weird “rankings” when there;s absolutely no reasoning behind it.

Can a #4 win a Cy Young? Yes. Is the “ace”? No? Maybe? Maybe now but he wasnt before??? Its too confusing.

My example of ""He’s a good pitcher, better than 75% of the league" is wrong and I overwrote it, I should have left it at “He’s a good pitcher”. At least that way I can qualify them with non threatening adjectives like “ace (or excellent), good, average, below average and poor”, which is indeed better than just numbering them, because you actually can have 5 “good” pitchers, so it doesnt matter what number they go in the rotation. Saying you have 5 #2 starters is really absurd to me.

But hey i dont really have an answer on how we can conveniently attach a number to a SP to somehow rank him, I mean what do we use with position players? We dont have a #3 2Bman, we just use RC, WAR and OPS and things of that nature to rank and grade them, perhaps we should just do the same with pitchers?

by PL78 on Nov 3, 2009 12:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, how will we rank our 4-man rotation at 2B?

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 3, 2009 7:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

(boots up time machine)

(sends this comment back to 1973)

(puts one more pin in Dick Williams voodoo doll)

"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 3, 2009 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Can a #4 pitcher win the Cy Young?

Well, can an average or below average pitcher win a Cy Young? The odds are against them and that’s precisely what the designation means. A big part of the Ace through 5 designation is to say, hey if I take this pitcher and assign him to a random team, where would he likely fall into if you were to rank all the starters on that team in order of the pitcher you’d most like to pitch in a big game for you. Really, you’re just getting caught in semantics and you’re own inability to wrap your head around the idea. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t make it inherently wrong like you seem to be proposing.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 3, 2009 7:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah its not a full fledged argument

Just something I feel is outdated and lacks a little bit of logic. It is indeed semantics, I just feel the semantics would be better without the use of numbers, seeing as numbers are so widely used in the game. Like we have all these stats and metrics, now we have some vague ranking numbers as well?

But also, a number 4 pitcher might be a young guy, like say, Gio Gonzalez. Say Gio pulls a Grienke and stops walking guys and giving up HRs next year, that would no doubt give him some Cy-worthy numbers would it not?

by PL78 on Nov 3, 2009 8:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

oh wait

I just noticed you immediately connected #4 with “average or below average”, that was kind of my point, you can have a very good pitcher throwing in the #4 spot in the rotation who could win a Cy. Or a pitcher who flat out stunk last year who’s never shown anything at the big league level suddenly find his game and work out the kink that was preventing him from being great.

by PL78 on Nov 3, 2009 9:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

See

you’re still mistaking a guy in the #4 spot in the rotation as being a #4 pitcher. A guy in the #4 spot could very well be a #2 guy or even an Ace (if you’re lucky) because you have 4 fantastic pitchers in the rotation. Just because he draws the 4th slot in the rotation doesn’t necessarily dictate the quality of the pitcher.

If Grienke, for instance, pitches out of the 4th slot in the rotation, he’s still an Ace/#2 level pitcher, he’s just in a really good rotation that make him fall into that 4th slot. Just like a guy who’s really a #4 type starter pitching in the #1 slot in the rotation doesn’t mean he’s an Ace.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 3, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Keep the faith PL !!

You nailed my 25-year-old pet peeve right to the wall.

by BoyHowdee on Nov 4, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, top 10% of all MLB pitchers is only 15 pitchers.

So they’d fall into the #2 rank. But I’d probably start with a smaller base that doesn’t include replacement level #5s types too.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 3, 2009 7:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Limiting your sample to qualified pitchers already does that

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 3, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

At which point an Ace is probably closer to the top 5-10 pitchers in the game (or fewer), a #2 in the 10 – 20 range, and so on.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Nov 3, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He's not coming back, but his availability might bring down the price of some of the others

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 1, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

True dat.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 1, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I see your point...

Although I wonder if the Mets fans felt that way when the saw Pedro sign with the Phillies as well?

Sometimes the old veterans go against the grain and outperform what was expected!
ala Frank Thomas (1st A’s stint)

With that said, the A’s haven’t had much luck lately with their old washed up veteran take out a flyer and see what’s left in the tank flyer signing…
(Piazza, Mi Sweeney, Garciaparra, and GIAMBI)

So maybe this approach by the A’s brass is over, at least for the short term?

The foundational Western philosophical quote; "I think, therefore I am..." applies to everyone except Booby "the joke" Crozby

by MMunoz33 on Nov 1, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so, a bit like the KLF, then

just with fewer dead sheep

by bobnothing on Nov 1, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

KLF stands for my bedroom?

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 1, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

All the proposed players are ancient, but not justified.

by Future Ed on Nov 1, 2009 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Both these guys

Need to pay an extended visit to Petco Park.

by PL78 on Oct 31, 2009 7:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Minor league deals

I see the A’s going after kevin Corriea someone who Beane has wanted for a while. Lowry and Mulder would be minor league deals. Both lowry and mulder are questionable with their arm injuries.

by Arcman on Nov 1, 2009 8:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to state this now, just so everyone's aware of it;

if the A’s sign Kevin Correiarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh, I shall write his name thusly, every time he pitches.

That is all

by bobnothing on Nov 1, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Giants fans

suffer from PTSD after what happened in Correia.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 1, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think there are 2 or 3 players on the giants roster

that are Correia vets. They are that old.

by Future Ed on Nov 1, 2009 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A couple may even date back to Jason auSchmidtz

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Nov 1, 2009 5:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

oh... that was a stretch....

unlike Willie McCovey these days.

He can hardly move at all.

I don’t know why they keep letting him play first base.

They should try that Ishikawa kid already.

"Flea Markets aren't just for blind dates anymore!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Nov 3, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

saw him on 280

by Future Ed on Nov 3, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take Mulder

Provided we’re talking something like $100 (no, not $100K, literally $100) and a ST invite.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Nov 1, 2009 8:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

If we had to pick between the two

And it was understood it’d be a minor leauge deal, then I’d choose Mulder just on the basis that neither are likely to provide anything of value so might as well choose a guy who we all loved way back when.

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin

by Helloooo 1st on Nov 2, 2009 12:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs