Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Three guys who make more money than I ever will

I just spent a while writing an e-mail with info about a party, and tried to give it a human feel for the recipients. This prompted Mr. Sinensky to say:
AvSinensky: its not enough for you to just give the info and directions
AvSinensky: u had to put jokes
Now that you know Sinensky's screenname, please bombard him with spam IMs.

Anyway, I just threw in a couple of jokes, no big deal. I do feel like I've done my writing for the night, but I'm still here, reporting for the duty that only I seem to really care about.

Mets signed Chad Bradford today. As Ander said, "My problem with it is that its not big enough to legitimately get excited about, nor insignificant enough to mock the importance of." Good job by Ander, I think that sums it up. I knew to make a big deal of Delgado, and knew to make a sarcastic mock big deal out of Tike Redman. The Mets need bullpen help. Bradford qualifies as bullpen help. But he's coming off a down year, and is definitely not of the Farnsworth-Baez ilk that I was hoping for at the start of the offseason. I applaud Minaya for the signing, because I'm quite sure that Bradford doesn't speak Spanish. (No, that joke will never get old, I don't care what you say.) As a Mets fan, this pen still worries me. The mission was to land a closer and a strong setup man. Closer's here, where's the strong setup man? Heilman may or may not be that. Bradford isn't that. Padilla isn't that. Hell, let's just open it up in spring training and see what happens. Is Greg McMichael still on this team? How about Jerry DiPoto, can we bring him back? I have the number for Doug Sisk's agent handy, let's give him a ring.

Orioles sign Jeromy Burnitz. The Orioles stink. Burnitz will stink at some point in the very near future. There, that's my damn analysis of that.

Jon Garland signs a 3 year, $29 mil extension with the White Sox, avoiding arbitration. I like this. Why overpay some other team's pitcher based on one good season when you can overpay your own team's pitcher based on one good season? Streamlines the process, I think. I have mixed feelings about Garland. This guy was a big prospect when he was traded for Matt Karchner. Anybody who'd thought of the existence of Matt Karchner at any point this century until reading the previous sentence gets $500 from me. Yeah, that trade took place in 1998. I could illustrate the point by cleverly listing all the differences between now and 1998 (Dontrelle Willis was in 10th grade, Mike Piazza was still a force, etc). But how about this to underscore the point? 1998 WAS A LONG FUCKING TIME AGO!!!! I think that did it quite nicely. My point is, there was a serious delay between the prospect stage and the actually helping the White Sox stage of Jon Garland's career. This makes me a little skeptical.

However, Garland is only 26, which I think is just as important. He had a breakout season just as he entered his prime. This should bode well for the future. In 2005 he cut down his walks substantially, which no doubt factored into his success. He pitches a lot of innings. But he doesn't strike out a ton of batters and gives up too many homers (although he cut this down also in '05). For a team that has Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras, and Vazquez, I'm tempted to say they could have played a little bit more hardball with Garland. $10 mil a year for what he has actually done is quite generous. But if he has another good year in '06, he'll easily get $13 mil as a free agent, and the Sox would regret not having locked him up now. Tough call. Any White Sox fans out there want to weigh in? I'm torn. Gutless of me not to have a strong opinion either way, I know. I hope you won't all lose respect for me now.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no idea how this blogging thing works, but since Eric bothers me about it everyday, even though it is 3 something in the morning I will try to make my initial post. For those of you who do not know (I suppose most of you)....could there be a most out of 2 people? I am a diehard Met fan. I have many feelings on the Mets present and past. However, for this, my inaugural blog, I feel like pointing out a random statistical quirk that has nothing to do with anything except of course the simple love of baseball and its excruciating minutiae.

We all know that Albert Pujols is a great hitter. A GREAT hitter. If he continues on this pace for another 10-15 years he will arguably be the best righthanded hitter of all time (yes maybe even better than Piazza). I dont want to address his greatness right now, rather I would like to simply point out this crazy statistical quirk that has occurred in his first 5 years. The following are Pujols' years in the league coupled with his At Bats in each each respective year: 2001-590. 2002-590. 2003-591. 2004-592. 2005-591. How is this possible??!! He played in different amonts of games each year, walked different amounts of times, had different hitters around him, how can these numbers be so close to each other!? Does this say anything about Pujols as a player? Not really (only that he has been quite durable and healthy over his first 5 years). Its just one of those weird, random things in baseball, and that is exaclty why I enter the blogger world with it. Cause baseball among other things is about random, quirky facts.

Be back later with something more normal. Jared.

3:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home