Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows

Schilling's interest

180px-captainpenny_tiny by CaptainPenny on

Boston Globe is reporting that Schilling is unlikely to reach a deal with the Red Sox. Apparently he has a blog on which he has listed 12 teams that he is interested in (because they have off-the-field things he & his family are interested in and they could win). The first team listed in the Globe article is the Tribe. Sorry, I don't have the links to the Globe article or the blog as I am just looking at the hard copy over a bowl of Wheat Chex. Maybe someone could add them in the comments - I have to get to work!!

0 recs | Comment 115 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Schilling's interest
Currently mentioned in two different threads before this one.

by nickjs21 on Oct 31, 2007 11:48 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
eh, thats ok. This probably deserves its own thread anyways.

by hans on Oct 31, 2007 11:55 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
How much is he making? I'd say give him one year, $5-7 mil and it might be worth it. Especially if we don't pick up Byrd's option. It wouldn't cost too much more for better production.
Now the Lord can make you tumble, and the Lord can make you turn, and the Lord can make you overflow... but the Lord can't make you burn

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 31, 2007 11:56 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
He's been making roughly $13MM/year for the past four years.

by nickjs21 on Oct 31, 2007 12:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Ah, ok.

/inserts foot firmly in mouth

Now the Lord can make you tumble, and the Lord can make you turn, and the Lord can make you overflow... but the Lord can't make you burn

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 31, 2007 12:24 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
In a market where Bartolo Colon could get $10 million, Schilling won't come cheap.

by nickjs21 on Oct 31, 2007 12:30 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
If it's a one year deal, Schilling will want at least the 13 he made last year.

by Roger Dorn on Oct 31, 2007 12:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Here's the source, his blog. He does indeed mention the tribe first on that list. He been making about 13m/yr

http://38pitches.com/2007/10/30/free-agency-weird/#more-110

by wooglin on Oct 31, 2007 12:10 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Can we.....
I would say more like half full of s$#@ all of the time.
Now the Lord can make you tumble, and the Lord can make you turn, and the Lord can make you overflow... but the Lord can't make you burn

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 31, 2007 12:33 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Can we.....
9/10 full of #$%& 9/10 of the time.

by jeremy on Oct 31, 2007 12:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Can we.....
Well, no one ever sais I was good at math.
Now the Lord can make you tumble, and the Lord can make you turn, and the Lord can make you overflow... but the Lord can't make you burn

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 31, 2007 12:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Can we.....
Sorry, had to delete the comment you were replying to (Ground Rules).

by Jay on Oct 31, 2007 1:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Can we.....
sorry. Is it because I said s#@#? Just want to make sure. Thanks.

by crazymoloh on Oct 31, 2007 1:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
i've got to say it would be a little harder to root for the team on days when he's pitching... but i'm pretty sure i'd still be able to do it.

really not certain he's worth the dough, though, unless he's willing to take over pie duty as part of his contract.

by jeremy on Oct 31, 2007 12:38 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Can we.....
We have two aces that could use some postseason mentoring, but not for $13M/yr.

by JulioBernazard on Oct 31, 2007 12:49 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
It's amazing how un-douchey a guy becomes when he's playing for your team. That said, I'd probably decline Byrd's option and go for it.

by ASP on Oct 31, 2007 12:52 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
We'd be in quite a bind if we declined Byrd's option and Schilling signed with someone else.  I just don't feel like we can win bidding wars.

by nickjs21 on Oct 31, 2007 12:56 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
when do we have to make a decision on Byrd's option?

by hans on Oct 31, 2007 12:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Ten days after the World Series ends, which is one week from today.

Barring further revelations in the hGH situation, we're picking it up, no doubt.

A 50-day suspension could make it interesting, but I think we pick it up anyway.  One-year deal, see below.

by Jay on Oct 31, 2007 1:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
So, there's the potential that Byrd could get suspended 50 days for past HGH use? Not to defend Byrd if he used the HGH as a performance enhancer, but doesn't that seem like MLB would be playing a little fast and loose with the rules?

If MLB had their act together years ago when they could have at least attempted to police PED use I wouldn't be so hard on them now.

by emd2k3 on Nov 2, 2007 1:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
There's just no way that happens. You're right - they can't justify that, legally, morally, ethically, etc.

by Voltaire on Nov 2, 2007 10:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
I think the theory is that Selig may issue suspensions based on these cases even knowing that he'll lose in arbitration when the union challenges it.  Making a statement, or something.

by Jay on Nov 2, 2007 11:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Didn't the USOC pop Marion Jones in a similar fashion - without a positive urine test but with sales records?
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Nov 3, 2007 8:07 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
I think so, but I don't believe there's a collective bargaining agreement governing their actions.

by Jay on Nov 3, 2007 2:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
I responding to the "ethically and morally" part of Voltaire's "they can't justify that, legally, morally, ethically".  

If a high minded organization like the IOC has no problem with stripping a champion of her medals without a positive urine sample or any other physical evidence, I figure a spineless twerp like Selig would have no compunction doing the same to Byrd.  Although I'm sure that the Players Association - the co-conspirators in this sordid affair - will block that action.

Bud-Lyte will have no problems with the morals or ethics involved cuz, you know, he's got the M&E's of a used car salesman. Which, of course, he is.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Nov 3, 2007 3:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
I would have no problem with Bud suspending Byrd with out a positive urine test.  One reason would be there isn't a reliable urine test for HGH. And secondly if he broke a federal law or MLB law by buying it with out a medical clearance from MLB he deserves to be suspended.
My wish list. Jhonny Peralta to 3rd Cabrera to SS and go get Jason Bay. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Nov 3, 2007 4:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
I don't believe its a federal crime to buy it, "without medical clearance from MLB". Granted you owned your opinion that you have no problem with Byrd being suspended without a urine test (or may I assume any concrete physical evidence of actual ingestion of hGH), I, myself, would have a problem with that.

I wonder what your motive is here E5? I'll be blunt and say that Byrd represents a valuable commodity to the team that I root for, whether as the 4th starter or as a trading chip, assuming that they pick up his option. Would you prefer it that they don't pick up his option? From what you have written before, you have indicated (to me, at least) that you do not think he has any value as a trading chip, you have not come out and directly stated that we would be better served with starting another pitcher (if so, whom?) and simply not picking up the option, but I wonder if you do believe this.

by hans on Nov 3, 2007 5:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Yes, I do believe we would be better off with some one else.  I think we should trade for a starting pitcher but we do have options in house if need be.  Byrd is a decent number five but if he is gone for 50 games or at least 10 starts he would not be worth  it.
My wish list. Jhonny Peralta to 3rd Cabrera to SS and go get Jason Bay. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Nov 4, 2007 4:55 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
one thing to note, is that we wouldn't have to pay him during his suspension.

I guess where you and me don't see eye to eye, is in Byrd's percieved value. I think he is valuable, I think we could trade him, even if he is handed the suspension, we could trade him during the season after his serves his suspension. I just don't see how it would serve us to not pick up the option.

by hans on Nov 4, 2007 6:11 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
we wouldn't have to pay him during his suspension

Great point, that hadn't even occurred to me.

That reduces the option cost to $5.5 million -- arguably, we should actually root for this to happen.

Missing all those games can't be a good thing, but we have starting depth.  Possibly, we even get to set up an extended competition between Lee, Sowers and Laffey, maybe rejuvenate Lee's trade value, etc.  And once Byrd gets back, he's seven weeks more fresh than everyone else for the stretch rn and October.

I'm just saying ... it's not all bad.  Every team in the league would take 4.2 months of Paul Byrd for $5.5 million.

by Jay on Nov 4, 2007 6:24 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
E5- listen to yourself.  We know that Byrd had a prescription for hGH - right?  So he wouldn't be in violation of any laws.  And when he purchased the hormone it wasn't banned by MLB - true to. So there's no indication that he used hGH after it was banned by MLB.  So he neither violated the law or MLB's rules.  So, exactly what is he guilty of?

As to a urine test for hGH - this is gonna be real tough.   This is a polypeptide, not a steroid, and is physiologically active at much lower serum levels than steroids.  Couple that with the fact that the metabolites of the various hormones are present at differing concentrations in the urine, depending on hydration, and you've got a real challenge developing a urine test for hGH.

Nope, the best possibility for detecting hGH is a direct blood test for the hormone or maybe a physiologic marker.   So, it's no conspiracy - just the difficulties in detecting low concentrations of polypeptide hormones in the renal filtrate.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Nov 5, 2007 7:58 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
First thing is, you don't decline Byrd.  You pick up the option and then trade him if necessary.  That's a great one-year deal, and someone will want it.  Second thing is, if Byrd is worth $8 million -- and he's worth at least that much -- then Schilling obviously is worth $13 million if not more.

One-year deals can't be compared to multi-year deals, because not only is the risk multiplied by the number of years, but the risk is much greater in each successive year -- because a career-ending injury not only kills the year when it happens but every year after that as well.  You give C.C. $18 million over five years, but you should think of that as 22 + 20 + 18 + 16 + 14.

If you can get Schilling on a one-year deal for $16 million, you do it.

by Jay on Oct 31, 2007 1:08 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
That would basically put the final nail in the coffin on resigning CC, right?

But seeing as how that's the likely reality anyway, I'd be all about Schilling.

Now the Lord can make you tumble, and the Lord can make you turn, and the Lord can make you overflow... but the Lord can't make you burn

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 31, 2007 1:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Why do people think things like this?

C.C.'s extension would start in 2009.  Schilling's salary would be paid in 2008 -- the Indians have always seemed averse to deferred contracts.

It is true that the Indians gave money in 2007 to Westbrook and Hafner for extensions starting in 2008 and 2009, but that was a unique situation where our 2007 payroll came in significantly under the amount budgeted -- we had spare money lying around.  If we didn't do the same with C.C., it would not be unusual, and there's no reason to think it would be a deal-breaker.

I would not expect a Schilling signing to have any effect on C.C.'s contract.  However, if they sign Schilling and fail to extend C.C., it would open the door for a team to try to knock us over with an offer for C.C.  Far more likely, though, we trade Byrd and/or Lee.

by Jay on Oct 31, 2007 1:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Good points. I feel like I've just been scolded and put in time-out.
Now the Lord can make you tumble, and the Lord can make you turn, and the Lord can make you overflow... but the Lord can't make you burn

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 31, 2007 1:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
That's what they call the gavel.

by nickjs21 on Oct 31, 2007 1:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Sorry, man, didn't mean for it to sound so harsh.  This is a pretty common misconception, even for people with a lot of management or business experience.  It's as though people think all that goes out the window when it comes to their sports team, that there's just this big pile of amorphous cash lying around.

Almost all organizations operate based on annual budgets, and sports teams of course are no different.  The Indians -- with their focus on tying spending to revenue and avoidance of deferred money in deals -- seem even more inclined to think that way than your average team.

So I really do think, yes, that 2008 deals have nothing to do with C.C.

by Jay on Oct 31, 2007 1:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Ha ha, no worries. I'd rather be corrected and get things right than spout off about things with no factual basis.
Now the Lord can make you tumble, and the Lord can make you turn, and the Lord can make you overflow... but the Lord can't make you burn

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 31, 2007 1:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
If anything you sign Schilling for 16mm and then in 2009 when trying to re-sign CC tell yourself, "Hey we have 16 + Byrd's 8mm (22mm) coming off the books. Let's use that money to extend CC." It's not that simple obviously because of the later years of the contract, but you are right, a one year deal has no impact on CC.

by Roger Dorn on Oct 31, 2007 4:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
I'd take him at ~$13-14 million...he's no lock to stay healthy, but he's certainly worth the risk.

Picking up Byrd's option is a no-brainer, IMO. However, part of me wonders if we should spin him somewhere. Regardless of what happens with the HGH situation, he's a very valuable trading chip since he's a one year, $8 million #3ish pitcher.

There are a ton of teams who could use him, and the one that's been jumping out at me for a month is the Padres. He fits great in that park behind Peavy, Young, and Maddux, and they have plenty of relievers we could use. I've had a man-crush on Heath Bell for awhile, but he's probably too expensive, so someone like Cla Meredith would make a lot of sense. If we could make both of these moves, you're basically looking at an upgrade at SP plus a solid young reliever for $6 million. In this market, that's an extremely small price to pay.

by Kos on Oct 31, 2007 1:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Byrd has not trade value at all, especially when he will be suspended for 50 games. Secondly the Padres are not going to be trading pitching for pitching.  If anything they would take a bat but we don't have anything to offer them for Meredith or Bell and if we did, we would have made it part of the Barfield trade last year.
My wish list. Jhonny Peralta to 3rd Cabrera to SS and go get Jason Bay. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Oct 31, 2007 9:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Oh my god E5, you're right! Byrd has no trade value at all! I can't take supporting this loser franchise, I'm becoming a Boston fan.

by hans on Oct 31, 2007 9:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
E5, there are so many things wrong with what you just said.

  1. Are you clairvoyant?

  2. We have nothing to offer, but incredible depth in the outfield. I'm sure they'd love to get their hands on Francisco.

  3. How would the Barfield trade have any relevance on this situation? Seriously! It's a whole different year!
Gator fans have so much in common with Yankee fans. Minus the history and championships, of course.

by gahnki on Oct 31, 2007 9:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. The Padres knew they needed more bats then and would have traded for another one of our bats if they felt they would give up equal value. In other words one of our bats (that we were willing to trade) does not equal one of their bullpen guys.
My wish list. Jhonny Peralta to 3rd Cabrera to SS and go get Jason Bay. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Oct 31, 2007 9:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
  1. No
  2. Why not?
  3. Things change over the course of a year. Francisco and Gutierrez both did a lot to help themselves. Sowers hurt himself. I know you saw this coming since you are the smartest person ever/clairvoyant, but it is possible the Padres did not. Not to mention you still missed the point of that entire conversation.

A move with them is possible. We have what they need, offense/starting pitching in some way, and they have what we may need. Don't just dismiss it because you don't like the idea. Wishing will not make it so.
I swear, next year is it.

by fwembt on Oct 31, 2007 10:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
They don't need a starting pitcher Justin Germano is young and already better the Byrd. Certainly Tomko is as good or better then Byrd.
Peavy, Young and Maddux are way better then Byrd so I fail to see their starting pitching needs.  If they resign Bradley which they are likely to do they don't have a need in the outfield.  They currently have an opening at 2B so maybe Barfield could be traded back for something but it would not be for a relief pitcher, one of the teams strengths.
My wish list. Jhonny Peralta to 3rd Cabrera to SS and go get Jason Bay. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Oct 31, 2007 10:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Milton Bradley is incredibly injury prone and, in general, a nightmare. I'm pretty sure the Padres would love some alternatives.

by Voltaire on Oct 31, 2007 10:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Mike Cameron is gone. but don't let that get in the way of your rant.

by hans on Oct 31, 2007 11:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
"Certainly Tomko is as good or better then Byrd."

Brett Tomko, 2006 ERA+ 95 in 112 in.
2007 ERA+ 80 in 131 in.

Paul Byrd, 2006 ERA+ 93 in 179 in. 2007 ERA+ 100 in 192 in.

by ClarkM on Nov 1, 2007 1:17 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
I know you rarely respond in a discussion but here goes anyway.

  1. Brett Tomko is not now, and never will be, better than Paul Byrd. Tomko is a below league average pitcher and always has been, by no measure is he better than Byrd. That a is patently absurd claim to make. It simply cannot be supported by fact.

  2. Justin Germano is also not better than Paul Byrd. It is possible he could develop into a better pitcher but, as of right now, he is not. Again, look up some stats or something. Germano has a bright future but right now he is not as good a major league pitcher as Paul Byrd.

  3. The starting ages across the Padre out next year: 30 for the essentially worthless Termell Sledge, 37 for league average Brian Giles and 30 for Milton Bradley, the only decent player in the lot. Mike Cameron (31) is suspended, no better than league average and a FA.

Bradley is also a FA and will get good money if they go to arbitration. Add to this the fact that he was hurt for more than half of the games for which he could have played for San Diego and you have a compelling case for his being elsewhere next year. So why again is Ben Francisco not a fit there? Their outfield is abysmal, old and on the way out. Please explain, with some factual basis, why Byrd or Ben Francisco make no sense in San Diego.
I swear, next year is it.

by fwembt on Nov 1, 2007 1:20 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
You're in midseason form, E5.

by nickjs21 on Oct 31, 2007 11:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Quick quiz: name all the players MLB has retroactively suspended for substance abuse.

by Voltaire on Oct 31, 2007 10:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
And how is it that he'll be suspended, E5?  A really old urine sample they've been holding on to just in case?

So Byrd, a league-average starter who approached 200 IP last year, has no value.  No one would want him.  Yet you've been in support of trading Barfield for a week now.  What do you expect in return for one of baseball's worst everyday players last year?  

by nickjs21 on Oct 31, 2007 11:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Hey man, E5 said it...what are trying to say that E5 doesn't know what he's talking about, that he doesn't support his claims...puhleease! Byrd has no trade value, I didn't know it either, but when E5 wrote it, my eyes were opened up.

by hans on Oct 31, 2007 11:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
1. He can be suspended very easily.
http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/sports/119356031689940.xml&coll=2#con tinue
2. I have never supported trading Barfield.  I in fact want him to be our starting second basemen next year so I am not sure where you are getting that from.
My wish list. Jhonny Peralta to 3rd Cabrera to SS and go get Jason Bay. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Oct 31, 2007 11:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Baseball's leadership wants to see whether even if players such as Byrd stopped using HGH before MLB banned it in January of 2005, they still may have broken the law depending on why they used it.

The key here is your wording, "he can be suspended very easily."  MLB, as far as I know, has never been able to prove anything like this (how many players have been suspended that didn't fail a drug test?), and certainly not retroactively.  He technically can be suspended.  Odds are against it.

The problem here is your abrasive nature.  Instead of saying, "It's entirely possible that MLB could find a way to suspend Byrd," you went Miss Cleo on us and decreed, "Byrd has not[sic] trade value at all, especially when he will be suspended for 50 games."  You can see where people take issue with this.  Just don't be like that.

by nickjs21 on Oct 31, 2007 11:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
ah, but he uses the word "especially" which indicates that what is presented preceding the use of the word is sufficent (ala, even without the 50 game suspension, Byrd's value is 0, zero, nada, opposite of something).

So E5 does not think Byrd is valuable at all. Like we couldn't trade him for Nefi Perez is we tried. That's some cold sauce E5 just poured on Byrdy.

by hans on Oct 31, 2007 11:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Everything about this post is hilarious.

by Kos on Nov 1, 2007 4:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Jay said:

"If you can get Schilling on a one-year deal for $16 million, you do it."

Maybe if you're the Yanks, Red Sox, Angels, Dodgers, etc; but definitely not if you're the Indians.  That's crazy jack for a 4th starter.

by SpringTrainingFun on Oct 31, 2007 9:02 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Who pitches when is all just meaningless details.  

by nickjs21 on Oct 31, 2007 9:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
"if Byrd is worth $8 million -- and he's worth at least that much -- then Schilling obviously is worth $13 million if not more."

I wouldn't necessarily, based on this year's performance compared with Byrd, say Schilling is WORTH that much, but it is what he will DEMAND and GET.  You are definitely right though, Byrd is worth $8 mil.

But I definitely agree that you pick up Byrd's option.  Not so sure about a 41 year old pitcher with DL time in 3 of the last 5 seasons for $16 mil though....

by joecardsfan on Nov 1, 2007 10:27 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
From a complete irrational emotional front, I still hate Schilling for spurning us when he was leaving the Phillies. The Indians were on his "do not want" list back when we were desperate for a #1 pitcher.

So, poo to him.

by Toxicadam on Oct 31, 2007 1:44 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
In Curt's defense, the Indians were ten games out of first place the week he was traded, and the D'backs were only three games out.

by Jay on Oct 31, 2007 2:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
How do you leverage the negative impact Schilling's advice would have on CC's numbers when considering how much he's worth?

by Brick. on Oct 31, 2007 1:45 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Schilling is not exactly a character guy, is he? His "me first" approach wouldn't exactly fit the Shapiro/Wedge model.

That said, as Jay said, if you can get him on a one year deal at $15 million, the Indians should seriously look into it.

  1. CC
  2. Fausto
  3. Schilling
  4. Westbrook
  5. Byrd (if option), Laffey, Sowers, etc.

Leaves the door open for Lee to be traded (which I'm desperately hoping for).
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Oct 31, 2007 1:58 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
He indulges himself by speaking his mind, constantly, but never at the expense of a teammate, not that I can remember.  I think he's considered a good teammate.

by Jay on Oct 31, 2007 2:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Ah, guess I just allowed my personal views to influence my feelings towards him.
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Oct 31, 2007 3:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Do people dislike Schilling because he is loud about his political views or because his loud political views are Republican? Don't mean for this comment to create an aside into political discussion.

by Roger Dorn on Oct 31, 2007 4:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Without getting too political, I feel like he runs his mouth for the sake of running it, akin to a 24 hour news network talking head. Doesn't matter which side his views fall on.
Now the Lord can make you tumble, and the Lord can make you turn, and the Lord can make you overflow... but the Lord can't make you burn

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 31, 2007 4:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Agreed, in fact I was hoping that I could say something like: "I think the best place for him to sign is in Washington or Texas." Hint, hint.
-Bo

by bodiaz74 on Oct 31, 2007 6:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Schilling's interest
Yeah, he seems to think a) a lot of people want to hear his views and b) they want to hear them often, but I doubt either of those things is true.

by JulioBernazard on Oct 31, 2007 5:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs