Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Can Tebow Say No To Anything?

Tigers/Rays trade

We argued the virtues of Edwin Jackson a while back. Apparently, the Tigers like him.

about 1 year ago Andy_marte_tiny peter m 241 comments 0 recs  | 

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

The Tigers have been looking for a new closer during most of this week’s winter meetings. Their search continued Wednesday, as they worked on a three-way deal with the Seattle Mariners and Tampa Bay Rays that would have brought Michigan native J.J. Putz to Detroit.

But as afternoon turned to evening, the focus shifted. The Mariners partnered with the Cleveland Indians and New York Mets on a 12-player deal that sent Putz to New York, while the Tigers and Rays talked about a more traditional deal: two teams, two players.

by Brick. on Dec 11, 2008 3:00 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Suck it, Detroit

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Got to be Fuentes for them then, right?

by dgcambridge on Dec 11, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Oops, now I read that they are not in on Fuentes.

by dgcambridge on Dec 11, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I noticed that amid the tumult of the big 3-way trade. I was one who was advocating picking up Jackson as a minimal solution to adding an innings eater to the rotation, and I couldn’t help but think that it would have been a better trade for ’09 if Gutz had gone to the Rays for Jackson.

I know a lot of people, including a lot of Rays fans, don’t think much of EJ, but he’s still young, cheap, has a great arm, and made 30+ starts last year.

Jay did, however, mention the cherry on top of the Seattle deal – it prevented Detroit from getting Putz.

by mcrose on Dec 11, 2008 3:09 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

It really is pretty cool. They wanted Wood or Putz, we took Wood (whom they’ll now have to face up to a dozen times) and brokered a deal to send Putz to the National League. That’s some serious stinkpalm, and we improved our own club while doing it.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Stinkpalm!

by mcrose on Dec 11, 2008 4:35 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

this makes me think of shapiro and antonetti in their pimp outfits again

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

antonetti is wearing something right out of the player hater’s ball in my mind

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It may or may not be just in your mind.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Also!

I know I’ve brought this up a million times before, but we really need some t-shirts for LGT. I would buy at least three, and I have some good ideas for designs. I want one with Shap in an Obama-esque pose with the famous two-tone pattern.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 5:04 PM EST up reply actions   2 recs

To avoid taking political sides, there could also be one depicting Tom Mastny looking out at Russia from his house in Indonesia

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Wow that is great

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 5:14 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i would buy that in a heartbeat

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I’d be in for one minimum.

by Voltaire on Dec 11, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It’d have to be really funny to convert me into a merchbuyer.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 11, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well they would definitely be funnier than my ideas.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

This is just another phony white yuppie tastemonger thing.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Seriously? Are you seriously going to argue that Arrested Development isn’t obviously loads better than Everybody Loves Raymond?

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You know, the show was both critically adored and enormously successful with a huge audience. At some point, you have to ask whether the opinions of a tiny percentage of self-appointed tastemongering faux intellectuals are really that important. And also, what does a show have to be in order to impress those people, other than too clever by half?

Arrested Development was a brilliant show. The fact that it was way over the heads of most viewers does not diminish it, but it surely isn’t a good thing.

Remember over in the off-topic music discussion, we were talking about the primacy of well-crafted, sophisticated material that somehow reaches a mass audience anyway. Raymond never reached those heights, but it surely got closer than AD did.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I never found ELR particularly sophisticated. Nor does it have any raw vegetable appeal.

I have a pretty high standard for judging traditional sit coms — it’s really been played to death as a genre, and generally feels forced, so unless you can do something a little bit different, or at least have standout smart writing, I don’t have the patience.

The form of AD gives it a leg up from the beginning, in my book — not that it’s sufficient, but it gets your foot in the door. AD also has good writing, which ultimately is what makes it stick.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 6:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, not that this is the be-all-end-all, but it looks like ELR was nominated for a Writing Emmy six times in seven years, though it only won once. It also won a Writers Guild Award — which also happens to be one of the only major awards that was ever won by The Wire.

I think ELR was generally considered a very well written show, though not remarkably well written and (as other have noted) not innovative. But innovation isn’t everything, and the show was not primarily known for its writing, but rather for its performances.

I’ll tell you a funny thing about writing awards, as an aside. If you go down the list of Oscar winners for Best Screenplay, you’ll probably find that it’s a much better and consistently good list of great movies, period, than the list of Best Picture winners. People often credit movies that are really good for being well written — as they often are — but then vote for some other kind of movie as “best overall” just because it’s more impressive in some way — Titanic, Gump, Braveheart, etc. It’s interesting.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 6:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I avoid movie/TV show awards on the same principle that I avoid MVP/Gold Glove awards.

by Voltaire on Dec 11, 2008 7:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It has good writing. Most people don’t appreciate good writing. So those that do are “tiny percentage of self-appointed tastemongering faux intellectuals”?

by Voltaire on Dec 11, 2008 6:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

On the importance of writing

(Woody Allen video on the writers’ strike)

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

By the way, is anyone a real intellectual in your book? Or does showing any signs of intellectualism automatically earn one the label “faux intellectual”?

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 6:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, no. The faux part is about obsessiveness and elitism over genuine thoughtfulness and depth. I certainly consider myself an intellectual and feel that intellectualism is a very good thing.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps “militant intellectual” then? “Faux” makes it sound like someone who puts on the trappings of intellectualism, and goes to great lengths to convince people that he’s an intellectual, but doesn’t actually exhibit thoughtfulness and depth.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 6:43 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, it does make it sound like that, and that’s what I mean by it.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 6:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh. I misinterpreted your use of the word “over”.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

This is the whole complexity ≠ sophistication thing, and also tastemongering ≠ critique.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 6:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

But certainly you’re not arguing that ELR is sophisticated or deep?

by Voltaire on Dec 11, 2008 6:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Not terribly deep but probably a little more sophisticated than you’re giving it credit for. I bet most of us here would appreciate it more by watching it in our mid-40s than in our mid-20s.

One thing for sure is that it was more sophisticated (and more well produced overall) than AD was popular. And that’s kind of my point.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 6:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i had this thing with Friends. I refused to watch it because I thought it was too low brow but a good deal of the jokes were a lot smarter than I originally thought.

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, and this is the same type of thing.

I hate to patronize, but there is this tendency when you’re going through your tastemongering phase in your 20s where you have to rip on things that are quite popular, quite celebrated and quite well done — as though that further elevates The Wire. Not everything is intended for the same purpose, and things can be exceptionally well done without being one’s personal own cup of tea.

As someone who works in creative production every day, I get annoyed at people who think they know good work when they really only know how high-fallutin’ something is.

There is a space for serious criticism, but tastemongers are not serious critics — a serious critic understands something about the craft and evaluates an artistic work on its own terms and merits, not on some scale of being similar to The Wire or Arrested Development or the collected works of P.T. Anderson. In television, there are relatively few serious critics who are worth a damn. There are more in film, but still few enough to consider them precious.

So you have people in the industry, the peers of the artists and craftspeople, and their opinions. And then you have the judgment of the masses, the success of the thing in its marketplace. And then you have a very tiny amount of serious criticism. And then you have tastemongers, i.e., white people who graduated from college within the last several years and are terribly impressed with themselves for being impressed with certain types of entertainments.

Now you tell me, given the significance and qualifications of the first three groups, why should anyone consider the views of that fourth group to be at all significant, about anything?

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 7:13 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Hey, was AD really all that deep, anyway?

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 7:26 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No. That wasn’t the point.

by Voltaire on Dec 11, 2008 10:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly, it was just hilarious. I find ELR and most other traditional sitcoms to be a bit stale. I also find it rather insulting that you would accuse people of being “white yuppie tastemongers” simply for preferring AD. Believe me, I get your point about just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s bad. My music catalog consists almost entirely of “popular” music.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:14 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

AD is awesome. I didn’t watch the show till it was already cancelled and i would literally get nostalgic watching each episode, knowing that the episode was going to end and there were a finite number of episodes I could watch.

by APV on Dec 11, 2008 10:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes. That is how I felt

by Roger Dorn on Dec 11, 2008 11:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I also find it rather insulting that you would accuse people of being "white yuppie tastemongers" simply for preferring AD.

Oh, spare me. As if you people aren’t whiter than Joe Inglett.

(I’ll say it for you: “What do you mean, ‘you people?’”)

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 10:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well obviously I’m not offended by the white part. I’m just saying I’m far from a “yuppie tastemonger.” Well, outside of snobby ber stuff. But seriously, my favorite band is Metallica. Come on.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Okay, I’ll give you Metallica.

See below for the specific tastemonger infraction.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 12:20 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Okay, I’ll give you Metallica.

As evidence of my anti-tastemongerism or of my bad taste in music?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 9:48 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Just that it’s not characteristic of yuppie tastemongering.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Jolly good then

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 11:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Right — I don’t think Turk, Volt and I (who seem to be the main phony, white, yuppy tastemongers in this conversation) are saying that we demand deep from our television — but we do demand good writing and not too much predictability. Personally I really hate it when a joke is made, and then explained. It almost completely ruins it for me — I want to work a little for my humor. Which I guess means that there is something in itself to not trying to make material accessible to everyone in certain cases. Maybe that’s elitist or whatever, but can you blame me for wanting things that make me laugh?

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 1:14 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Right. It really is analogous to beer. I doubt there would be many people here that would choose Bud Light over Christmas Ale. Should we appreciate Bud Light’s ability to maintain a consistent, reliable product with a massive distribution that is widely consumed? Sure. But most of us here would take a Great Lakes brew 11/10 times over Bud Light.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 9:57 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I can agree with this.

I have a crush on the “Fills you up?” Drinkability girl.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 12, 2008 10:24 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Mmmmhmmmm

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 11:52 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Right. I see absolutely no need to give Budweiser any credit for its commercial success. It makes a sucky, boring product.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 10:30 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

They have good commercials ironically

by Roger Dorn on Dec 12, 2008 12:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

DDB, man. That place is awesome.

by afh4 on Dec 12, 2008 12:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

They have to.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The mass audience is undeniably significant — let’s face it, there are many, many beers that are a lot worse than Budweiser — but I defined three possible opinion groups, not just one.

One is the mass audience, two is the peer group of the creators, three is the cohort of professional critics. My point is that in the face of those three groups, the tastemongering crowd is self-congratulating in directly opposite proportion to their significance.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 6:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I’ll definitely give you the other two opinion groups as important. I’m still not sold on the importance of commercial success though. Things become commercially successful for reasons other than product quality — in the case of Budweiser, the sheer amount of money put into advertising is probably foremost, and second is their ability to produce a beer that tastes “clean” and “crisp”, which, while better than a beer that tastes actively disgusting, are not virtues unto themselves, in my opinion. I don’t want a beer whose taste I can ignore — I want a beer whose taste I can enjoy. But the majority of people are interested in alcohol for the alcohol first and foremost, and only secondarily the taste, so if that’s your priority sequence, then something that you can drink quickly and whose taste you can ignore will be valued highly. It doesn’t hurt that they make so much of it that they can sell it more cheaply than good beers either.

Commercial success is somewhat more meaningful in television than in beer — the price difference as explanatory factor goes away for one thing — but: formulaic and melodramatic television appeals to a lot of people, as evidenced by the immense popularity of soap operas and reality shows. I challenge you to defend the quality of those formats. On the flip side, many people are turned off by “smart” and unusually formatted/genre shows whose quality it would be difficult to impugn: Sports Night, Freaks and Geeks and Firefly are some of my favorite examples of really good shows that were canceled after a season or two — even less in the case of Firefly. I’m fairly certain that in both of these sets of examples, the critics and industry peers agree with me and not with the masses.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 6:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I accidentally watched an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond on an international flight—you know, you wake up groggy and can’t get back to sleep so maybe I’ll try and watch whatever movie they’re showing.

All I can say is that I do not love Raymond.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 11, 2008 7:28 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

How did this get here?

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 11, 2008 7:57 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i don’t think you’re being patronizing Jay – I pretty much made your point for you. And I recognized the error of my own ways in that regard.

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2008 8:36 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Obviously I’m willing to risk it, but I’m glad you don’t think so.

We just have to help people get over their narrow bigotries, changing one mind at a time.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I was wondering if you were an Always Sunny in Philly guy. I recently got into the show and think it’s hilarious

by Roger Dorn on Dec 11, 2008 7:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Seen a couple, like them okay.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 7:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I like it because it doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s not overly sophisticated like AD, but definitely targets a specific demographic

by Roger Dorn on Dec 11, 2008 7:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

thats another show i didn’t watch on first viewing

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2008 7:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I really liked it at first, but the lack of redeeming qualities in any of the main characters gets to be a bit much.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:15 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I bet most of us here would appreciate it more by watching it in our mid-40s than in our mid-20s.

Probably true. See my comment on demographics below.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 7:43 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah but, what if we just like AD better than ELR? Are you accusing me of being a faux intellectual? My taste in music is awful, I would certainly not consider myself as such.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You can like one better than the other, no problem. What you actually did, however, was to denigrate ELR and imply that it is held in low regard. And what I actually did is to point out that that statement only makes sense if you think that the tastemongers are the only ones with opinions that count, because everyone else holds that show in high regard.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 10:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Evidently, I haven’t made clear, given a choice between a DVD set of either AD or ELR, I would go for the AD set without hesitation. I too generally prefer edgier fare as a matter of personal taste.

Plus, a big part of the basic ELR premise had to do with the overbearing in-laws living next door (across the street, whatever it was), and that was not a premise that I personally found all that interesting or funny. I also just am not a fan of whatsername that played the mother-in-law. (Ironically, I have no problem with my own in-laws and would rather that they lived close by.)

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 10:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

All points well taken. My point? It was a one-off comment, intended to be snarky. I don’t really care what shows and music people like. Taste is taste, to each his own.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:52 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I accidentally watched an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond on an international flight—you know, you wake up groggy and can’t get back to sleep so maybe I’ll try and watch whatever movie they’re showing.

All I can say is that I do not love Raymond.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 11, 2008 7:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

If it is, then liking small-market teams over large-market teams is a yuppie thing.

by Voltaire on Dec 11, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No, that’s more triablist, no pun intended.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i don’t know about ELR, but I never liked Arrested Development

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2008 5:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

what is wrong with you people

by Voltaire on Dec 11, 2008 6:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i just never found it to be very funny. maybe i should give it another chance.

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2008 6:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i strongly urge you to do so

by Voltaire on Dec 11, 2008 6:28 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It’s funny, I didn’t watch AD until after it was canceled, because I wasn’t much of a TV watcher in college. The show is hilarious though, I probably wouldn’t have fully appreciated it if I didn’t watch it on DVDs as opposed to a week to week thing

by Roger Dorn on Dec 11, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

im about to have a lot of free time. except i’ve already planned on getting at least two more people hooked on The Wire, which means watching at least the first two seasons with them.

god I miss The Wire

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2008 7:00 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You know, I’ve had the first season of the Wire sitting here from NetFlix for two weeks and I’ve just had no urge to watch it.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The Wire is incredible. Not having HBO, I found it on dvd after season 3. I started at the beginning and got hooked immediately and started watching 2-3 episodes a night, each time saying ok, just one more and I’ll go to bed.

by mcrose on Dec 11, 2008 10:31 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I watched every episode at least twice while it was airing. Felt I got more out of it if I watched the episode a second time, there was just so much to absorb.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 10:43 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yep, I reupped too, as time allowed before vid return.

by mcrose on Dec 12, 2008 12:14 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

See I did this with AD. I’m afraid to start the Wire for fear of being too into it.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

That’s not a fitting excuse.

by mcrose on Dec 12, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Bottom line, it’s worth it. It’s like five really good novels.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I once compared it to the novels of Zola.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 12, 2008 12:22 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The Ladies Paradise rocked me

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 12, 2008 1:00 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Germinal was the book that taught me what real literature can do as far as art and commentary. It really raised the bar on what fiction can be. At the time I read it, I could still read Stephen King or Grisham, but with the discovery of Zola I realized that there could be escapism and meaningful narratives wrapped into one novel. It isn’t either or. The Wire is very similar in the fact that is a case study in to complicated inner city problems written into a very watchable drama. Humor is not lost either—which similar crime have historically lacked. Similar to the Zola series Les Rougon-Macquart (it’s a 20 novel series for anyone reading this who is wondering) each season of The Wire adds characters and does not jettison them in the future (unless they die.) By the last season you knew dozens of well developed characters, their flaws, their compromises and you could see them evolve. While extremely entertaining, you can learn something from watching The Wire. The life experience of the writers really bleeds through. Zola’s novels are about 19th century France, but at the same time the reader learns that people were just as sophisticated and petty as they are now. On one hand you learn how the good-old-days weren’t so great, and you also learn that many of our modern problems aren’t really modern at all. Like The Wire, the stories are told from different sides of society and class. There are no true heros (even those fighting for good have their flaws and less-than noble motivations) and there are no true villains. There are just different sides of struggle. The Wire is the best tv show I have ever watched, and i was raised by tv. As far as television is concerned there is no turning back. The Wire is high art, which the idea of might turn some people off. I’ve yet to meet anybody who doesn’t love that show. Art that speaks to the masses is the definition of great art.

On that tip, anybody watch Mad Men?

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 12, 2008 9:03 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

In envy you in so many ways.

I started watching The Wire this May and had blown through the entire run in a couple months.

Over-hyping a show is a recipe for a big let-down on behalf of the person you are pushing the show on, but I would be shocked if you didn’t appreciate it. It’s pretty much the most well textured series I’ve ever seen. The bar on what television can be was raised with this program.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 12, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

watch it turk. trust us.

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 12, 2008 12:58 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It took me about three or four episodes to start enjoying it. Eventually it became one of my favorite shows. After I watched the first two episodes I almost decided not to watch it because I didn’t think it was funny at all. It turns out that it took, at least for me, around three episodes for the characters and inside jokes to fully develop in my mind.

by cclemens31 on Dec 11, 2008 8:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It is a slight acquired taste. This sounds about right, though, based on how much the show is dependent on its own mythos for much of its humor.

by Voltaire on Dec 11, 2008 10:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

What I’ll give the critics is that it would be really hard to follow if you had watch them first run. I had the benefit of watching literally almost whole seasons in one sitting. I don’t know why, but it just grew on me to the point where I can just quote the most obscure crap from that show.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:18 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The Bluths just aren’t relatable, that’s the issue.

by cclemens31 on Dec 11, 2008 10:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Um, I can relate a bit. (Mostly on the jacked up family, not so much the money part.)

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 12, 2008 12:26 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Which was the premise of the third season…

by Voltaire on Dec 12, 2008 5:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think that was the joke dude

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 11:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed. I wasn’t a huge fan of either ELR or AD. Now if you want to see a truly awesome show you guys need to check out “How I Met Your Mother.”

by world dictator on Dec 11, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

That was a good sit com for the first couple seasons. It had a level of absurdity and smart writing that appealed to me. I still watch it out of habit, but I’m not really sure it’s that good any more.

I grant you that part of the appeal is demographic — I am in the show’s target audience: 20-something middle class city-dwellers. I can’t say that about ELR, which may be part of the reason I don’t like it.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 6:26 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I admire the show’s wilingness to “go there,” but based on the six or seven I’ve seen, it’s pretty much hit-and-miss whether there’s anything actually “there” once they’ve “gone.”

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Have those six or seven times been spread out over the 3 1/2 seasons? I’d be curious to know if the “hits” were earlier and the “misses” recent, on average.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 7:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Um, I think mostly in the past year or two, actually. I haven’t been plotting the hits and misses and can’t really tell you more about them.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 8:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The smart writing is what does it for me. Everything from the snappy dialogue to the creative scene layouts feel very original compared to the average sitcom which seems to follow the same formula.

I also like the overarching story line and character development. This is an area where a lot of sitcoms fail in my opinion, ELR would be example #1 in my book. HIMYM’s cast works together perfectly. Each character has a defined role that complements the group as a whole. This is one thing I can admit friends did well.

Most importantly, HIMYM is by far one of the most creative shows I’ve seen in a long time. From the running gags (the slap bet), Barney’s crazy adventures and his outrageous dating theories (the Crazy Hot scale is so true!) , to the originality in their episode formats. The episode where they put all of Barney’s ex gf’s in an NCAA bracket and debate which girl hates him the most…priceless.

by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 12:35 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I can’t stand snappy dialogue, because snappy dialogue never occurs in real life, ever.

I am unwilling to tolerate the fantasy of people exchanging jaded, awesome back-and-forth zingers.

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 12:38 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

See I love 30 Rock but I understand people don’t talk like that. Doesn’t bother me.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 12, 2008 12:42 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yep.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 10:02 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You’re just not hanging out with the right people. I have witnessed plenty of hour-long drink-and-zinger sessions that were funnier than 99% of all sitcome episodes.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 12:42 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

People are clumsy, screw up, are ugly, take time to think, all that jazz. Sitcoms – because they are 22 minutes long – never reflect that.

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Roseanne was actually quite a good show. That was a show I could relate to. Roseanne Barr is obnoxious, but very real.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 12, 2008 9:06 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I loved Roseanne.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 10:03 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Great example. Roseanne was not terribly innovative, either, just well done and very well received. It also was a big career break for John Goodman, who of course is the finest actor of his generation.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 6:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Dude, it’s TV. I understand your complaints on one hand, but on the other hand, I think you’d be doing yourself a service by letting yourself relax and enjoy a good show once in a while.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 10:02 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Also, there is a difference between the impossibility of sitcom glibness and having hilarious friends. When I’m with my really funny friends (funny for me, I could give a crap if anyone disagrees) we can go on and on with joke sessions – extended jokes on themes or crap like that. But it’s different from sitcommy, disembodied quip-talk.

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 12:46 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

What’s the difference? I’m confused.

And I have to agree with Jay. I know plenty of people who are quick on their feet and are full of consistently full of snappy dialogue even over prolonged periods of time.

Also, I find it amusing that you hate snappy dialogue considering the blog you’re reading. In fact HIMYM’s humor kind of reminds me of the humor I find on LGT and other SB nation blogs.

by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 1:14 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, LGT’s snappiness probably is enhanced because it is typed. There is some time to think.

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 1:38 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sitcom jokes are never delivered as jokes – they are always like “real-life” hilarities. Like, “no way did your boss just say that with a straight face! Dayumn!” Whereas with your buddies, everyone knows it’s just shooting-the-breeze.

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 1:40 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

There are and have been far too many sitcoms out there to use absolutes like “sitcoms never.”

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 12, 2008 9:08 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

And that’s what’s great about HIMYM; the majority of jokes involve a group of friends who are usually at a bar.

by world dictator on Dec 12, 2008 10:05 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think the majority of sitcoms are as bad as you’re saying, but nowhere near all of them.

Very little art of any kind aspires to be realistic or is even slightly realistic. Conveying a sense of truth to the audience is extremely different from being realistic.

There is a place for the familiar rhythms and devices of a particular genre within any medium. They create a familiar path within which the audience can get comfortable and more easily absorb the more significant content.

What you’re talking about, I think, is where the formula is all that’s actually there. It may be that you’ve grown so allergic to the formula that it’s become a negative for you rather than a productively familiar element.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 6:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It may be that you’ve grown so allergic to the formula that it’s become a negative for you rather than a productively familiar element.

I think this may be a big part of my personal distaste for many sitcoms.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 6:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

In terms of realistic dialogue I always thought the British Office was spot on. Which is terrible, pause-filled, and awkward. It worked great (IMO) because it was outside of a sitcom norm. But I only like it because it was unusual and realistic. If every sitcom talked like that I don’t think I could watch TV.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 12, 2008 10:28 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

British Office is great in its own right, but I just prefer the American one. Just easier to relate to I guess, and I honestly find it funnier.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 11:53 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The British one had the balls to end it at its height. I still love the American one and catch every episode, but once Jim and Pam get together it’s hard to keep you on the edge of your seat.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 12, 2008 11:55 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Eh, you hear the argument a lot about “knowing when to call it quits,” but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the American Office to this day. Why quit if you’re still getting laughs? I agree the recent ones haven’t been as great — the tension is much lower now that Jim and Pam are together. Sure, there’s they “can they stay together?” spin, but it’s not the same. Regardless, it’s still my favorite comedy on TV.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 12:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I never said I didn’t like it. I just can’t imagine the British one continuing after that spectacular Christmas episode.

And c’mon. In real life that boss gets fired. Just like Brent.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 12, 2008 12:56 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh yeah I wasn’t disagreeing with you. The British one is certainly more realistic, and I actually like the Brent character more than Michael Scott. But they’re different, and I still dig both. Also like Gareth a lot more than Dwight, but I find Jim to be funnier and wittier than Tim. Tim is just kind of a jerk.

Really though, I suppose it’s silly to try to directly compare the characters. The thing I really like about the American Office is that they go to lengths to develop some of the secondary characters, which is a benefit of going on for more than two seasons.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 1:18 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I just can’t imagine the British one continuing after that spectacular Christmas episode.

Absolutely. It was an fantastic overall piece of work.

And I do also love the american version. Different but both great.

by dgcambridge on Dec 12, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

even though the first seasons followed basically identical scripts, i consider the two shows entirely different, but both good in their own rights. i think in its entirety (which is only really 12+ episodes if I recall), the British version is one of the best comedy shows I’ve ever watched. Definitely a certain kind of painful comedy, though.

by APV on Dec 12, 2008 11:59 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed. And there’s certain characters I like better or for different reasons in each.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

That’s for sure. I cringe when I think of David Brent doing his motivational speech.

I don’t think I’ve ever felt as awkward sitting on my own couch.

by cclemens31 on Dec 12, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Haha oh god yeah, pure gold.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 1:20 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

for me it’s the awkwardness of thinking Gareth might be a child molester early in the series, to feeling deeply sympathetic for him by the end of the series

by APV on Dec 12, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

That’s the kind of thing where if i was sitting in a room and that guy walked in to give a speech, I would start laughing my ass off AT HIM… but watching it on TV (or in this case, youtube) … nothing.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 12, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I would be absolutely mortified, which is how I felt watching it on TV. The best TV makes you feel embarrassed for the characters.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You’ve watched Extras, right? Every single second of extras is like that.

by Voltaire on Dec 12, 2008 5:53 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

This is the Curb Your Enthusiasm thing. A lot of people just can’t stand that kind of thing. I usually like it but certainly wouldn’t want to watch more than an hour of it at a stretch.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Now we’re talkin…

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 12, 2008 8:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

pretty, pretty, pretty good

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2008 12:10 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Never really watched it, actually

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 11:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Really? If you like being agitated, mortified and embarassed for TV characters, it is totally your show.

by Jay on Dec 13, 2008 12:37 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I’ll have to check it out. I guess I never really watched it based on Larry David’s involvement — At the risk of starting another big fire, I really didn’t like Seinfeld.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2008 11:24 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Picky, picky

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 13, 2008 11:53 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Eh. I mean just as people find it inconceivable that I don’t like Seinfeld, I find it inconceivable that people don’t lie AD. I’m definitely willing to give CYE a try though. Probably check it out on Netflix.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2008 12:03 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I never much liked Seinfeld either. Some of that may not be the show’s fault, but rather the tendency of fans to quote catch phrases endlessly…

by Logodaedalus on Dec 13, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree. Curb is absolutely great. It was the next show that I really enjoyed after AD.

by cclemens31 on Dec 13, 2008 11:39 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Curb is excellent if for no other reason than it features my alma matter’s coolest alumnus, Richard Lewis.

by ClarkM on Dec 13, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

This is where AD excels. It doesn’t always have to be about one-offs and zingers. There is depth to some comedy, if you can stop lumping every TV show together and making blanket statements.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 10:04 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Same. Just had one the other night.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 10:02 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

the weird thing is that type of humor should probably appeal to me. but i never really laughed during a single episode. maybe i was depressed.

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 11, 2008 6:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Grady, don’t want to be a johnny-come-lately, and lord knows I’ve thrown my hat into the OT ring too many times, but I’m with you here. AD is a little glib. In fact, I don’t really like television programs, “smart” or “regular.” Glibness is the scourge of TV writing, because of the nature of the format. I just don’t get behind TV shows.

by joeee on Dec 11, 2008 8:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It’s nice to not have an opinion for once. I just read the internet. It’s more my speed.

ps. In response to your earlier missive, I think we’ll hold Shopach ‘til we’re sure that Vic can take a majority of the starts. That means into the beginning of the season. Being stronger in this position is critical to our total offense. If our depth is manifest, trade him to the first contending team that loses its Catcher to injury—just take them to the cleaners. Assuming good health, I don’t think Shoppach’s appeal is volatile.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 11, 2008 10:33 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Oops. Don’t actually think that, I merely imagine it. I haven’t really done much thinking about this.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 11, 2008 10:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The commercials for that show used to be hilarious. I’m pretty sure I had a couple quotes typed out on my old pc. But did I ever watch it? Nope.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 11, 2008 6:49 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t care for either of them.

by fwembt on Dec 13, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I watch Everybody Loves Raymond somewhat often. It’s on at 10:30 on the CW every night, and I have to say that it’s a lot funnier than I used to think it was. It’s certainly not my favorite show, but I am starting to see the appeal.

On a related note, has anyone been watching Summer Heights High? I think it’s pretty hilarious.

by ClarkM on Dec 11, 2008 9:15 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, Raymond is a pretty funny show. It’s not cutting-edge, but like Jay said it’s not supposed to be. It’s about family situations and the humor that arises from them (especially when you have crazy parents). It definately isn’t the “cool” show for people in their 20’s, but I’ll agree that those people will find it much funnier when they’re in their 40’s.

I found the first season of It’s Always Sunny very, very funny. My wife and I got the DVD’s over the summer and we laughed hysterically at every episode. This season, however, has ventured too far in the strange and unbelievable territory and is not nearly as funny.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 11, 2008 9:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ah strange and unbelievable? yes, but still funny, in a strange and unbelievable way (since when do I believe tv sitcoms can happen anyways?)

by hans on Dec 12, 2008 1:11 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Wrong. Wrongwrongwrong. AD is empirically better than Everybody loves Raymond. And I don’t hate Everybody Loves Raymond, I’m just sayin.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

This is it most succinctly.

by Voltaire on Dec 11, 2008 10:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Haha, cheers. You gonna be around Case for the holidays? We should have an AD DVD watch party. I’ll bring the hummus and chardonnay and we can read the New Yorker out loud in between episodes.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 11, 2008 10:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

This is the problem with living nearby but not that nearby – I’m gonna be at home.

by Voltaire on Dec 12, 2008 5:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

boo

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 11:21 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

White people.

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 10:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Hipsters, you mean.

by Voltaire on Dec 12, 2008 5:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I actually mean jerkoffs, but sure, we’ll go with hipsters.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 6:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

White People and Hipsters are not the same thing

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 12, 2008 7:58 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, but hipsters and jerkoffs might be the same thing.

by Jay on Dec 13, 2008 12:38 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

fair point

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2008 3:09 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

i also think i have a different contextual conception of a hipster

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2008 3:09 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Hipsters are a subset of jerkoffs. Because there are also things like fratboy d-bags that I would consider jerkoffs but not hipsters.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2008 11:25 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

We’re all just trying to find love and make a buck.

Ex-fratboys have a hand in making the world go ‘round. I’m not sure what chronic hipsters contribute. Genuinely hip people are a resource.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 13, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ex-fratboys are usually pretty decent people. It’s the ones who continue to live their life like they’re still in the collegiate Greek system that bother me.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 13, 2008 12:02 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah I really was just playing off of Jay’s line about hipsters and jerkoffs being the same people. I don’t agree in general, I was assuming he was joking. I have plenty of hipster and fratboy friends. In fact a lot of people would probably assume I was a fratboy d-bag on first impression, so it’s not like I’m seriously judging here.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2008 12:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Hipsters are generally too aloof to be d-bags. D-bags are worse. Fratboys tend to be d-bags more often than hipsters, but many of them are jerkoffs, and many of them are none of these things.

by Jay on Dec 13, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

(insert PED drinking pic here)

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 13, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

LSAT puzzle right here.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 13, 2008 4:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Mind: blown

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The Life and Times of Tim?

by NickFantana on Dec 12, 2008 10:10 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Jackson’s no better bet than Scott Lewis or Aaron Laffey. Jackson, in 183 innings, put on 278 baserunners by way of hit, walk, or hit batter. I’ll pass.

by xrickx on Dec 11, 2008 3:41 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

i’m in this boat.

by Brick. on Dec 11, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I won’t ague whether he’s a “true #3” or not, but he’s done what Lewis et al has yet to: had 2 straight years as a major league starter, keeping a spot in the rotation over the full course, in the AL no less. That makes him better for ‘09 in my book, no question. Now would one or more of the yet-to-be starters leapfrog him in the rotation, making him a #4 or 5? I’d hope so, but they’d have to step up and be better and more consistent than they have to date.

And that kinda sums up why I think adding a starter who could eat innings was the top priority this offseason. Getting Wood is great (except in certain social situations, of course), but it’s Lee, Fausto and three question marks right now for the rotation.

by mcrose on Dec 11, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t buy this argument. I don’t want a starter who eats innings. Livan Hernandez eats innings. What he does not do is make his team better. I want a starter who pitches so well that it makes sense that he remains in the baseball game and, in the course of doing so, happens to pitch a large number of innings. If that’s not the case, I’d rather have 175 innings of decent ball from a young guy who can in 2010 be an “innings eater.”

I don’t know from where the idea came that you cannot win with young pitchers. If they are good, they’re good. I do think Cleveland could benefit from another starter, but Zach Greinke aside, which potentially available starting pitcher is any better than Lewis, Laffey, Huff, or Reyes?

Sowers can throw 200 innings if you let him start every five days. The fear is that he ends up with a 5.50ERA and stunts his already uncertain development. But when Livan ends up with a 5.50ERA, he’s somehow earned his $5 million?

by xrickx on Dec 11, 2008 6:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

And by “young” starters, I really meant unproven starters.

by xrickx on Dec 11, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t think anyone would argue that you can’t win with unproven starters, but the thing is that you have a harder time telling whether or not you will, by definition. They are not proven, and so they could be great, but they could be rather bad. I remain optimistic that we’ll at least get two good performances from the lot of them, but I’d be more comfortable if we could get someone like, well, Greinke, especially since Lee and Carmona are question marks to an extent as well.

Okay, I agree with you that I don’t want someone like Hernandez. I don’t know who else is out there that would fit the bill, but I’m hoping we find someone.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 6:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed. But the initial point is that Edwin Jackson is not proven. He has merely just been given the chance to keep trotting out to the mound. In 2008, he happened to post a superficially low ERA. I’m not saying Jackson won’t break out, but I’m saying it’s certain that neither of these last two seasons have been a breakout. He’s no more proven now than before.

His 2008 xFIP was 5.16, which tells you how he really pitched. So for all fans who think the Indians missed out on something, the only thing they may have missed on is the opportunity to see if Jackson breaks out. While he throws hard, his strikeout rate doesn’t suggest that breakout is coming.

by xrickx on Dec 11, 2008 7:14 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Okay. I’ve never specifically advocated for Jackson. We probably don’t disagree that much — we’d both like to get someone like Greinke, but that’s probably not going to happen. I might be willing to go further than you to make it happen if we’re close, but…

by Logodaedalus on Dec 11, 2008 7:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Indeed you haven’t. I didn’t mean to imply that you had.

The Indians need to find another Kevin Millwood. I’m not sure Brad Penny is healthy enough to be that guy. John Smoltz could be, but I don’t think he’s interested in Cleveland. Andy Pettitte seems to be working on short-term deals, but I don’t think Cleveland has in its budget enough to afford him for a single season. If he was willing to be a non-Yankee and the Astros didn’t come calling, he’d be worth a 1 year, $10M deal.

by xrickx on Dec 11, 2008 9:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Variance, my man… variance.

I can say with 90% certainty that Livan will give you 200 IP of crap pitching; however, I can only say with 40% certainty that Sowers will give you 200IP of 5.50 ERA. In one case, he’s a huge surprise and goes 200/4.4, in the other, he goes 75/7.50 and Jamie Navarros all over us.

The good thing is though, that we have four high variance starting pitching candidates. Call it Suckitude-Diversification, if you will.

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Dec 11, 2008 8:01 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Don’t undervalue the sucky starter that takes the ball every five days and pitches 5-7 innings of “geez he sucks” ball while not actually sucking enough to take him out of the game or the rotation. Does it make the team better? That implies you have somebody better than him to stick in there. If not, then yes, he makes the team better because the alternative is worse.

The fact is we have three spots in the rotation that are completely, totally up for grabs. Sowers and Laffey didn’t throw 200 innings last year because they couldn’t, just like Cliff Lee couldn’t stay in the rotation in 2007. They all went into tailspins where they actually did suck too bad too hand them the ball.

While I didn’t like Paul Byrd as a fifth starter, much preferring to give that slot to a Buffalo shuttle to give younger guys on the 40 a chance, I kind of appreciated him more when he assumed the #3 or 4 slot out of necessity and went out there and generally gave up a lot of hard shots before departing in the sixth.

We have a lot of shown some ability but yet unproven starting pitching depth. Perfect for battling it out for the final spot in the rotation. Good for seeing who will get first shots at the last two spots. Not so good when you have three spots to fill. In that case, I’d take Paul Byrd if he was cheap.

And I guess that’s my point – I’d take Edwin Jackson, or any other cheap young strong arm with a little upside that happens to have 60+ starts over the last two years in the amurrican league, over Paul Byrd any day of the week.

by mcrose on Dec 11, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Hello mcrose,

With all due respect, I think you’re valuing Jackson a bit too much; I think Byrd might STILL be a better choice. The only chance Jackson would be better is IF he could break out and be closer to the pitcher he was expected to be, and at this rate, I think that’s unlikely.

Look at his starting stats for the past 2 seasons:

2007: 161.0 IP/195 H/116 R/103 ER/19 HR/88 BB/128 K, 1.76 WHIP
2008: 183.1 IP/199 H/91 R/90 ER/23 HR/77 BB/108 K, 1.51 WHIP

Analyzing the differences in the two years, here is what I come up with:

His H/IP rate, his unearned run rate, and his control or BB rate all improved (which corresponds to a drop in his WHIP rate), so perhaps he could continue to improve and put up respectable or even slightly above-average numbers.

However, notice that his HR/IP rate increased slightly (not a major increase, mind you) and his K rate fell significantly from 2007. Additionally, he still walks too many batters, which is why his WHIP is still an unacceptable 1.51. It’s likely Byrd could come up with a better WHIP, even at his significantly older age and with significantly less stuff. Additionally, Jackson still gives up too many hits (the 2008 H/IP rate difference between Jackson & Byrd is in fact just .43 H/9 IP in Jackson’s favor) for the stuff he has, so I think Byrd could still be the better pitcher over Jackson going into this season (due to the fact that Byrd has better control and doesn’t beat himself by walking hitters like Jackson does, not that I’m advocating signing Byrd – I’m not – just that I’m not enthused with the idea of relying on Jackson to be the #3 starter).

Despite Jackson’s great stuff, he still cannot dominate or even come close to dominating the competition. Perhaps moving him to the bullpen would enable him to just focus on two pitches and enable him to just come in and blow people away with the power stuff he has.

Arguably, another team would have probably removed Jackson from the rotation before 2 seasons were up because he really was not getting the job done. However, recall that the Rays have to essentially rely on whatever players they could develop or acquire, and if I recall correctly, they really didn’t have many starting options ready to help in the upper-levels of the Minors (they had mostly position players at that time and are only now starting to get an influx of quality starting talent in the upper minors, led by Price). So, essentially, they had to keep Jackson in the rotation because the alternative was signing an older, yet comparable, pitcher like Livan Hernandez or someone on that order, and of course, the Rays weren’t spending all that much, so in my opinion, that’s the real reason Jackson continued to start for the Rays, not because he was doing all that great in the rotation.

With the influx of starting talent coming up in their rotation, including Price (and there’s a few others coming up too – they were mentioned when we were contemplating trading Blake before we traded him to LAD), that’s all the more reason why they felt Jackson was expendable, even if Jackson was the #3 or #4 starter for them in 2007 (#5 in 2008). Also recall that Jackson was kept out of the playoff rotation because they had better options – he was technically the #5 in the Rays’ rotation – why would we want him to be our #3? Just because he has more ML experience than the guys who are competing for the #3 spot? I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to insert Jackson into the #3 spot, not with the way he has performed the past two seasons.

Arguably, I think Reyes has had as impressive, if not more impressive starts, than Jackson in his career, albeit making fewer starts. Recall also that Reyes did start Game 1 of the 2006 WS, so it’s not like this guy is that “green behind the ears” (recall that Jackson has never made a postseason start).

And again, can we really say Jackson is any better bet than the guys we have in there now? Sure, Jackson’s stuff is better, but he hasn’t shown any signs of being able to dominate with it over the course of 2 seasons. Could he figure it out? Possibly, but he’s far from a sure bet of doing that, being that he has spents parts of 6 seasons (3 with considerable experience) at the ML level.

Plus, we can’t put too much emphasis on the order in the rotation – #3 vs. #5 isn’t that big of a deal over the course of a season. The emphasis should be on how well they pitch. Even when Byrd was our #5, it was a matter of his being able to go out and pitch his game – that’s why he eventually got the Game 4 assignment against the Yankees and Red Sox and beat both of them. Therefore, whether Reyes, Sowers, Laffey, or Lewis occupy the #3 spot, it’s just a matter of them pitching their game, not worrying about who matches up against them or what spot in the rotation they occupy. If anything, that would be more of a consideration in the postseason, and as mentioned, Reyes has a World Series start to his credit (Game 1, no less); Jackson has no postseason starts.

Just my 2 cents – no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Dec 12, 2008 9:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Hey, indiansfan – I don’t disagree with a single thing you said (other than I would still take Jackson over Byrd in a heartbeat). But I think you and some others have missed my basic point, so I’ll restate it in simpler terms without referencing any particular pitcher, past present or future:

Beyond our two front starters, we have no one, not a single warm non-DL body, anywhere in the system, that has ever, even once in their life, proved themselves capable of pitching a full season as a member of a major league rotation, for any team, in any league, at any time.

Now I don’t mind being in that situation when its just one rotation spot, it can be a good thing. I can live with two open spots in the rotation. But faced with three spots and nobody to show at least one year on their resume where they held it together from April to October, that I consider scary.

It follows that if I could get a pitcher that has shown he could do that recently, and get him pretty cheaply, even if I don’t have particularly high hopes for him, I would go ahead and do just that.

by mcrose on Dec 13, 2008 12:29 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

And that … is the real, main reason we probably won’t sign Adam Dunn.

by Jay on Dec 13, 2008 12:39 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, but Lewis and Laffey are two of our very best #4 starters!

by Jay on Dec 11, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Steely Dan I get. But Everybody Loves Raymond? 60-odd comments?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 12, 2008 12:22 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

It was 90% meta. Nobody really cares about that specific show.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 12:23 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I get it. The Internet is just so weird sometimes.

I like AD, but in defense of ELR I really liked that episode where the parents fought about the grease can.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 12, 2008 12:25 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

AD has a lot to do with your glib/snark/cute tolerance. I watched a few episodes of AD with my sister and dad (at my sister’s behest). She billed it as really funny – we all watched it together and, well, if you knew my dad… let’s just say he has the all-time lowest cute tolerance. Great guy, but hates anything clever. Literally outlawed giggling during carrides – I’m serious. By the end of the fourth episode, my sister packed it up and vowed never to watch it again, having been influenced by me and my dad’s hatred. Point of the story: my family was raised specifically to dislike AD.

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 12:37 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

That explains a lot about you….

(snark)

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 12:49 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Reflecting on this, I think it is so funny that we were not allowed to laugh in the car. Who makes that rule??

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 12:56 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

similarly, who has a blanket hatred for cleverness?

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 12:58 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Right. That was a not-so-subtle dig.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 12:59 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

My reply was supposed to be the anti-clever. Get it?

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 1:03 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I like this.

by hans on Dec 12, 2008 1:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I like some things that require being clever, but I don’t like cleverness for cleverness’s sake (repeat of things we’ve talked about X10000). When something gets really “cute” I really need to peace out.

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 1:10 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah, iteration 10,001. I like cleverness for its own sake sometimes.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 1:15 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You two are going to have to exchange emails.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 12, 2008 1:16 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

giggle.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Dec 12, 2008 1:28 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

We should obviously get together to go see some bands, or maybe a movie.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 1:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

You’d better not be giggling as you type this.

If you need to work this out and stuff you can call, but not tonight. I’m applying to grad school and stuff.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 12, 2008 1:00 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Work this out? That is a fond memory!

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 1:02 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Coincidentally, my application essay also describes the car rides. I’ve been working on it for days. Anyway, it’s time to finish this damned thing. I should have last night, but…

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 12, 2008 1:09 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I once drove to Cleveland from Chicago with a girl I didn’t know, and she started opening up about all these weird traditions her family had when they went on road trips. Car rides really bring out the crazy in everyone’s family, from what I’ve noticed.

by joeee on Dec 12, 2008 1:12 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Mine’s not so personal, so private fyi.

My car has awesome AM reception. I drive around DC and listen to Hammy a lot in the season. I leave the office at 7:05 a lot.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 12, 2008 1:15 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Are you applying to grad school for something architectural? (that’s you, right?)

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 1:17 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sort of. It’s too boring to explain.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 12, 2008 1:20 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

If you say so. You need to develop a one-liner that makes what you study sound exciting.

Depending on the audience, mine’s either “I spend my days torturing human babies”, or “I study the mind”

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 1:28 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

cognition/learning of some kind? are you still in grad school or faculty?

OT Q: do you have an opinion of Michael Gazzaniga’s book ‘human’? i’m thinking of adopting it for my intro anthro course.

by macasson on Dec 12, 2008 3:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I study abstract structure/pattern-learning, essentially. Started out doing language-learning, but I’ve been branching out into music and other abstract structures, with the idea that learning isn’t very differentiated by domain in the first few months, and even later, similar principles apply (e.g. implicit use of environmental statistics). Most of my experimental work is with infants in their first year.

I’m in the latter stages of grad school. Ph.D. in cognitive science (technically psychology, but only because this school doesn’t award cog sci degrees by name). I fear that the discovery of LGT has slowed my dissertation progress, however…

I haven’t read the Gazzaniga book, unfortunately.

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

very interesting stuff. my dad is a retired cognitive anthropologist (linguistics) and – interestingly – his first PhD student studied my language acquisition in a bilingual household. there are some hilarious audiotapes of me mixing and matching vocab and grammar as a 2-yr old.

i’ve used rymer’s book genie in my class, as it’s very accessible and talks about some of chomsky’s ideas of critical stages of learning. i have to admit, though, that this falls well outside of my area of expertise but have read good stuff about Gazzaniga’s work (from Seed Magazine, granted …).

by macasson on Dec 12, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I have a general familiarity with some of Gazzaniga’s split brain work, but most of my work is behavioral and computational, and not so much neural, so I know less about cognitive neuroscience/neuropsychological work than many in my field. Some would say I’m behind the times for that — I prefer to think of it as not getting bogged down in the implementational details… :-)

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 3:55 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Dude you’re already doing apps? Where to?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 12, 2008 10:07 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

that’s an email topic, if you’d like to know.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 12, 2008 10:44 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Despite our eccentricities, AD is the exact opposite of what our family is capable of enjoying together, it’s true. By our very nature sitcoms are hard to stomach. We are a COPS family. As in, we enjoyed watching COPS together. We managed to avoid ever being featured on COPS—-although If I’m ever asked to be on TV, I will insist that the mosaic effect shield my face.
Speaking of which, the COPS themesong ‘Bad Boys’ is one of my all time favorite jams, since you wondered, Logo.
I find that it is also vogue to render scripted material in a flawed, realistic manner, but that often this is taken to the point of inanity. There is a middle ground, but I can’t think of it right now.

Office Space is such a good movie.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 12, 2008 12:57 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It really is. And yeah, the third act is a half-disaster, as it is in almost all the great arch-satire comedies, but it just doesn’t matter.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 1:17 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It’s hard to notice, because I get wrapped up in the protagonists dilemma so acutely that I lose hold of that critical detachment one needs to evaluate it. The “Jump to Conclusions Mat” isn’t just “flare” of some random ludacris comedic moment. Moot! About Schmidt is similar, but slower and darker, and with a more evocative ending. I like them both a lot, and I find them relateable (new word I picked up in this thread, i think).

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Dec 12, 2008 1:41 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Pretty sure it only has two e’s, though.

About Schmidt, last time I saw it, I thought it was a damned near perfect film. More of a character study rather than high-concept, doesn’t have the problem of the third act living up to the high stakes set up by the first two.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 1:49 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Nobody Cares About Raymond

by Logodaedalus on Dec 12, 2008 12:25 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

I find it easiest just to adopt an Everything I Hate Is Crap, Everything I Like is The Greatest Ever worldview.

by FredOx on Dec 12, 2008 12:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, then, you’ll fit in just fine.

by Jay on Dec 12, 2008 6:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I swear, this one defienitely needed a quick summary. I actual scanned through this one in less than 10 minutes, since only 15% of it was actually related to baseball.

by talonk on Dec 15, 2008 1:31 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

This is mandatory now.

I have mixed feelings about my attempt at putting David Brent’s musical grunts into words actually making this rundown.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Dec 15, 2008 7:13 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

legit LOL

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 15, 2008 10:39 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Sweet Jay … I really like this new feature :)

by talonk on Dec 15, 2008 11:41 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

So how does this program work, exactly?

by Logodaedalus on Dec 15, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

User Tools

Constantly updated Indians news, lots of in-depth analysis, live in-game discussions — and more fanatical and thoughtful Indians fans than every other web site combined.
Start posting about the Indians »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

39135485-59af19dbb26654095f910f34176af094_4ae8a81e-scaled_small
Predictions Group

by Brandon C. 3 days ago

30 comments | 0 recs

Small
I think we found our utility infielder

by datrain021 14 days ago

37 comments | 0 recs

Small
Baseball in Japan

by Chemo 15 days ago

38 comments | 0 recs

3444ant_black_small
Spring Training Trips

by APV 24 days ago

50 comments | 0 recs

Hans_small
Trade Peralta?

by hans 26 days ago

136 comments | 0 recs

3444ant_black_small
Beware the year of the Ox

by APV about 1 month ago

66 comments | 0 recs

Bos-fod_small
award-winning independent baseball documentary released

by princemilo about 1 month ago

0 comments | 0 recs

Calavera_small
Create your own 2010 BA Top Ten list (then sign Grady to an extension)

by fleerdon 2 months ago

201 comments | 2 recs

Img_0108_small
Jason Grilli Signs Minor League Deal?

by Eric Stephen 2 months ago

92 comments | 6 recs

Mariahcareyglitter_medium_medium_small
2009 AL Central Off-Season Transactions and Rumors

by Toxicadam 2 months ago

137 comments | 2 recs

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Recent Posts

Featured Poll

Poll
Who would you like to see hired to manage the Cleveland Indians?
Bobby Valentine
106 votes
Travis Fryman
41 votes
Manny Acta
113 votes
Don Mattingly
78 votes
Torey Lovullo
30 votes
Other
51 votes

419 votes | Poll has closed

Featured Stories

Dosequisman_small
Fire Everyone! - An Overture

by Jay 5 months ago

25 comments | 1 recs

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small
What Cliff Lee's Not Reading

by afh4 6 months ago

28 comments | 14 recs

3444ant_black_small
Trade Profile: Justin Masterson

by APV 6 months ago

75 comments | 0 recs

Dosequisman_small
Too Soon, the Victor Martinez Era Ends

by Jay 6 months ago

112 comments | 25 recs

3444ant_black_small
Minor League Overview: The Hitters

by APV 6 months ago

30 comments | 4 recs

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Lee has Foot Surgery

by afh4 about 20 hours ago 6 comments | 0 recs

Jamey Wright Signed to Minor League Deal

by woodsmeister about 21 hours ago 9 comments | 0 recs

2010 Cleveland Indians draft preview

by JP_Frost about 24 hours ago 10 comments | 0 recs

Jim Ingraham Angers You.

by afh4 3 days ago 102 comments | 0 recs

BP Calls John Hart One of the, STRIKE THAT, BEST GMs of the 90s

by afh4 4 days ago 68 comments | 0 recs

Sizemore Addresses Offseason

by afh4 5 days ago 20 comments | 0 recs

Can we reach 1,000 on a post about Adam Kennedy?

by Ockus_NYC 6 days ago 446 comments | 0 recs

"At this time, we're looking to make the biggest impact possible on the...

by afh4 6 days ago 17 comments | 0 recs

Casey Blake shaved his beard

by TheDanimal 6 days ago 16 comments | 0 recs

ICBWDSTGFO550K

by westbrook 8 days ago 130 comments | 0 recs

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Sweet Baboo

Sweet Baboo, now with glitter

SBNation.com Recent Stories

New York Mets' David Wright connects for a single against the Arizona Diamondbacks during the first inning of a baseball game in Phoenix, Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/Matt York) link

Is This The Golden Age Of Third Basemen?

Beyond the Box Score

Oakland Athletics' Dana Eveland pitches against the Boston Red Sox in the first inning of a baseball game Tuesday, April 14, 2009, in Oakland, Calif. (AP Photo/Ben Margot) link

Blue Jays Acquire Dana Eveland

Bluebird Banter

FILE - In this July 19, 2009 file photo, Seattle Mariners' Erik Bedard pitches against the Cleveland Indians in the second inning of a baseball game in Cleveland. Bedard is having another surgery on his throwing shoulder, all but ending his season and perhaps his time with Seattle. Manager Don Wakamatsu said Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2009, that Bedard will have exploratory surgery on Friday in Los Angeles with Dr. Lewis Yocum, who removed a cyst from Bedard's shoulder in September. (AP Photo/Mark Duncan, File)

Injured Erik Bedard Signs One-Year Deal With Mariners

More from SBNation.com >

Managers

427px-nap_lajoie_1913_small Ryan

Dosequisman_small Jay

Authors

3444ant_black_small APV

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small afh4