Tolman, Radinsky, Smith added to Acta's Staff
Castro says:
Tim Tolman will be coming aboard as the bench coach, Scott Radinsky has been promoted from Triple-A pitching coach to big league bullpen coach, and Steve Smith is joining the Indians as Acta's third base and infield coach.
Tolman and Radinsky have ties to the organization. Smith doesn't, though he was a member of Charlie Manual's staff before being dismissed after the 2008 season.
3 months ago
FredOx
128 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Let’s hope Radinsky can get Raffy Perez and Jensen Lewis to do whatever it is he had them doing in AAA. I badly want ot believe that level of success at AAA can’t be described as just the difference between AAA and MLB hitters.
by xrickx on Nov 16, 2009 11:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Smith is a new face to both Acta and the Indians. He spent a total of 11 seasons serving as the third base and infield coach for the Mariners (1996-99), Rangers (2000-06) and Phillies (2007-08). Charlie Manuel dismissed him after the Phillies won the World Series title in 2008. Smith had been suspended twice for on-field incidents.
Anyone know what that’s about?
by bewwolv on Nov 16, 2009 11:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Both suspensions were related to umpire arguments…
by stuart dean on Nov 16, 2009 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And the first one (5 games) was from an April 2006 game at Jacobs Field.
by FredOx on Nov 16, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Charlie Manuel dismissed him after the Phillies won the World Series title in 2008
So glad to finally have a Proven Winner on our bench.
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 16, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Akron Aeros website tells me that Ruben Niebla is their pitching coach. I have no idea who he is or how long he has been in that role, but I think we should be talking about him more. Probably Mike Sarbaugh, the manager, too.
by APV on Nov 16, 2009 12:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I always found this little opinion from Hoynes to be odd regarding a question on Sarbaugh being a managerial candidate:
Hey, Joe: Sarbaugh did a great job with Class AA Akron this year. During the 1995 strike, Sarbaugh was a replacement player for the Indians in spring training. How do you think that would play in a big-league clubhouse if he was named manager?I don’t know how much validity there is to that statement, but I didn’t know that about Sarbaugh.
by The DiaTriber on Nov 16, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There are certain players who are virulently pro-union.
by Jay on Nov 16, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know about that. Papelbon comes to mind as a guy who is on-record as saying he owes to other players not to sign a lockup deal, to get as much in arbitration every year as he can.
by Jay on Nov 16, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve argued about this before, but I believe C.C. had no choice but to do what the white-shoes lawyers told him to do: sign with the Yankees. For the good of the game, for the good of his union, for the good of his colleagues.
Pure speculation on my part, but I’d guess C.C. has ambivalent feelings toward the Players’ Association.
by odradek on Nov 16, 2009 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For the good of the game, for the good of his union, for the good of his colleagues.
by hans on Nov 16, 2009 10:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What does “had no choice” mean in your understanding of the English language?
I am not aware of a single adverse consequence he faced.
by Jay on Nov 16, 2009 10:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He had to sign in New York or the boyz (to use a vernacular spelling) would have his elbow adjusted.
Unless C.C. was Curt Flood, he had no choice but to go along with the PA’s program. He had to do it for the wife and kiddies (in this case, his fellow major leaguers). He could have been courageous. But C.C. isn’t exactly lionhearted.
by odradek on Nov 16, 2009 10:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Along these lines, I’ve been thinking recently about the disparate interests of the Players Association and MLB. They certainly seem to have mended fences, and forgiven the past. One could even suspect collusion in some of the way finances of the game have evolved.
After I learned that Jeffrey Loria is a Manhattan resident and admitted Yankees’ fan, I started to wonder about this confluence of New York interests. What’s good for the NY Yankees is good for baseball. That’s because owners, the union and the management all are invested (in various forms) in the success of the Yankees.
The union wanted C.C. to play in NY. So did MLB. So did (most) of the owners.
by odradek on Nov 16, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The idea that other teams benefit economically from letting the Yankees dominate eventually falls apart by the pure math of it.
The Yankees’ economic advantage has a weak correlation with their ability to draw fans on the road. It is unlikely the lift in ticket sales even covers the marginal cost of Yankees-driven salary inflation.
Revenue sharing from the Yankees is split 29 ways. Each team thus has a stake of about 1.5% in marginal Yankees revenue. And that’s just the short-term picture. Long-term, your local club’s brand is being damaged.
They’re getting away with a ridiculous stadium boondoggle that, among other things, they can deduct from local revenue for the purposes of revenue sharing. The other 29 teams are getting screwed big-time by this.
Yankees domination helps national TV ratings, but national TV accounts for only about 6%. That number has plateaued and possibly is in decline. Even if the Yankees somehow boosted TV revenues by a whopping 25%, we’re talking about $3 million per team, per year.
In sum, the total incentive of each individual team to support Yankees dominance is much smaller than their incentive to be mildly competitive.
by Jay on Nov 17, 2009 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course the franchises are being hurt by the Yankees. But other than three or four wealthy teams, most teams play in a different league and are in no position to compete with the pinstriped bastards.
C.C. wasn’t going to sign with the Twins, so what do the Twins care? They want him out of the AL Central, of course, and if possible into the NL, but would Carl Pohlad (R.I.P.) really care if Sabathia signs with the Yankees? Maybe the Angels are happy the Yankees signed C.C. so they wouldn’t have to.
The issue of revenue sharing (luxury tax and shared gate and marketing revenues) is minimal, but it’s something. Owners believe (or certainly seem to believe) that a prosperous and successful Yankees franchise is the key to their financial stability.
The game is corrupted by the predominance of New York, and the owners allow it to happen either through ignorance, complacency or greed. Maybe they’re even happy the Yankees are around to hoover up all the expensive players.
The car executive said: “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” The baseball executive says the same thing about the Yankees. Why else would the game (in the persons of MLB leadership) tolerate such inequality? Because they believe that if New York is in the postseason, their ratings will go up and there will be more money for everybody. Jeffrey Loria shakes his head in assent.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
C.C. wasn’t going to sign with the Twins, so what do the Twins care?
Circular logic. “Since there’s a Yankees imbalance, the Twins don’t care about the Yankees imbalance.”
Maybe the Angels are happy the Yankees signed C.C. so they wouldn’t have to.
That would make sense, if the Angels would have “had to.”
Owners believe (or certainly seem to believe) that a prosperous and successful Yankees franchise is the key to their financial stability.
I am really not convinced of this. I admit some of their conduct can be hard to figure, but on a fundamental level, owners don’t buy baseball teams to make money, and they sure as hell don’t do it to cede all the winning to another team. Think about the fantasy players you know.
Maybe they’re even happy the Yankees are around to hoover up all the expensive players.
There are a good dozen gigantic, awful contracts that say you’re wrong. It is true that the Yankees save one or two teams from themselves every year, but no one team would be thrilled about it.
The car executive said: "What’s good for General Motors is good for the country."
Which car executive said that, exactly? Was it really an executive with one of GM’s rivals? Somehow I doubt it.
by Jay on Nov 17, 2009 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Charles Erwin Wilson said it. He was at the time (1953) President of GM. Eisenhower nominated him to be Secretary of Defense. When asked in his confirmation hearings if he could make a decision contrary to the interests of GM, he said he could but didn’t think the situation likely “because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa.”
by FredOx on Nov 17, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the order he’s saying it in. What he’s saying is that he’s been head of GM for years, and in all that time, he figured that if he advocated what was good for the country, that would also be good for GM. And vice versa.
by Jay on Nov 17, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, and it’s been misquoted for years as “what’s good for GM is good for the country,” which is not at all the same thing.
by FredOx on Nov 17, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m referring, obviously, to the common (mis)perception of his quote: What’s good for my company will also be good for the rest of you.
Without getting too political, I think it was Hubert Humphrey who described “trickle-down” theory as follows: When you feed a lot of oats to the horse, the sparrows get to eat some too.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Most teams can’t do a damn thing about the Yankees imbalance. Kenny Williams says there are three tiers of teams: the rich (NYY, NYM, Bos, LAA, LAD, Cubs?), the haute bourgeoisie (White Sox, Phillies, Mariners?) and the hoi polloi (Cle, Cin, Oak?). I’d say there is a fourth class, which are the untouchables who simply soak up their revenue share funds (Fla, Wash, Pitt?) and don’t spend it on salaries.
Regarding fantasy players, as Bill James once asked; Would you play in a fantasy league where you were allowed to spend $50 for players and others were allowed to spend $200?
I think MLB has put its eggs in the Yankee basket. It sees strong franchise in the largest cities as the basis for prosperity. Otherwise, why not correct the imbalance?
I make a distinction between owners of teams and the executive structure of Major League Baseball. MLB, along with some owners, is in cahoots with the Major League Players Association. The latter wants high salaries for its members, and recognizes the only way to get them is for the Yankees to exist as they are presently structured.
My point here is to suggest there are colluding interests. The union works with the owners and the executive structure to make sure the Yankees thrive. Everybody wins, except fans in 93% of America.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What in the holy hell are you talking about?
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 16, 2009 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is literally no evidence of this. This is baseless conjecture at its very finest.
by fwembt on Nov 17, 2009 12:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hell, are you seeking numbers again?
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I’m seeking any intimation that anything would happen to CC if he failed to sign with the Yankees. I cannot even wrap my mind around a scenario in which this is even a remote possibility.
by fwembt on Nov 17, 2009 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody was going to break his legs. He was not under any physical threat. He was, however, under an immense amount of pressure—social, psychological, economic—to sign with the Yankees. Had he resisted this pressure and gone back to play in Oakland he would have been ostracized as a traitor to the cause, a selfish man, and one who didn’t care about his fellow players. Plus he would have been walking away from a lot of cash.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, but for that last sentence, this is baseless conjecture. This is a nice theoretical, but not one shred of evidence suggests that there is anything behind it. It’s conspiracy theory of the worst kind.
by fwembt on Nov 17, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One man’s “baseless conjecture” is another man’s model or potential narrative. I am thinking metaphorically and you are not.
I can also think of far worse conspiracy theories, and so can you.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One man’s "baseless conjecture" is another man’s model or potential narrative.
Yes. And the later then have evidence attached to them and are used. The others are forgotten.
I am thinking metaphorically and you are not.
Wut?
I can also think of far worse conspiracy theories, and so can you.
Non-sequitur.
by Voltaire on Nov 17, 2009 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
(1) How does one provide evidence for a potential narrative? A person looks at results and considers the events that led to that result. Am I supposed to call up C.C. and ask him what happened? This is speculative. It is conjecture but it is not without basis. You are free to disagree with such conjecture, of course.
(2) Wut yourself.
(3) If you are incapable of thinking of a conspiracy theory worse than the one suggested above, then I apologize. My point is, if it’s a conspiracy theory—which I will admit could be possible—there are far worse ones. I can think of many despicable conspiracy theories. C.C. Sabathia isn’t a factor in any of them.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bottom line, this is a solution in search of a problem.
No conspiracy is needed to explain Sabathia’s decision, and no information not already known to the public. He accepted what was by far the highest bid for his services.
by Jay on Nov 17, 2009 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll grant you the C.C. stuff, which is conjectural. But I will continue to ponder the intertwined roles of MLB, owners and MLBPA.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, baseless conjecture is always just that. A narrative or model always has some basis in fact. You note that CC is a member of the MLBPA, see that he signed for the Yankees, and instantly infer that if he hadn’t, someone would have messed up his elbow. That is patently absurd.
by fwembt on Nov 17, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m exaggerating with the elbow—I said above nobody was threatening him physically—but he would have been something of a scab if he had left money on the table and signed with Oakland.
Maybe you consider that to be baseless conjecture, but I don’t. I think that’s a plausible assertion.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a paranoid fantasy. Other players have walked away from the Yankees, no problem.
I don’t know why we need to invent craziness when the Yankees outbid all other teams by $50 million.
by Jay on Nov 17, 2009 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The overpayment was necessary to close the deal. At this point in the history of the major leagues, it was imperative that C.C. go along with the program and sign with the Yankees. Sure, there have been others who walked away from the Yankees, but not many in a year where they had $160 million or $300 million or whatever it was coming off the books. There was a huge amount of pressure on C.C. to sign in New York, no matter where he wanted to sign. I think it’s naive to think otherwise.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s naive to think a guy like C.C., in his situation, is really susceptible to that kind of pressure. He’s top dog, he’s about to be worth 100M-plus, and none of the people applying the pressure can take that away from him. He does what he wants to do, and he did.
by Jay on Nov 17, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
C.C. is a rich guy, a competitor. But he’s also a kid from Vallejo. You’re telling me he’s not going to be intimidated when he goes out to lunch at 21 in midtown with his agent and a bunch of lawyers and they drop $3000 on a bottle of 1975 Chateau d’Yquem and tell him they’re going to take care of his kids and grandkids? They put on the dog for him.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But we’re not talking about 21 year old CC who might never have tasted Champage. We’re talking about a much older, already filthy rich, one win away from a WS CC. Give it a rest.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 17, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s apparent you haven’t met many professional athletes.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also! This much older C.C. was well-known for crapping the bed in high-pressure situations.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That still has nothing to do with supposed shaking in his boots at the thought of signing with the Yankees and being “courted”. The ball was in his court, completely. He told them to jump and instead of asking how high, they simply jumped as high as they could and said “if that’s not high enough, we’ll gladly try again.”
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 18, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When Sabathia was 18 years old, he signed his first contract, for $1.3 million.
When he was 21, he signed his second contract, for $9.5 million guaranteed, and a potential total of $16.25 million.
When he was 24, he signed his third contract, which increased his guarantee by another $24.25 million.
When he was 27, after winning the Cy Young Award, he turned down a fourth contract, for at least $75 million.
When he was 28, he turned down contract offers from multiple teams, for over $100 million, before talking to the Yankees.
No, odie, I do not that that after all of that, the “kid from Vallejo” is going to be fazed by a $3000 bottle of champagne. He’s already turned down $100 million.
Nobody can tell him they’re going to take care of his family like they’re doing him a favor. I can’t imagine anything more stupid someone could say to him at that point.
by Jay on Nov 17, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Athletes can do amazing things on the field, but they’re often insulated from a lot of real-life stuff. When C.C. got jolted in the elevator and had his jewelry stolen, his father flew in to keep an eye on him. He already had a lot of cheese but he was still a kid.
This isn’t an issue of money. It’s an issue of class and race and socioeconomic status. It’s also an issue of being a team player (powerful words to an athlete). If C.C. “betrayed” his colleagues, his union brothers, he would (potentially) be ostracized.
Most of us would be intimidated by a bunch of white-shoe lawyers getting all friendly. And most of us are more worldly than C.C.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This, also, is conjecture. Assuming you don’t know CC, where do you come off saying all of this about him? You have no idea how “worldly” he is. You’re flailing.
by fwembt on Nov 17, 2009 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever heard C.C. talk about the Janiculum Hill in Rome? Has he ever mentioned the paintings of Mark Rothko or the late string quartets of Beethoven? Does he have a summer home in Santorini or Santa Barbara? Of course not. He’s a frigging baseball player! Your high school teachers were more worldly than 90 percent of professional athletes.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever heard the average American mention any of those things? Absolutely not. Worldly no longer has anything to do with the classics or architecture.
CC Sabathia is a well traveled young man used to the trappings of enormous wealth. Saying he’s a baseball player is like saying Søren Kierkegaard was a writer, there is far, far more to it than that.
by fwembt on Nov 17, 2009 11:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So, wait—you’re telling me sophistication is no longer in vogue? Architecture is finished.
As well-traveled as he is, C.C. does not appear to possess a practical and shrewd understanding of human affairs. That’s just my opinion. But I don’t think ballplayers are any more heroic than anyone else. They might even be less so.
by odradek on Nov 18, 2009 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think my feelings on what is in vogue in this regard will verge into the political.
I don’t get why you keep bringing heroism into this.
by fwembt on Nov 18, 2009 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I cite heroism because you act as if C.C. were a character out of a John Ford movie, walking tall, a big man who tells the financiers what they can do with their ideas. He did nothing heroic in signing with the Yankees. He probably didn’t have to stand up to anyone. He went along with the program. That is to say he was timid and cowardly, not heroic, in signing his contract.
by odradek on Nov 18, 2009 7:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, I think CC was a coward who took the most money and the best chance to win. I just don’t think he didn’t that because he in any way cared what the MLBPA thought. That’s all.
by fwembt on Nov 18, 2009 9:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You know, if we’re just going to be bashing C.C. ruthlessly and irrationally … then I’m going to switch sides.
by Jay on Nov 18, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Sabathia was not from a lower class background or poor socioeconomic status.
The incident you refer to was seven years ago and four eight-figure contracts ago.
Most of us are better read than C.C. but not more worldly.
Sabathia’s teammates were obviously more interested in keeping him as a teammate than on his contract’s six-degrees indirect impact on their future contracts. Those teammates are the ones he walked away from, to join people who had never been his teammates before. No team player logic here to speak of.
by Jay on Nov 17, 2009 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I bet you’re more worldly than C.C. You’ve been to Canada, for example.
Consider the psychology. The union wanted him to sign with the Yankees. That was added pressure. A lot of people were wooing him. Had he signed for less money with the Athletics, he would have been a scab. I imagine his family also wanted him to go for the gold. Who was there to tell him to do otherwise?
I’m not trying to justify his behavior. He is a selfish lout, and maybe everybody was telling him to follow his heart and he just wanted every last nickel he could get.
But you guys expect heroic behavior from a young athlete who has been insulated from a lot of life’s pressures. There is a possibility this isn’t a realistic expectation.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I could see Canada from my bedroom window in Ohio.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 17, 2009 9:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he’s had pressures that none of us have ever experienced.
Oakland wasn’t even in play. He didn’t receive offers under $100 million.
“Scab” is a gross exaggeration.
I think rather that if a player does that, he’s of course greeted by his teammates as a super-awesome guy who has put the team above his own interests. And all those other guys on other teams? They’re not his teammates, so screw them.
Maybe you could give us some examples of players who gave a hometown discount and were forever ostracized by their teammates because of it.
by Jay on Nov 17, 2009 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rick Reed, in a way.
But, first, what top-of-the-line $150 million-plus players give out hometown discounts? Like Ken Griffey? That’s for a Mark Kotsay-type player.
When contracts get that big, the lawyers and advisors take over. They squeeze you like a vise. You’ll do anything to silence them. That’s why Alex Rodriguez is always with the agita.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 10:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Todd Helton? Players do take discounts or even sign extensions for many reasons. By your logic it could be because the big bad owner of the team strong armed him with socioeconomic pressure.
by The Grimace on Nov 17, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was referring to Junior. It’s too bad he will always be Junior and never just Ken Griffey.
by odradek on Nov 17, 2009 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because Ken Griffey was Ken Griffey?
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 18, 2009 2:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s because ESPN liked the sound of Ken Griffey Jr. It’s not hard to tell the elder from the younger. Maybe for a while when they played together.
by odradek on Nov 18, 2009 7:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that is what you THINK, but he is still not Ken Griffey. See: Jay’s response.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 18, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m glad you have the answers. I’ve been looking for more certainty.
by odradek on Nov 19, 2009 2:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re looking for certainty on why he’s called Junior?
by Jay on Nov 19, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I give up.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 19, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Griffey = Jr.
Ken Griffey = Sr.
Ken Griffey Jr. = Jr.
by Jay on Nov 18, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which Griffey goes to Cooperstown? Do we really need to differentiate? It’s not like Dale Earnhardt.
At this point Ken Griffey the elder should be Ken Griffey Sr. Much ink would be saved. Valuable time otherwise wasted on ESPN could be spent discussing the Red Sox.
by odradek on Nov 19, 2009 2:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Only Hall of Famers are worthy of being remembered?
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 19, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But Rick Reed was a real scab, in the union’s eyes.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 18, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes he was. If a marquee player signs a less than optimal contract he too is a betrayer, of sorts. He’s not a full-fledged scab, but he’s close. Every big contract sets the standard for the next ones.
by odradek on Nov 19, 2009 2:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But you guys expect heroic behavior from a young athlete who has been insulated from a lot of life’s pressures.
No. Clearly none of us see CC as a hero. All we’re saying is that he signed with the Yankees because he wanted an easy ride to a title, not because he was afraid the players union would view him as a scab if he didn’t. No matter where he went he wasn’t going to do anything to set them back.
And doesn’t CC go to Canada every year?
by fwembt on Nov 18, 2009 12:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s not real Canada.
C.C. didn’t sign a contract “because he wanted an easy ride to a title.” He signed a contract to make as much money as possible.
You don’t think the MLBPA would see it as a setback if C.C. had signed a $100 million deal to play in Milwaukee?
by odradek on Nov 18, 2009 12:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To the point that it would affect their view of Sabathia? Absolutely not. Is Carlos Lee anathema now?
by fwembt on Nov 18, 2009 12:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Carlos signed a totally insane contract. The union must have been doing cartwheels after he signed with the Astros.
by odradek on Nov 18, 2009 7:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And if CC had done that to play in Milwaukee they would have reacted differently because?
by fwembt on Nov 18, 2009 9:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I concede there might have been grumblings within the MLBPA had CC not signed the biggest money deal on the table, Milwaukee or New York or Boston or not. But they would not have been very loud or public.
I think the ‘easy ride to a title’ is a bonus one might only get with the Yankees and their profligate spending.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 18, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because it would have been well under the top bid. No one doubts that Lee got top dollar for his services.
by Jay on Nov 18, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
TOM GLAVINE!
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Nov 16, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn’t there an old (relatively speaking) Mets’ pitcher who was a replacement player and was never embraced by the rest of the team because of it?
by The DiaTriber on Nov 16, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
replacement players i remember off the top of my head:
rick reed, brian daubach, brendan donnelly, lou merloni, and i want to say kevin millar.
by Brick. on Nov 16, 2009 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t think millar was one, thinking about it. who am i thinking of, though. someone from the marlins that stuck in the bigs for a bit…
by Brick. on Nov 16, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Millar was one of those guys whos name didn’t appear in the video games, so it could be him.
by Roger Dorn on Nov 16, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rick Reed…that was the one I was thinking of.
by The DiaTriber on Nov 16, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably. Reed was one of the better replacement players. Ron Mahay is one of the few remaining from the 1994 work stoppage. All were declared ineligible for membership in the players association.
by ken from alexandria on Nov 16, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ron Mahay as well.
Was an outfielder in those days.
by FallsTribeFan on Nov 16, 2009 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kerry Ligtenberg, Shane Spencer.
They wouldn’t let Kerry have an H. It was mean.
by Jay on Nov 16, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They made Shane Spencer stop hitting home runs, too.
by odradek on Nov 16, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but he got to keep those mutton chops. He came out ahead, I say.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 16, 2009 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_replacement_players
Wiki list of replacement players with a decent chunk of familiar Tribe faces. It also gives a brief overview of how much the MLBPA doesn’t appreciate them crossing the picket lines.
by The Grimace on Nov 17, 2009 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ruben Niebla was the answer to last week’s quiz in the Tri-C intro typing class.
by stuart dean on Nov 16, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No more Chuck Hernandez!
Finally convinced my dad that Jeter is immensely hatable.
by westbrook on Nov 16, 2009 12:10 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
i wonder where this leaves Torey Lovullo
by johnf34 on Nov 16, 2009 12:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Tolman managed Acta in the minors. Interesting.
Steve Smith won a ring with the 2008 Phillies, who were much criticized for letting him go. He had a reputation as the “fiery” one, always sticking up for the players, getting in umpires’ faces. It seemed like a good fit for an aging manager with a heart condition.
I believe the reason Radinsky didn’t get the nod a year ago was because they didn’t want to be squandering his talents, sitting out in a bullpen, a job often given to a former catcher rather than a former pitcher. It seems highly likely that his role will be to work as a second or assistant pitching coach.
by Jay on Nov 16, 2009 12:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think I like the Smith hiring. Acta’s lack of fieriness with umps was one of the (only?) complaints I recall being voiced by players after his firing. Seems good to have a counterbalance, especially on the field. Might be a stupid thing, might not be.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Nov 16, 2009 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can only hope that TimTheTolmanTaylor will be as exciting as DatzAFact was.
Is this the whale section?
by sarcasmdave on Nov 16, 2009 1:15 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Quite an impressive list. The Indians always go all out for talent. Maybe with the money they save by hiring this brain trust, they might be able to sign a journeyman pitcher.
I am very disapointed they did not try to get Louis Isaac back for bullpen coach. I feel Wedge didn’t like him, and thus screwed him. He is one of the best in the business, was the Indians BP coach since 1986, and can easily relate with all of the Latin American players. Mark my words: the Indians pitching staff will never be the same after Isaac was fired before last season. He could tell what kind of night a pitcher was going to have by his first 2 warm up pitches. Hell, he made Wickman and Borowski look like real closers!
by Brick. on Nov 16, 2009 1:26 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
to be clear, they were not taken from www.koobsvideogamebaseball.com
by Brick. on Nov 16, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Finally convinced my dad that Jeter is immensely hatable.
by westbrook on Nov 16, 2009 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve gone from annoyed to amused at the Wickman/Borowski conflating.
Wickman never looked like a real closer, although he was one.
Borowski always looked like a closer, as long as you paid no attention to the results.
by Jay on Nov 16, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is akin to smearing H1N1 on my door handle. I’ve gone so long from experiencing it my immune system is not prepared to handle it.
by Toxicadam on Nov 16, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’ve been great about not looking lately, but i got a kick out of how amongst like 6 comments, these two “brain trusters” hit on about every cleveland.com cliche within their false assumptions.
1. every hire is dumb.
2. every hire is cheap.
3. the indians only sign scrap heap FA’s.
4. Louis Freaking Isaac.
5. Wedge.
6. Wickman not being good.
Adding a new version combined from two olds ones – that Isaac should get credit for wick’s and borowski’s save totals.
by Brick. on Nov 16, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you’re going to pimp for the return of former catcher Luis Freaking Isaac as bullpen coach/savior on the basis of his renowned ability to “relate with all of the Latin American players,” you probably should lead with better examples than WIckman and Borowski.
by FredOx on Nov 16, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
like how he would likely relate to:
Jensen Lewis
Chris Perez
Tony Sipp
Joe Smith
Jess Todd
Kerry Wood
by Brick. on Nov 16, 2009 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ed Mujica
Juan Rincon
Jorge Julio
Fernando Cabrera
by Jay on Nov 16, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the way we shake our heads and stare in disbelief at the Isaac obsession is the way others would react to our Marte obsession.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 16, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the old days when the coach’s were just drinking bud of the manager.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on Nov 16, 2009 3:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I read this as “drinking bud out of the manager”, which I didn’t really want explained…
by Logodaedalus on Nov 16, 2009 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Art Fowler and Billy Martin. Though maybe Fowler could coach, too.
by odradek on Nov 16, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No wonder I had 54 new waiting for me in this thread.
by westbrook on Nov 19, 2009 2:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t miss a thing.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Nov 19, 2009 2:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- ModernTube: Dexter Fowler teaches Todd Helton about Twitter
- Desert Drive: Peace, ballplayers and music at Peavy's 'Woodjock'
- It's time to queue up a fresh set of questions for Tim Lincecum
- D12: Webb creeping closer to Opening Day date with the DL
- Griffey Junior still swinging for the fences, but with more comedy
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
