Game 114: Cleveland 1, Texas 4
by APV on Aug 13, 2009 3:30 PM EDT
in Game Recaps
169 comments
The fourteen hours between last night's shutout at the hands of the Rangers pitching staff apparently did not give the Cleveland Indians enough time to figure out where they had placed their bats. Today's noon game saw the Indians get off to a good start, with a 1-0 lead in the first on a shallow sac fly from Shin Soo Choo, but not much else for the rest of the game. Some of the blame for today's game rests on the two rookies Eric Wedge has given considerable playing time to of late, Trevor Crowe and Chris Gimenez. Crowe actually has had a number of good games, but Gimenez has been clearly out-matched. Today the two went a combined 0-8 with 4 strikeouts, stranding 9 base-runners in the process. Even when the Indians were getting hits, they tended to be weak, bloop singles. Only Luis Valbuena's ninth inning double went for extra bases.
Jeremy Sowers managed to pitch into and out of quite a bit of trouble. Sowers loaded the bases in the 1st, but got Josh Hamilton to pop out to escape unscathed. Hamilton came back and got his revenge in the 3rd, knocking in Andruw Jones and Michael Young with a double, giving the Rangers a 2-1 lead. An Elvis Andrus homerun the following inning extended the Rangers lead to 3-1. Sowers day was done after two more runners reached, and then one scored on a sac fly, to begin the 6th inning. Sowers was not terrible - but recording no strike outs and allowing four extra-base hits is not a recipe for success. The bullpen, Joe Smith and R.C. Perez, managed to keep the Rangers from scoring the remainder of the game, but also allowed four hits in the process.
Cleveland travels on to Minnesota next...
Next up: Masterson vs. Baker, 8:05pm
| Highest | WPA | Lowest | WPA |
| J. Carroll | .116 | C. Gimenez | -.181 |
| L. Valbuena | .064 | J. Sowers | -.176 |
| K. Shoppach | .063 | T. Crowe | -.156 |
0 recs |
169 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Starting Giminez and Crowe on the same day is like wearing B.O.-scented antiperspirant.
by fleerdon on Aug 13, 2009 3:42 PM EDT reply actions
Sadly, Gimenez and Crowe have been in the lineup together in 10 of Crowe’s 29 starts. He started with Toregas four times and with both Gimenez and Toregas twice. Plus three Crowe/Baby Giraffe games, just for good measure.
Wasn’t somebody trying to make that point that if your team doesn’t make the playoffs, you’re better off being out of it early? Being out of it early means that your team sucks, and you have to watch crap like this.
I dunno Dave. This is better baseball than what we were seeing in April/May. Frankly I’m optimistic about this bunch – along with the guys we’ve got coming up from Columbus and Akron. Yeah, it’s not as much fun as ‘07 but it’s not bad baseball – it’s just not as exciting.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Better this than the Tigers’ fate. Imagine being a Detroit fan and watching the air leak slowly out of the ball, The possibility of the postseason—once so promising and so exciting—slipping away as the team turns back into a pumpkin.
It’s the old Wedge man-crush problem. He’s crazy for Gimenez. Jhonny is unbelievably streaky these days: He’s 3 for his last 27 over the last seven games, after previously getting hits in 11 of 12 preceeding games.
With Wedge’s other mancrushes, there was at least some hope that it would turn into something down the road. Choo, Asdrubal, Santana, even (maybe) Barnes. But Gimenez is just stupid.
“Sometimes I am good. Sometimes I am bad. Sometimes I stick my bat out and hit a ball 400 feet. I’m like, OK.”
Jhonny barely has any swing left in his holes when he’s slumping. Watching him flail at down-and-in every two strike count is painful to me. Figures the one ball he hits hard lands gets stabbed.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
With Jhonny I just go back and reread “Dysfunction at the Bat” periodically, and I find my faith renewed.
I’m not as down on Gimenez as many people are. He’s versatile. And, remember, he got off to a hot start—a couple of homers in his first three games—which is a requirement for Wedge (“he has to earn it”). So I don’t see the Wedge crush. Wedge was madly in love with Blake, and I feared he was falling in love with Carroll (who has been a very good player for the Indians). But I don’t think Wedge has been smitten since Casey went away. I think the overplaying of Crowe is because of Grady’s limitations. Gimenez benefits from Wedge’s apparent dislike of Marte. Gimenez’s numbers suck ( .289/.313/.602), so I don’t know why I’m not down on him more.
I guess I kind of do. If a player goes four for five at the plate with two doubles on a Friday, he deserves to start on Saturday. Wedge seems to operate on that well-accepted principle (with the exception of Marte). Wally Pipp stuff. But I am pissed about Wedge’s handling of Marte, so I’m not a real believer in “earning it.”
Replace Toregas with LaPorta. Play Marte at first every day unless he gets hurt. Play LaPorta in LF every day. Shoppach catches every game unless it’s a day game after a night game, when Gimenez catches. If Grady can’t play, put Crowe in center. If both Shoppach and Gimenez get hurt in the same game, suck it up and finish the meaningless game with any warm body who has two arms. Tell the pitchers to throw whatever they want, set a MLB record for most stolen bases allowed. It’s only part of one game in a lost season, after all.
by FredOx on Aug 14, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
At this point, what is the proper etiquette for this Andy Marte thing? Outrage? Resigned indifference? I think the Dolan’s should fire Shapiro.
Then you’re saying Marte’s playing time is more important than Shapiro (and you’re also saying Shap has something to do with Marte’s PT).
(This part is understood. Either it’s his decision or he’s tolerating anti-strategic decision-making by a subordinate.)
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Granted, but it’s 2nd-tier responsibility to choreograph playing time. Not that I disagree at all – and hold Shap responsibile – but it just seems like nick is saying, “Marte isn’t playing → because Wedge isn’t playing him → because Shap doesn’t have the onions to make sure Marte plays = Fire Shap.” And that’s throwing the gm out with the questionable-prospect water.
Granted, but it’s 2nd-tier responsibility to choreograph playing time.
I see absolutely no basis for this statement. Who plays and who doesn’t play have serious consequences. Arguably, the most fundamental reason to fire any baseball official is that he simply doesn’t know which guys should be playing.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
…this seems like a dumb tangent, but the manager fills up the lineup card. It’s therefore a delegated task – there is at least one layer of interpretation between Shapiro and the guys on the field day-to-day. But whatever! I know that Shap should be forcing Wedge’s hand. Even if we lose Marte, that’s a hella dumb reason to fire a guy with a record like Shap’s.
Well – you know that Shap’s bad records are punctuated by a few teams that played fantastically – ’05 and ’07 were successful in the W-L column. But looking down the road: ’11 and ’12 Indians are stacked right now. Remember: if not for a once-in-a-decade collapse, the Indians are in the ’07 WS and probably the champs. That would convince detractors to pause, at least.
Shap kills in trades. His religious devotion to Wedge is a problem, but do you really think, based on Dolan’s remarks, that Wedge is going to be around next year?
You know, intellectually, I agree with what you’ve written here. But it’s very hard to accept that our new standard of success should be 04-09. That’s a tough pill to swallow. If 08-09 had been better than complete disasters, it’d be easier, I think.
I do kind of hope that Dolan is able to force Shapiro to fire Wedge, but I also kind of hope that Shapiro won’t let Wedge be fired without resigning in solidarity. I recognize that there’s a dimension of “baby with the bath water” but, hey, most of the trades have already been made, so we got what he’s best at out of the way. Why not bring someone new in and see if a different approach gets them over the cliff.
by NickFantana on Aug 15, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions
Also! Props for writing so clearly at 3:57 am.
by NickFantana on Aug 15, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Thanks bro. I’m actually in DC visiting jhon, so nights can get a little crazy up in it.
Here’s this: Shapiro was on drugs to sign that Hafner contract, results be damned. You don’t sign a 29 y/o DH to a 60 mil deal who can’t throw to first base – shoot, you don’t sign a 29 y/o DH to a 60 mil deal period. Or maybe, you don’t sign any DH to a 60 mil deal. Where are the data on that one? Of freaking COURSE that deal wouldn’t work out. Duh!
But he’s still one of the best GM’s in baseball.
I don’t rate 2008 as a complete disaster, at least not as far as we can blame anyone. We finished 81-81, and that record was based on the real talent and performance of those on the roster, and clearly injuries cost us at least 10 if not 20 wins, which is a lot more than the normative level for which any team has to prepare. Would I accept season after season like that as a non-disaster cumulatively? No, but that’s not what has happened.
I agree we should be more open to replacing Shapiro in general.
I also agree that the standard laid out by the Dolans — being competitive two times and making the playoffs one time every five years — is unacceptable as a standard for success. We only have five teams in this division. Had we made the playoffs in 2005 and been competitive in one other season — or had we simply made the playoffs in 2006 or 2008 or 2009 — then I could buy that as a successful period in this market. But what Dolan laid out as “success” should simply be the average result for one team among five, if not slightly below-average. That is unacceptable.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I agree we should be more open to replacing Shapiro in general.
Bavasi is available, no?
The risk is that you end up with a bad GM. Now the Indians have a GM who has problems with player evaluation, who is too dogmatic for his team’s good, and who is perhaps too enamoured of his corporatist ways. That’s all bad, but it’s better than having Dave Littlefield as your general manager.
What you’re saying is that we should be satisfied with a good GM who has some flaws. We’ll never – in my opinion – get that World Series trophy on our shelf with a GM who has as many flaws as Shapiro. And the WS trophy should be what we’re aiming for, not just a play-off appearance every five years.
One of two things hasta happen: Shapiro’s replaced and we try another “strategy” or Shapiro recognizes the holes in his system any brings in help – like a really good scout/player development guy. They may have this guy already in John Mirabelli and maybe not. Paul Dolan’s the guy who’s gonna hafta answer these questions. My guess is that Shap’s good for one more year and then it’ll be Antonetti and more of the same.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Agreed, Shapiro probably deserves some rythym here. But you’ve gotta sell tickets in order to generate the money you need to compete in this league. Our worst case scenerio is we end like Oakland (17,680 per game) or Pittsburgh (19,454) and flat on our ass broke. As it is we’re closing in on both (22,394). Both of those teams are being run by stats oriented guys and failing to draw flies. At some point Dolan’s gotta have a plan to improve our attendance. If firing Shapiro and hiring somebody who gets the fans fired up – Buck Showalter? – is what it takes, he’s got no choice.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Is there really a risk of our hiring Littlefield.
Seems to me the club can make a decision both to fire Shapiro and to avoid hiring LIttlefield if at all possible.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Right. I don’t buy the argument that we’ll hire the worst GM in the game next time. As far as I know, new GMs are not drawn in a lottery. I have no reason not to trust Paul Dolan to run a GM search professionally. Now, if Randy Lerner owned the Tribe…
by NickFantana on Aug 15, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Complete disaster was too strong of a phrase. I agree with everything you said. I would add the caveat that I think our depth was inadequate to address the injury issues we suffered.
by NickFantana on Aug 15, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
One of the only reasons to fire Shap is his refusal to get out of bed with Wedge.
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
As much as I like Andy Marte, in the grand scheme of things it would be stupid to fire Shapiro over him.
Steel Nick
I’m not happy about Marte’s playing time but I don’t care to go too far up the chain of command past Wedge. Maybe Shapiro appreciates the hands-off approach ownership has with regards to his job enough that he extends the same practice with Wedge.
Steel Nick
Here’s my question: do you think Marte will ever be as good as Casey?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
So we should play Marte at third for another 4-5 years to see if Marte has the same skills? I guess this makes sense.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
So, Casey Blake is now the standard bearer of how a player should develop?
It’s funny you mention Casey, he was given 660 PA despite OPSing in the low 700’s (and sometimes even lower than that) all of the 2003 season.
Look at the first season for Kevin Kouzmanoff in San Diego. He was allowed to start in 55 of the first 60 games despite OPSing .640.
Both players were able to raise their numbers to respectable levels given enough time. So, while I wasn’t in favor of giving Marte playing time in 2007, his time is clearly now. He should be allowed to get 600 plate appearances in the 2010 season.
This is part of what I talked about on Smoke Signals last night. 2010 has become a semi-mulligan, something like 2003 or 2004, depending on how you see it. It was under those same circumstances that we gave a shot to Casey Blake, basically a waiver-wire washout, because we didn’t really care if he didn’t pan out, he was just holding the space while prospects developed or were acquired.
Logically, we ought to be giving the 3B job to Marte next season, because what better time to let him play just for the heck of it, and what better candidate could we find to hold down that position on the cheap?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Exactly the reason I’d play Kelly Shoppach every day. Increase his trade value, move him in January, give the 2010 job to Lou Marson or Wyatt Toregas under the assumption that Carlos Santana is here by 2011.
I do feel that they’re increasing Jhonny’s trade value every day they play him. His doldrums at the plate were really consolidated into a 3-5 week period early in the season — it just seems like longer, because his YTD numbers looked like hell for months as a result — and the more he plays, the smaller that segment of the season looms in his overall numbers.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
There is no standard – that’s the point. When you’re in the middle of a pennant race you play your best – read producing – players as much as possible. When your season’s in the crapper – like now – you can afford to play less productive developmental types more often – like Marte.
That’s what’s hard about evaluating how Marte was used. Clearly after we traded Lee and Marinez the season was over. So playing Marte every day now makes sense – even if he OPS <600 for 4-6 weeks. After all, whatta we gotta lose?
It’s less clear when we had Blake and Marte. Ya gotta trot out your best in April and May, cuz even the ‘08 Indians had a shot the first two months of the season. After that it’s not so clear.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
“Best” is a tough concept. You say, “read producing,” but “producing” is only what a guy has done recently. It doesn’t account for track record, luck or projectable trends, and only a fool ignores those factors. By the “producing” definition, the Mariners traded for two of our very best hitters in 2006, Ben Broussard and Eduardo Perez. It was of course foolish for them to value those players that way, and I would argue it was foolish not to project Marte as one of our best players in April 2008.
Mind you, the 2008 argument ultimately isn’t about Marte vs. Blake, it’s about moving Blake to another position, when there were terrible players he could displace all over the field.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
OK, how’s this: when you’re in the hunt you play the guys who give you the best chance of winning now. When you’re out of it – like ’09 – you have the luxury of playing the guys that could give you the best chance of winnig later. Still ambiguous, but closer.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Oh, yeah when we had Blake and Marte I guess the real decision point was whether Marte was better than BenFran. That’s a lot more murky.
BTW, my Philly buddies are lovin’ both Lee and Ben. And is it true – does Lee really have five hits all ready?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Yer right. How do you pick the one guy outta that bunch of jadrools that gives you the best chance of winning?
Here’s Cliff’s hitting line:
.333 .556 .889 – Wow – the boys OPSin’ 1.44511
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I don’t think I ever posted it, but I did a projection for multiple players, offense and defense, and it was damned hard to argue that Blake shouldn’t have been in the outfield with Marte at 3B. Part of the equation was that Blake’s defensive numbers are so much better in RF than at 3B.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
it was damned hard to argue that Blake shouldn’t have been in the outfield with Marte at 3B
Yeah, a Wedge “strategy” that I’ll never understand is why after 2006 when he was very good in the OF that it suddenly became taboo for him to play there.
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
I don’t have a clue. Honestly throughout this “saga” I haven’t thought much about what I project for Marte. Just that I’d like to get those ABs in.
Steel Nick
We need to know what Marte is. Playing Giminez every goddamn day is probably not the best way to figure it out…
Stuart Dean
I never understood why people get so hung up on certain players when talking about Marte. Marte’s development is not any greater than someone else’s development just because he had a higher prospect rating at one time.
Going forward, we need a super utility guy and a 3rd baseman. Ideally, Giminez AND Marte will be successful and make us a better team. So, getting both those guys at bats is important. Irrationally hating the Ben Francisco’s and Chris Giminez’s of the world because they are getting AB’s is wrong.
You evidently think that everyone’s numbers are meaningless. GImenez’s hitting does not approach Marte circa 2005 or 2009. In fact, he’s barely as good as Marte’s “bad years.” And he’s a couple years older, too.
Marte is, present tense, a prospect who possibly could handle a starting role. Gimenez simply is not that prospect and never has been. Fact is, he has far over-achieved even to get as far as auditioning for a utility job.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 14, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is just a retread of the old Ben Francisco v Marte arguments. Debating which one of these (as of now) sub-standard players are better, or more correctly, perceived to be better is moot. Neither are currently good and both need AB’s to decide whether they are valuable or not.
Giminez has more value because of the team concept. There is no other player in our organization that can be as versatile as he is. If he can hit, then he becomes an outstanding asset (or commodity). If these type of players were not valuable, then the DeRosa’s and Blake’s of the world would not be sought after.
Can’t we put Marte’s 2005 numbers to rest? It’s like Shelly Long still putting ‘Cheers’ on her acting resume.
Also,I did not mean that Gimenez is not “more valuable” than Marte, but that he has more value than people are giving him credit for.
Maybe I’ve been misunderstanding the term, but I thought “super utility” meant a utility player with a bat that could start everday, like DeRosa. Isn’t that the super part?
Gimenez isn’t a potential super utility guy, he’s just a potential utility guy. I am really, really, really not worried about our 2011 utility player.
I usually think of super-utility as being able to play skill positions — it was never appropriately applied to Blake in that regard, as he only played one skill position, and he played it poorly. DeRosa was a step up in this regard, as he could play 3B well and 2B decently.
I’m not sure where to put Gimenez, who is a decent catcher and third baseman, but who mysteriously is not allowed to play third base anymore. I think he ends up without the “super” tag, though, because he basically has the bat of a utility infielder.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Recent MLB article on the topic
“With those guys, it’s like playing with 27, 28, 29 players,” said Larry Beinfest, Marlins president of baseball operations.
While there is no real definition, it is applied to guys that can play both the OF and IF well. Guys that can do that and play skill positions like SS or C are even more valuable, IMO.
Of course their value (especially in the AL) all hinges on them hitting.
Maybe, but why would you play the super-utility guy every day and the 3B intermittently? If anything, you should intentionally play Gimenez intermittently, as that is how he would be used as a super utility guy.
Besides, why limit the evaluation to Gimenez? Why not Jason Donald, who has hit better at a younger age than Chris Gimenez until his knee surgery this year. As a 23-year old in AA, he had an 889 OPS – at age 23 in Lake County, Gimenez managed 802.
I don’t really have a good answer for that. There were at least 2 games where Marte should have played over Gimenez at 1b. Unless (like Jay speculated) Marte already has a solid lock on 2010 and it’s Gimenez who is “on the bubble”. Then it makes more sense.
No way they believe Marte is a lock for 2010. Hell, not even I believe that.
by supermarioelia on Aug 14, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
After Wedge gets fired I might believe that Marte might be a lock for 2010. Not a moment sooner.
"It's all part of life's rich pageant, you know?" - Inspector Clouseau
by woodsmeister on Aug 14, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you. I was actually trying a little reductio ad absurdum in regard to elevating the blame to Shapiro. I think the blame rests with Wedge. If we’re going to say it effects Shapiro’s abilities as well, then why not go further up the ladder?
My grandma used to have an expression, “If you have to explain later that you were doing a reductio ad absurdum, then it couldn’t have been a very good reductio ad absurdum you were doing.” Quite the firecracker she was.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 14, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hell, your grandmother would have known what I was doing. She’d know nobody could seriously blame lack of playing time for Marte on the cheapskate Dolan family.
It’s not Marte’s fault (this year) he’s not playing. Based on his Columbus numbers, he deserves a shot, and did his part to get big league at bats. It’s not Shapiro’s fault, though I’m intrigued that no one considers that maybe it’s Shapiro who doesn’t want Marte to get reps. And nobody in their right mind—pace my earlier assertion—thinks it’s the fault of the Dolan family. That leaves Wedge, in case I need to remind you.
I absolutely have considered that it’s Shapiro that doesn’t want to give Marte at bats. That’s one of the reasons why I think we have to consider firing him.
by NickFantana on Aug 15, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
In our narratives here, Shapiro (being the savvy man he is) sees the inherent value in Marte, but Wedge (being the limited man he is) wants to keep Marte down because Marte doesn’t play the game the right way. Maybe Shapiro is the Marte oppressor and Wedge is simply following orders. Maybe both Shapiro and Wedge are down on him. This is, I think, a good example of how we create stories to explain perceived reality.
What I’m having a problem with is motive. It’s pretty easy to craft a reason that Wedge would suppress Marte, as well as pretty easy to believe it’s his doing seeing as he has such a direct influence on the lineup card. What requires a lot more stretching is explaining why Shapiro would want Marte to fail.
Steel Nick
It’s not that he wants him to fail, he just doesn’t see any reason to give him a fair chance to succeed.
Is it possible that Shapiro trusts Wedge and other ML coaches scouting opinions over those of his outside scouts on the Indians own players? I know I’m reaching here, but maybe he has good reasons for trading for these players but then he trusts the coaches too much in their evaluation of how best to deploy that talent within the Indians system.
by NickFantana on Aug 15, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions
But again that’s Wedge actually holding Marte down, and at worst Shapiro tacitly approving. I’m directing my comment at the notion it’s Shapiro who wants Marte to sit.
Steel Nick
No, I think they’re different. One is:
Shapiro adds Marte to the roster wanting him to play > Wedge disagrees, doesn’t play him regularly > Shapiro is disappointed in this, but values Wedge too much to demand he play Marte
Shapiro adds Marte to the roster for lack of better options, acknowledging to Wedge that it’s not important how much he plays AND Shapiro already agrees with Wedge’s evaluation that Marte does not have the potential to contribute to future teams > Wedge doesn’t play him regularly > Shapiro is happy with this because it’s what he and Wedge already agreed upon.
After I wrote all of this, I realized how far into tea-leaf reading this has gotten. All I mean to say is that it’s possible that Wedge’s input is on the front end, shaping the perceptions of the GM, rather than through his lineup decisions, which Shapiro must react to.
by NickFantana on Aug 16, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
There are presumptions created by the situation. Shapiro sets the roster, Wedge deploys it into games. Thus, Shapiro put Marte on the roster, and Wedge keeps him on the bench. Those are only assumptions, but they are reasonable and not arbitrary.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
But it would not be stupid to fire Wedge over him.
"It's all part of life's rich pageant, you know?" - Inspector Clouseau
by woodsmeister on Aug 14, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
IP H R ER BB K HR WHIP Season ERA
R. Betancourt 1.0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.55 0.00
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
i’m gonna assume this is messed up for everyone else too.
Anyways…
IN
This is Victor's home. Victor Jose, you too.
Ya know, I’m pretty sure I started this meme, and I’m pretty sure I hate it.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I love it.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Aug 13, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah. Totally. The best one ever.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Aug 13, 2009 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions
to be on my mind?
"It's all part of life's rich pageant, you know?" - Inspector Clouseau
by woodsmeister on Aug 14, 2009 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
One thing it has going for it is that it’s somewhat more variable than other memes… You never know what you’re going to get next!
by Logodaedalus on Aug 14, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 14, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
…
I SEE THE DOORWAY
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Aug 13, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions
That song’s been covered a few times, including Kylie Minogue and Staind. Even if Mel here (that better, Jay?) doesn’t know Peter Gabriel, she may know Ms. Minogue.
Sara Bareilles does an awesome cover, but yes I have heard and know the original, and it’s even on my iPod. You underestimate how much my parents’ musical tastes have infiltrated mine.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
I’m trying to identify what idiom this is. Valley Girl Speak maybe?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You know it could be that you are the 58 yo man and Jay is the 20 yo co-ed.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I just want people to take me seriously.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Aug 14, 2009 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe!
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
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- BIG Series: Padres and Giants set to battle for control of NL West
- The Grandstand: Crunch time in September arrives again
- Hello, Bourjos: Angels rookie plays it fast on both sides of ball
- An off-the-wall take on why the Twins will make the World Series
- John Lindsey couldn't have come any closer to his first at-bat
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.
