I dont believe this stuff

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/08/cardinals-are-exploring-trades-for-cole-hamels-or-david-price-signing-max-scherzer/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

APIAD wrote:

I dont believe this stuff

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/08/cardinals-are-exploring-trades-for-cole-hamels-or-david-price-signing-max-scherzer/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

Me either.

Generates good buzz around the team 2 weeks before the Winter Warmup.  Too bad Max isn't here to offer a front office conspiracy theory.  I might actually believe him on this one.

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

I find this to be a far more interesting story than another yarn about the Cardinals trading or signing someone that won't happen.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/07/curt-schilling-believes-he-didnt-make-the-hall-of-fame-because-hes-a-republican/

I actually think the BBWAA got it right this year. Johnson was a slam dunk, don't-even-have-to-think-about-it lock, and Martinez's five years between 1998-2002 were the best of any pitcher since Koufax. Biggio gets in because of 3,000 hits, and Smoltz has the 200 wins/100 saves thing.
But, how about if we remove Bobby Cox's plaque? He had three Hall of Fame pitchers, and he only won one World Series title. Bit of underachieving that went on there in Atlanta, don't you think?

About the only part of that which rings true is that the media may have a bias against Schilling.  In other words Curt, they think you're a dick.

I don't listen to WEEI, especially in the mornings when Schilling has his call-in spot because he and Callahan tend to turn it into the John Birch Affirmation Society, but I wonder if he mentioned that his most prominent antagonist in the media, Dan Shaughnessy, gave him a vote for the Hall of Fame.
 

tkihshbt wrote:

Schilling thinks he was discriminated against because of his political leanings. Because if there's one thing I think of when I think of MLB players is "libtard Democrats."

 

Dont get politics confused with being a dumbass.  Schilking should have just said "im a dumbass and people dont seem to want to vote for a dumbass".

APIAD wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

Schilling thinks he was discriminated against because of his political leanings. Because if there's one thing I think of when I think of MLB players is "libtard Democrats."

 

Dont get politics confused with being a dumbass. Schilking should have just said "im a dumbass and people dont seem to want to vote for a dumbass".

About five minutes after the Red Sox traded for him, he started campaigning for George Bush, whose favorability rating in Massachusetts at the time was somewhere between mosquitoes and that white stuff you get on the corners of your mouth when you're really thirsty.
He actually talked about running for the Senate after Teddy Kennedy died, until the GOP quietly advised him Massachusetts isn't Kentucky and in this state we don't elect people whose IQ is lower than the velocity of their fastball.
 

Last edited by artie_fufkin (1/08/2015 12:51 pm)

tkihshbt wrote:

Schilling should spend more time explaining why evolution is fake and less time crying foul. He's not really a HOF pitcher anyway.

By the current standards, he might be. He's got 200 wins, 3,000 strikeouts, and he was at his best in the post-season. He compares pretty favorably to Don Drysdale, Bunning, Catfish Hunter, and - believe it or not - Bob Gibson.

tkihshbt wrote:

I agree that he has the raw numbers, but Hall of Fame pitchers should have more than a few dominant seasons. 1992, 1997, 1998 (I'm being generous here since it was the Steroid Era and he threw 268 innings), 2001 and 2004 were the only seasons he pitched that look like a Hall of Fame season with some very good to good seasons scattered around. Injuries really robbed him of a more dominant career. He just never had a sustained run of greatness. Only twice in his career did he pitch back-to-back 30-start seasons.

I don't disagree. But the standards for pitchers are at a certain level, and Schilling in some instances exceeds them. FWIW, I've consistently maintained that there are already too many players in the HoF and it ought be remained the Hall of Great, Very Good, Good, and Pretty Good (Rabbit Maranville? Bob Mazeroski? Ron Santo? Please). 
I wouldn't necessarily have voted for Smoltz, but by the height at which the bar has been set, he belongs.
This is one of the few things football gets right over baseball. In order to get into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, you're judged by fewer people who have the proper qualifications.  And they don't give a shit about *character.* They don't care if you're a drug addict who likes to have sex with underage prostitutes, a double murderer, or in a couple years, an accessory to a double murder.
 

http://balleight.com/2015/01/14/cardinals-voted-most-insufferable-fans-in-baseball/

It's an interesting strategy...

artie_fufkin wrote:

http://balleight.com/2015/01/14/cardinals-voted-most-insufferable-fans-in-baseball/

 

I wonder if it is because the team has done well or best fans in baseball thing.

new commish wants
Changes coming ?

tkihshbt wrote:

So apparently the Cardinals, who are swimming in money, would prefer giving Martinez the fifth starter spot than going after James Shields. I don't think Shields is an ace, but he's a damn good pitcher who would give the Cardinals innings and stability.

There's now the Carlos Villanueva option ....

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/carlos-villanueva-agrees-minor-league-deal-cardinals-195841832--mlb.html

That isnt a bad contract but im not opposed to the cards letting martinez have a clear shot at the spot,