travis Posted January 20, 2010 Author Share Posted January 20, 2010 Looks like King Felix signed a 5 year/$78M extension and I guess it could be worth more with incentives. If he keeps up what he has been doing he will have plenty of time to sign another huge contract before he retires too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 Angels signed Pinero for 2 years/$16M. Im not upset about that. Gives some nice depth to the rotation. A little expensive but like MLBTR said...only $1M more than Marquis got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamitekid Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 wow, they actually did something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I think its a good deal for the Angels. While 8 mil a year is a little pricey for him, it isn't hugely overpaying for him. He is a good reliable starter. He can keep them in games, and sometimes that is worth more than an ace. Glad to see the Angels aren't going to just roll over with all the FA they lost and still try and be competitive this season. All they got left to do is get someone to take that ridiculous Gary Matthews Jr contract off their hands. Thats a shitload to pay a 4/5th OF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 Yea its a bit much for Pinero cause the guys has really only had one good season and other than that has just been ok. I assume he will be the 5th starter tho and for a 5th starter he's pretty damn good. Angels lost a lot of guys this year but I still think they have the best team in the West. Mariners got a lot better but I think the Angels still have the better team overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Mariners made some huge moves this offseason and its great for the city and the team, but Ive learned to never ever count the Angels out. Mike is a great manager and can really handle alot of things thrown at him throughout the season and still get the wins. That I think is what will be the difference between the M's and the Angels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 Mariners made some huge moves this offseason and its great for the city and the team, but Ive learned to never ever count the Angels out. Mike is a great manager and can really handle alot of things thrown at him throughout the season and still get the wins. That I think is what will be the difference between the M's and the Angels. I know Im a little partial but I think Scioscia is hands down the best Manager in baseball. Also, I think the Angels just have a better team than the M's. They got Lee for a year or so and he already said he's going to test the market. The M's have Felix and Lee and Im not even sure who they have after that in their rotation but Id take the Angels rotation over the M's, its way deeper and the Angels pen is actually looking pretty decent. The M's picked up Figgins but lost Beltre. I think they got Kotchman too? I just dont see how they really improved their line-up too much tho. I feel like Im forgetting someone else that the M's picked up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 They also picked up Bradley. I think the M's will be alot better than last year, but still its the Angels division. Lee is good (im a phillies fan) and will help out drastically on that staff, they still got some holes to plug. As do the Angels, but it seems like Scioscia can find the right players from the team and the minors to plug them with and get the most out of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 They also picked up Bradley. I think the M's will be alot better than last year, but still its the Angels division. Lee is good (im a phillies fan) and will help out drastically on that staff, they still got some holes to plug. As do the Angels, but it seems like Scioscia can find the right players from the team and the minors to plug them with and get the most out of them. Oh yea, forgot about Bradley. Thats fine tho, he will just do more damage than anything up in Seattle. The M's have a very good top of their line-up but it falls off big time after Ichiro and Figgins. They can get on base but they need someone to knock them in. Angels got Weaver, Kazmir, Santana, Saunders & Pinero in their rotation and I think their line-up actually looks pretty good too. 1. Aybar - SS 2. Abreu - RF 3. Hunter - CF 4. Morales - 1B 5. Matsui - DH 6. Rivera - LF 7. Wood - 3B 8. Mathis/Napoli - C 9. Kendrick/Izturis - 2B Pretty good line-up, especially if Wood lives up to his potential. Still think the AL is all NYY and Bos. I dont see any other team having much of a shot of beating either of them in the playoffs but I do think the Angels are the next best team in the AL. I just dont see the Mariners beating the Angels out in the West but who knows... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediocore Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 EDIT: Oops! Here's the link = http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/01/19/iron-fisk/ Interesting take on steroids, and the "bigger picture" of baseball throughout the eras. I think Posnanski hits the nail on the head with a lot of his points -- most important being that steroids were merely one contributing factor to the recent offensive explosion. (And he also looks how some seemingly innocuous changes in the '60s had a profound impact on the game at the time.) Good stuff, as usual, from Poz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamitekid Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 ^^^^what are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediocore Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Haha, oops. I added the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamitekid Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 interesting read. These are points that get made but not all that often. I think though that these points only apply to baseball as a whole and not each individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Nice, the Dodgers re-signed Vicente Padilla. Woo! :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 Nice, the Dodgers re-signed Vicente Padilla. Woo! :| He pitched well for the Dodgers from what I remember. I absolutely hate that guy tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 They also picked up Bradley. I think the M's will be alot better than last year, but still its the Angels division. Lee is good (im a phillies fan) and will help out drastically on that staff, they still got some holes to plug. As do the Angels, but it seems like Scioscia can find the right players from the team and the minors to plug them with and get the most out of them. I would not be surprised if the Mariners land Sheets too. Zgrudnick (hate his name) drafted Sheets for the Brewers, he knows what he can do (and how he gets hurt) and while that might keep some teams from going after him, I think the M's could get him on a one or two year deal. also, this was a pretty interesting article on ESPN... http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4846734 Jenkins dismissed McGwire's assertion that he took steroids because of injuries and that they didn't help improve his performance. He also didn't think McGwire will make a very effective hitting coach."La Russa is his buddy," Jenkins said. "That's the only reason he got to be hitting coach. I'm not sure a home-run hitter can teach a good hitter, a contact hitter, how to play, how to hit. He swung for the fences most of the time. How you going to teach a guy that's a .240 hitter to put it in play?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediocore Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 also, this was a pretty interesting article on ESPN... http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4846734 Jenkins dismissed McGwire's assertion that he took steroids because of injuries and that they didn't help improve his performance. He also didn't think McGwire will make a very effective hitting coach."La Russa is his buddy," Jenkins said. "That's the only reason he got to be hitting coach. I'm not sure a home-run hitter can teach a good hitter, a contact hitter, how to play, how to hit. He swung for the fences most of the time. How you going to teach a guy that's a .240 hitter to put it in play?" Jenkins' well documented cocaine use aside, what does being a HR hitter have to do with being a teacher/student of the game? There are plenty of people -- across all sports -- who can teach things better than they can do it on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 Wow the Angels actually got rid of Matthews Jr. by trading him to the Mets but they are payin the majority of his contract. They got some reliever that Ive never heard of in the deal. I'm just suprised they were able to trade him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 The thing that bothers me the most about this whole thing is La Russa. Everyone acts like he is so innocent and great. This is a man who was caught drunk driving but gets it swept under the rug because he is a "great manager". He says he had no idea that the Bash Brothers were doing steroids and defended both, but when Canseco comes clean he starts to trash him. Mark comes clean and he acts totally shocked by it. Im sorry to say it, but Canseco has been dead on in his first book about players that took steroids. Everyone he named has been caught or listed in the Mitchell Report. I'm going to believe him before I believe Tony La Russa who is trying to save face by hiring his friend as a hitting coach. Mac shouldnt even be allowed to be a coach for any team. He came clean, he admitted he cheated the sport and he gets rewarded by staying in it. It makes me sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Why does it make you sick? Because he used a non-banned substance to enhance his productivity? There's a ton of variables at play. The player's union, MLB as a whole, teams, managers, and players. They are all culpable for whatever you feel is cheating of the game. In most cases these guys aren't even taking illegal substances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Because Selig acts now that his coming clean is great and helps clean the air about it, when you know Selig knew about it, and probably encouraged it among players to get fans back (IE why the 98 race saved baseball from 1994). Everyone acts like what he did was wrong, but it is ok because he admits it. Steroids were illegal substances to take by law. People like Pete Rose get banned for gambling (which isnt illegal by law) admits it after pulling the same shit as Mark did (deny deny deny, admit when you think it might help you) but cant get back into the game ANYWHERE. Im sorry, but its sickening that a player who took drugs to get better can be accepted but a player who bet on his team to WIN never lose, cant, because that "destroys baseball". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Well, I'm against the majority of moral-based bans from baseball. I think the Black Sox should all be in the Hall if they're worthy. I think Pete should be in the Hall too. That said, I think McGwire may be lumping all PEDs as steriods but I could be wrong. If he took something that was illegal then that's certainly less "okay" than taking something now banned but previously ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediocore Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Because Selig acts now that his coming clean is great and helps clean the air about it, when you know Selig knew about it, and probably encouraged it among players to get fans back (IE why the 98 race saved baseball from 1994). Everyone acts like what he did was wrong, but it is ok because he admits it. Steroids were illegal substances to take by law. People like Pete Rose get banned for gambling (which isnt illegal by law) admits it after pulling the same shit as Mark did (deny deny deny, admit when you think it might help you) but cant get back into the game ANYWHERE. Im sorry, but its sickening that a player who took drugs to get better can be accepted but a player who bet on his team to WIN never lose, cant, because that "destroys baseball". To be fair, gambling is strictly prohibited by MLB, regardless of if it's on your own team or not. There are signs posted in every single MLB clubhouse explicitly stating this fact. It's out in the open/black and white with no room for interpretation. (Steroids on the other hand...) Also, Rose & McGwire are two completely different people, personality-wise. Rose is very much a self-promoter who keeps himself in the public's consciousness. McGwire is far more reserved, as evidenced by his going into hiding after that ridiculous show he put on in Congress. Their "confessions" and reasons behind them aren't really analogous. Rose did it to help sell books; McGwire did it because he had to before the season started. Granted, both player's reasons are self serving in nature, but I think there's an obvious difference between the two. That being said, of course Pete Rose should be in the HOF. It's a no-brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Rose actually admitted it because he thought it would help lift the ban from him. He wrote the book yes, but before so, he sat down and told Selig he admits to it. Selig told him he would then review the case about lifting the ban. Then Rose went into sell mode. Its not an argument about whether he should be in the hall as most fans all agree, its whether he should be allowed to coach or manage if he wanted to, as McGwire can and I think more people see what he did as wrong compared to Pete. I think its crazy messed up that the WWF was under investigation for its wrestlers using steroids in the early-mid 90's and had court cases brought against the owner/ceo while the same drug was running rampant in the national pasttime and didnt get a look till a decade later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamitekid Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Well, Vince McMahon was being accused of distributing the steroid himself which would be like Fay Vincent giving steroids to all the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.