I'd guess Gammons has seen Santana play as many times as I have. That number is exactly, and no more than, ZERO. He talks to scouts, maybe. Other than that he knows what he is told. That is exactly the information I have. Santana's numbers aren't overly impressive, but impressive enough. The kids good, but he's no ace. He's a solid #2 pitcher. And that's damn fine.
blankman wrote:calm down josh, I don't think this is anything to get worked up about. There's plenty of other things to focus your frustration on ex. Bonds winning MVP over Pujols
Frustration? Writers were right, at least that time.
We don't need to go into this debate again.
There is no debate: Bonds clearly deserved the MVP. If it was the "Best Stats Award" then Pujols would get it, but Bonds is the definition of MVP.
And Away we go....
LB- you are right, there is no debate.
Pujols clearly deserved it.
In the best interest of the forum however, we all need to agree to disagree. No one is going to change anyone else's mind and the exercise of repeating past arguements is futile and time consuming.
blankman wrote: LB- you are right, there is no debate. Pujols clearly deserved it.
In the best interest of the forum however, we all need to agree to disagree. No one is going to change anyone else's mind and the exercise of repeating past arguements is futile and time consuming.
I'm not a great fan of writers, but you got to ponder this. Bonds, who isn't a favorite of writer's, completely dominated the vote 28 1st place votes to Pujols 3. You can say you would have voted for Pujols. But the words (clearly) and (deserved) should be absent.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
HOOTIE
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 14815
(Past Year: 555)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Bases this season: 4,236
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.
blankman wrote: LB- you are right, there is no debate. Pujols clearly deserved it.
In the best interest of the forum however, we all need to agree to disagree. No one is going to change anyone else's mind and the exercise of repeating past arguements is futile and time consuming.
I'm not a great fan of writers, but you got to ponder this. Bonds, who isn't a favorite of writer's, completely dominated the vote 28 1st place votes to Pujols 3. You can say you would have voted for Pujols. But the words (clearly) and (deserved) should be absent.
Pujols it? Doesn't make much sense
But I'll say it again, because I believe it and believe the writers got it completely wrong "Pujols clearly deserved it." End of statement
DK wrote:All I know is, if I were offered Nomah for Adam Kennedy and a prospect,
I'D DO IT.
What is wrong with Stoneman? I mean, he's ripping off the Sox and he's DECLINING? are you CRAZY? There is no doubt that in a fantasy league, that trade would get vetoed. I mean, come on Bill, wake up and smell the Nomah.
Getting back on track ...
LOL!
Of course, a lot of these salary dump trades would be veto-fodder in a non-keeper, non-salary league.
"The game has a cleanness. If you do a good job, the numbers say so. You don't have to ask anyone or play politics. You don't have to wait for the reviews." - Sandy Koufax
DK wrote:All I know is, if I were offered Nomah for Adam Kennedy and a prospect,
I'D DO IT.
What is wrong with Stoneman? I mean, he's ripping off the Sox and he's DECLINING? are you CRAZY? There is no doubt that in a fantasy league, that trade would get vetoed. I mean, come on Bill, wake up and smell the Nomah.
He's looking at it that he would be giving up Kennedy and a prospect for a 1 year rent a player. Granted, it's Nomar, but he's a free agent after '04. If they can't afford to re-sign him after '04, then why give up a prospect?
*Disclaimer----I have no idea if the prospect is good or not. If he's truely a good prospect, then I probably wouldn't give him up for 1 year of Nomar either.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Chill dude, Gammons stated PERHAPS the best in regards to Santana.
We're talking minor league PROSPECTS. You saying Santana is a #2 is nonsense...you don't know, I don't know.
If you woulda told minor league scouts before last year that Brandon Webb would have had the success he did (FYI his #'s were more impressive than Dontrelle's -- in a more hitter friendly environment & should have won the Rookie of the Year), they would of said you were NUTS....as Webb's minor league #'s didn't show he'd be capable of what he did in Year 1.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Justise » Sat Dec 06, 2003 11:06 pm 
/olaf.gif){kind=small}
