Soxbadger

Crennel is a DC, so in his first draft I doubt he goes out of his own speciality especially since poor first round choices can spell the end of a coach (see Belichek's days coaching the Browns). My guess is that the Browns select Derrick Johnson, and then if they want go secondary in 2nd round. (Guy like Shazor could be there at the second round pick) Dallas from all accounts Ive seen is switching to a 3-4, most Dallas fans have a hard on for Merriman at 11, let alone that you do not even have him being picked in the first round at all. Washington has been said to be looking at a WR at their pick, going after whoever the Bears pass on. After the first 15 or so picks, its really up in the air because I do not think many teams see a huge difference between the 16th player selected and around the 45 player selected. SB

I know I just do not think that number of posts is a direct correleation to fantasy baseball activity. Post totals count other forums besides the main sports forums, so a person could be racking up huge totals in Sex, Lies, Politics, but rarely read and post in the sport forums. The only thing you can do is give people a chance and hope for the best, because last year when I got into league 2 I bet I only had 250 or so posts in 2 years. SB

I have very few posts but was one if the most active people in my fantasy league. Just because I do not post every other second does not mean that I am not active, it just means that I post when I have something to say, and I read when I have nothing to say. SB

I would love to have Randy on the team. I think the faux mooning of the Packers is perhaps one of the funniest and wittiest things that I have seen. Packers fans moon opposing teams buses after the Packers beat them, so Randy returned the favor. As for what it would take to get him: 4 over all, Haynes, RW, future 1st or 2nd depending on Randy's performance. Mike Williams is not even close to Randy Moss. Maybe last year you could of said in a dream world t that Fitz and Roy , and even the year before with Andre Johnson and Rogers could some day put up Randy numbers. But the reality is, there is only 1 other current reciever that comes close to Moss's impact at the WR position, Terrel Owens. SB

If you believe that Mac and Bonds used steriods, and believe that Sosa did not, then Sosa would have the highest legitimate single season home run total. Takes a lot of imagination to believe it. SB

Have a feeling it involves an asterisk. SB

SS2k, vs. Left 40 8 17 3 0 2 6 2 0 3 0 0 .425 .452 .650 1.102 Once again small sample size. But a player can only do what he is asked, and Gload did what he was asked. SB

Unlike Pods, Gload has only played 1 season. If you want me to make up statistics for Gload and compare them to Everett's career. I just dont understand, generally we overhype players when they come up. Gload actually produced as a rookie and people want to diss his production because he did not get enough AB's. Im so puzzeled. Why the hate for Gload? And how many other teams would say a guy who hit .320 in his first season was a "nice bench player". lol SB

Cheat, Im not even that much of a Gload fan. It is just very hard for me to believe that an under 30 player will decline, while at the same time we are expecting an over 30 player to improve. I read tons of threads about how Everett is going to be hot, etc. But you see very few people talk about the fact Gload put up .320 ba in his first season. That is not a fluke number it was in a substantial amount of AB's, also: August 35 5 12 2 0 1 7 5 0 6 0 1 .343 .415 .486 .900 September 67 10 27 7 0 4 16 6 0 4 0 0 .403 .446 .687 1.133 It is my belief that you just do not hand a player a job, and if Gload outperforms Everett in ST, then why should we assume that Everett will outproduce Gload during the regular season? Im not going to hold my breathe, and I doubt Ross is either. SB

Your reliance on 3 years does not show the true trend: Last year: Konerko: 55 ab's .291 .403 .491 .894 Everett: 161 ab's .267 .320 .416 .736 2003: Everett: 14 ab's .429 .529. .500 .1029 Konerko: 39 ab's .128 .222 .128 .350 2002: Everett: 64 ab's .266 .342 .516 .858 Konerko: 31 ab's .258 .303 .355 .658 2003 was Konerko's terrible year. Since he has less than 150 ab's at DH in the 3 year span, the fact that 25% of them came in 03 completely destroy his stats. I mean BA of .128 is just dreadful. Comparitively, Everett had a monster 2003 but only 14 ab's. More than likely Everett will hit in the .260-.270 range at DH, Konerko showed last year that he was able to eclipse that mark. I am not saying Everett is a bad DH, or a bad player. I just am saying that the White Sox should not be so foolish to not give Gload a chance. Maybe Everett will outperform Gload, my only point is that if Gload is on fire, why should Everett be handed the job? SB

Jugg, Depends on Konerko, maybe he wants to be seen as a team player willing to do whatever it takes to win. Its not like people will all of a sudden think because he palyed DH for a year that he can not play 1b anymore. Also, the entire question was premised on: If Everett is doing so-so, and Gload is tearing it up in spring training. I just believe that Gload should be given an opportunity to win a starting position. I think that his play last year earned him that right. And I guess it just puzzles me why people are so willing to give the position to Carl, when he really did nothing except excersise an option on a contract we did not even bargain for. I hope Everett comes out in All-Star form, and we are left to figuring out ways to get Gload into the line up. I just have to be reasonable in my expectations and realize that generally players who are older and have had injury problems dont just wake up the next season and put together career numbers. Sb

Juggs, If Gload was to start, I would think it would be Konerko moving to DH, and Gload playing 1b where he is a significant upgrade. Of course Konerko would have to agree. And your premise is some what faulty, while it is harder for a DH than an everday player, Gloads statistics were put up not as an every day player, but as a player who was bounced around from game to game, from position to position. Playing DH would be significantly more stable than what Gload was put through last year. Also, most of Everett's best numbers, the ones that are being used are when Everett was in the NL, not playing DH. Everett's DH numbers for the most part have been pretty unspectacular. SB

Gload:110 234 28 75 16 0 7 112 44 20 37 0 3 .321 .375 .479 .853 Carl: 123 464 86 151 33 3 25 108 50 94 27 7 .325 .398 .571 .969 The year was 1999 (notice that is 5 seasons ago) Carl Everett in his 5th season in Majors was able to beat Gload's rookie year statistics. Lets look at Carl's first full season 79 289 48 75 13 1 12 54 39 67 2 5 .260 .352 .436 .788 Comparable number of AB's, lets take a closer look. Gload BA > Carl's BA Gload OBP > Carl OBP Gload OPS > Carl OPS Gload SLG > Carl SLG Gload Hits = Carl's Hits Gload 2bs > Carl's 2bs Carl HR > Gload HR I do not count runs or RBI's, because those are a product of the situation. So your expecting Gload to decline eventhough it was his first season, and generally players improve as they play longer in the MLB (evidenced by Carl.) But at the same time you expect Carl to improve eventhough since 2000, he has only put up 1 respectable season. But the fact that one time Carl was an all star makes up for this fact, because that all star appearance is going to make pitchers throw the ball right down the middle and the ball travel farther? Since when does better shape definitely translate into, better performance. I expect Gload to outplay Everett. If Everett outplays Gload, it will be great, but I just see no reason to expect that. SB

Skew numbers? I presented the facts as they are. Gload in 1 season, pretty much did better than almost every season of Everett's career. You can skew it however you want to, but the fact is, if you do not give Gload a chance, its purely $$, not performance. Because Gload considerably outperformed Everett last season. SB

Gload: 110 234 28 75 16 0 7 112 44 20 37 0 3 .321 .375 .479 .853 Everett Career: Has hit over .321 1 time, 1999. Has had OBP over .375 2 times, 2003, 1999 Has had OPS over .853 3 times, 1999, 2000, 2003 Gload played his first season in the Majors, Carl is 33. Outside of Slg, which Carl has a considerable edge on Gload, there just really is no reason to expect that Carl even at his best season will necessarily outproduce Gload. SB

Am I the only one who would like to see Gload in the starting line up? I know we are paying Everett, but if Gload tears it up in ST and Everett is just so-so, can we really not start Gload? SB

Thats not actually true. Canseco's statement was: I injected Mark. Either he did or he did not. If he did, then there is no slander, defamation, etc because truth is a defense. You can not be truthful and be slanderous. If he did not, then there is no possible way to say that he did not make the statement with out knowing it was false, or with out a reckless disregard for the truth. By injecting himself into the statement, he has helped and hurt himself. He has first destroyed one of the arguments that he could have made in defending a defamation case, that eventhough it may be false it was not done with malice, but at the same time made it substantially harder for potential plaintiff because the burden is on them, and they will have to prove that Canseco did not do the things that he claims to have done, or seen what he claims to have seen. Also the burden of proof in a Civil case is a lower standard, perponderance of the evidence, but that means that any plaintiff will have to bring evidence to negate Canseco's statements. This is what will prove to be very hard. As unless they can bring in eye witnesses who can account for almost every action that was taken in the clubhouses etc, it will still come down to: Does the jury believe Canseco, or do they believe the plaintiff? Also, since Mark is going to be trying to prove he did not use steriods, the defense will be able to bring other evidence to prove that he did use steriods. Since the trial is public, will Mark and other players really want to go down that road. My feeling is that they will not. SB

Steff, Thanks for the answer. I couldnt remember which way the case went, I thought it went against the publisher but I wasnt sure. Now there still is this problem, which I decided to stop being lazy about and get a Westlaw case: Krueger v. Lewis 342 Ill.App.3d 467, 276 Ill.Dec. 720 Citing, Rodriguez-Erdmann, 190 Ill.App.3d at 33, 137 Ill.Dec. 218, 545 N.E.2d 979 So, for any of them to beat Canseco in court, they will have to show that Canseco knew the statements to be untrue, or there was a reckless disregard. These are not very easy standards, compared to regular defamation or slander cases involving non-public figures. SB

Steff, Thanks. I could be wrong about the publishers liability, I just cant remember which way that case went in Torts, and Im just to lazy to go through Westlaw. SB

Steff, Ask your friend in legal what the ramifications of the terms: Public figure, and in the public eye are for defamation cases. I believe they make the standard malice, (not the regular usage, but instead malice=actual knowledge in defamation case.) Since they are public figures, they would have to prove that Canseco actually knew that they in fact did not do steriods. Otherwise he could say and do anything he really wants. Its why tabloids can say things about actors/actresses with out proof, because so long as it cant be proved that at the time they knew that it was not true, they have not committed defation. Now this would be very hard in a trial to prove because only a few things can happen: 1) Canseco was telling the truth, the rest are lieing to the public and trying to save face. 2) Canseco was lieing, and admits to such on the stand. 3) Canseco is willing to perjur testimony. Since number 2 is probably not going to happen, any lawsuit would be far more dangerous for Big Mac and the others than for Canseco. Canseco wans the attention, he wants to be paraded around, he wants to be on the interview circuit. The rest want to hide their heads. Also, Mac etc would have to get on the stand and testify, so if they did ever do any steriods they would either have to perjur or admit. Very high risk versus very low reward, hence why publishing company would publish with almost no risk of defamation. Also, I cant recall off the top fo my head but Im not even sure if the publisher can be held liable, as truth is always a defense to defamation, and since Canseco was willing to give personal knowledge, not even hearsay, they could easily write in something to the extent of: Jose Canseco agrees to complete liability for all statements and assertations made in this book. The publisher (blah blah) printed on belief that Jose Canseco's statements were in fact truthful and accurate. Should at any time these statements be cast in doubt or proven to be in fact false, the publish (blah blah) will cease publication. SB

Mcgahee at the time was also 100%, no pre-existing condition, and was only being insured for 4 months. Had Mcgahee tried to get insunace after his knee was blown out in the Fiesta Bowl.... SB

Okay, Smith was the best player on that team, I doubt any one will really argue against that. Even the biggest Aikman fans know that it was Smith's team. The year Smith sat out, they lost every game he did not play, and won every game he did play. Those are not just coincidence, they are because, with out Smith the team could not win. When Aikman was injured, the Cowboys still were able to win with guys like Garret, and other no names who could sub in and hand the ball off. Jordan won 0 championships before Pippen and Grant, I believe he won 0 play off series prior to that point as well. You also discount guys like Oakley, Bill Cartwright, etc. Rodman was an all star when he played for the Bulls, he was the leading rebounder in the NBA. Aikman nor Irvin were considered the best at their position during the time, where as Rodman and Pippen could arguably considered the best PF and SF during that same time period. You compare sheer numbers in terms of pro bowlers / all-star selections, but then use average when it suits you. Jordan's teams were generally comprised of 3/5's all stars, meaning 60% of the starting team was an All-Star. The Cowboys never had close to 60% of their starters in a Pro Bowl. And no we wont ever convince the other, but maybe you will see that you are just arbitarially disliking Smith. I think Jordans the best player, but like Smith he played on the best team for almost half of his career. Where as the Cowboys were only the best team for probably 25% of Smith's career. SB

2 records... I count: Leading rusher, leading rushing touchdowns, 1,000 yards 11 consecutive seasons, career carries leader, fastest to 100 touchdowns. Post season records: rushing yards, touchdowns, 100 yard games, total touchdowns. Then he has a bunch of 2,3,4 place finishes. Rose and Smith are nothing alike, and you keep saying the long time that he played. Season wise he was equal to Payton and Brown as mentioned above, although he played more games during that time, thats much the same as players in Baseball and every other sport that has a longer schedule. You keep saying played a longer time, not more games. Maybe he played more games, but Payton, Sanders, and Brown, chose to not play more games. Nothing wrong with that, but Smith played those games, took the punishment, and now is not worthy of the accolades he deserved? Its not that big of a deal that you keep under cutting his records and what hes done, but its not just 1 record, its a slew of records, and probably the most prolific playoff back ever. Not exactly something to scoff at. And would you say Jordan is over rated, because he played on great teams and was the beneficiary of that? SB

You keep comparing Smith to Rose. Rose owns 1 record. Smith owns almost every single rushing record in existence. Its clear that you dont like the guy. But outside of Brown, Sanders, and Payton there is no back that Smith does not completely blow out of the water. Smith may be a step below Sanders, Brown, Payton (something I do not believe), but those are the only 3 who can even be said in the same breath as him without being completely blown away. Smith may not be as pretty to watch, but if you watched him you would know that its no slight to any of the others mentioned that Smith beat them, its just a testament to the fact that some times its mind over matter. SB

I doubt anyone breaks the record for a long time, they will have to be a conditioning freak like Payton and Smith, and have enough talent and durability to survive. Also: Smith Puts things in perspective considering he would of broken the record any way you try and argue it. Thanks for the memories Emmitt. SB