Comments on: The Wright-Cruz Rumor

By: West

West — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:02:03 +0000

His choice in women is much worse than his baseball knowledge.

By: lvlariner

lvlariner — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:30:22 +0000

Law used to work for JP in Toronto as a stats guy before moving to ESPN. I think there was no love lost between to two, but it was just another example of JP not knowing the baseball market.

With that said, Cruz Jr was a bust for the M’s as well. Mariners didn’t get much for him either when they traded him to Toronto. Think it was for 2 RP both of whom didn’t do much while with the M’s.

By: Mike Green

Mike Green — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:41:01 +0000

“Drudge” and “heresay” in the same comment thread. This is surely a sign of the apocalypse.

It should be noted that in 2002, Eric Hinske who was a Ricciardi favourite was in the middle of a RoY campaign at third base. This of course has only a little to do with the potential long-term value of Wright, then in low A ball, to the Jays.

By: Nestor Chylak

Nestor Chylak — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:10:40 +0000

I have to say, my favorite part of this post is the conflation of “hearsay” and “heresy.” Creativity at its finest.

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:32:59 +0000

JP misread the market this year with Halladay an he’s been of the job 6 years. JP’s a very smart guy, but I’m not sure if he’s cut out to be the main guy.

By: WY

WY — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:41:48 +0000

I think that calling it a “fraternity” is a blanket statement that’s not necessarily true. After all, Law DID get hired, and new-school analytical folks with Ivy League-type educations like him have been getting hired more and more in recent years.

By: WY

WY — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:39:03 +0000

Whatever. I’m trying to calmly make some points about writing style and perceived arrogance among certain writers. I’ve read plenty of Law and plenty of the other ESPN writers. I didn’t read that particular chat, and I don’t read much Law lately b/c it’s behind the insider wall. I found him interesting but needlessly arrogant in his tone. I’ve never seen him admit a mistake. That’s why I asked, “Really?”

Stark is actually pretty entertaining, but he and Law are like apples and oranges — there’s no reason why someone who likes Law couldn’t also like Stark (or vice versa). They do different things.

I don’t appreciate the hostility or the above insinuation that I’m naive. I put a little “;)” in there to emphasize that I was kidding.

By: wobatus

wobatus — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:12:18 +0000

I have seen 2 folks use “drudge this up”. I think the word is dredge y’all are looking for.

Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

By: MPC

MPC — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:29:21 +0000

Saying you’re naive is name-calling? Wow. Dude, baseball is a fraternity. The same people keep getting hired, regardless of competency. Law won’t get hired because the guys in charge don’t like how he talks, not because he’s not good at what he does.

By: MPC

MPC — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:26:55 +0000

Read the chat. Law admits multiple mistakes in the transcript. But I suppose that’d be too much work for an obvious hater like you to do, right? :)

Go read Jayson Stark. I think his drivel is more what you and Stan are looking for.