Hahaha, Cafardo you dolt. "Kicked the bucket" definitely means "died."
I wish Cafardo's writing career would finally kick the bucket. What a dunderhead.
I wish Cafardo's writing career would finally kick the bucket. What a dunderhead.
Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
Cafardo is the type of guy who looks at an aging Yankee team that is somewhat healthy in Spring Training and immediately calls them a World Series contender. When the injuries mount and the wheels inevitably fall off in August and September, he will be completely blindsided.
"They looked so healthy in Tampa! I guess, that's baseball for you, the best team doesn't always win!"
"They looked so healthy in Tampa! I guess, that's baseball for you, the best team doesn't always win!"
Nick picks the Red Sox to finish 3rd in the East, behind the Orioles and the "talented" Yankees.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/02/american-league-team-team-previews/xbfAz6ssySBfxgzGOfkEXM/story.html#
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/02/american-league-team-team-previews/xbfAz6ssySBfxgzGOfkEXM/story.html#
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
SSS but Sabathia has only managed 10 IP this spring with a rather hefty 8.10 ERA. I would guess that he is only somewhat healthy.
Cafardo ignores that because Sabathia is a "veteran", "a gamer" and "knows when to turn it on". The guy is the greatest cherry picker since George Washington.daveuk said:
CC also gives you a different look...which is pretty special.John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
BannedbyNYYFans.com said:
For the sake of argument, if CC was a free-agent, right now, what would he command on the market for a 1 year deal? Would his championship caliber and "different look," earn him anything, in the hopes that he could re-invent himself? Or is he just worth a minor league contract with incentives and an opt-out during the season? (And I can't believe I'm trying to defend Cafardo's honor, which is "certainly more than he's ever done.")
WenZink said:
The last two seasons CC has pitched 157 innings, putting up a 4.87 ERA with an 82 ERA+ and a 4.22 FIP. He showed up at spring training this year heavier than ever and he'll be 35 years old in a few months...and this is coming off season ending knee surgery. No chance he lands a decent major league deal. Best case scenario is a Justin Masterson type contract, right? And even that is probably wishful thinking.
Next up: Nick's column on crybabies with arm injuries and JP Ricciardi's proposal to limit hitters to two foul balls per AB.
That'll show 'em.
CoffeeNerdness said:
So true. Like by using suspect numbers to cause someone to think that Ryan Howard is still a good baseball player:
I'll assume he meant "648 or more".
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2014-standard-batting.shtml
Only 41 players in MLB had 648 PAs or more, including guys like Denard Span, Dee Gordon, Jose Reyes, Daniel Murphy and Christian Yelich. None of those guys had more than 55 RBIs. Would anyone want Ryan Howard instead? I'm sure "Bill Chuck" is a nice guy. And at one time, his bits were interesting and possibly informative. But at this point, citing him for insight is akin to saying "I can't travel because my horse is lame."
In other words, he's perfect for Nick.
CoffeeNerdness said:
Like the "numbers" that showed that signing Josh Hamilton would be a disaster. Simply amazing.
Because a clubhouse with Ortiz, Pedroia, Napoli, Victorino, and Sandoval needs "improvement".
JGray38 said:
While also refusing to mention that Shields took less money to go to the Padres.
I can only imagine what Nick would say about a player who's 3-6, 5.46 ERA in the postseason, like Shields, if he didn't have his agent in his ear.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
The flip side, of course, being that the Padres did need an influx of players who had experienced being on winning teams. That sort of thing was worth more to SD than it would have been to the Red Sox.
After quoting John Farrell and Ben Cherington at length (and in detail) about why Swihart isn't ready yet to be a catcher at the major league level, Nick counters:
Which leads Nick to look for support for his position:
So, he starts with a question -- Is Swihart ready defensively? -- has it answered by someone who knows ... then questions that opinion and goes for a second opinion ... and gets told again that Nick, you're wrong.
Then he finishes that segment by wondering whether Swihart will change positions in the majors.
Which leads Nick to look for support for his position:
So, he starts with a question -- Is Swihart ready defensively? -- has it answered by someone who knows ... then questions that opinion and goes for a second opinion ... and gets told again that Nick, you're wrong.
Then he finishes that segment by wondering whether Swihart will change positions in the majors.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/04/05/phillies-cole-hamels-set-show-his-stuff-red-sox-opener/fQGOYeanWsHIQRDOumPngP/story.html
Cole Hamels is great....Cole Hamels is great.....
and no mention of what it would (have) take(n) to acquire him...that the Phillies started off with Betts, and maybe moved to Swihart, whose importnace grew by about a million percent when Vazquez went down.
Cole Hamels is great....Cole Hamels is great.....
and no mention of what it would (have) take(n) to acquire him...that the Phillies started off with Betts, and maybe moved to Swihart, whose importnace grew by about a million percent when Vazquez went down.
And on Sunday Nick couldn't believe why neither Toronto nor Detroit hadn't acquired Papelbon yet. He was borderline offended by it. It's like it never occurred to Nick that the Phillies have a GM too, one who's prone to asking outrageous prices for his players.
God he's such a fucking stupe.
God he's such a fucking stupe.
E5 Yaz said:
I asked an American League scout if Swihart was close to becoming a major league catcher.
“Well, no, not really,” he said “He could get back there and be fine. But I understand the Red Sox’ point of view that they don’t want to cram it down his throat and just have his normal development at Triple A. If he needs work on calling a game, he can get that experience.”
That strikes me as being a rather hedged response from the unnamed AL scout: No, but he could get back there and be fine and IF he needs works on calling a game...not he needs work.
I'm not arguing whether Swihart does or does not need Triple A experience; rather, I am saying that the scout's argument is not persuasive.
charlieoscar said:
I thought the same thing but didn't want to derail the Nick bashing. If he could be fine behind the plate right now then that suggests that he's pretty much ready. Sure, he could improve some in AAA but that wasn't the question. Nick asked if he was close and the scout said no.
https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/585233482223329280
Except for the fact that he can test free agency at the age of 30, $82 million from now.
Except for the fact that he can test free agency at the age of 30, $82 million from now.
Laser Show said:
Cafardo only sees this deal as a roadblock to the Red Sox sending Betts, Swihart, Owens and Rodriguez to the Phillies for Cole Hamels and the corpse of Ryan Howard.
joe dokes said:
Hahahaha!
I wish I could have seen Nick's head explode when Betts et all tattooed Hamels today...
I was watching Reds v. Pirates last night and Reds' announcers Jeff Brantley and Thom Brennaman were having a discussion about the rules to speed up the game. Brantley, like old friend Nick, lamented the fact that batters are now taught to grind out at bats and that working the count is one of the main causes of games being so long. Is anyone else outside of the post-game buffet brigade making such a stink out of this issue?
I played Little League is the 80's and coaches were always repeating the mantra "a walk's as good as a hit". Why do people that have been around the game for so long think this is some new concept let alone a negative one?
I played Little League is the 80's and coaches were always repeating the mantra "a walk's as good as a hit". Why do people that have been around the game for so long think this is some new concept let alone a negative one?
Well from the standpoint of pace of play it kinda is a negative one. I realize its not new, but you can't argue it speeds up the game. To the average American sports fan, it's a problem.CoffeeNerdness said:
Merkle's Boner said:
A 12-10 slugfest would take just as long, if not longer, than a game in which there are a few walks. The average American sports fan wouldn't complain about the high-scoring game, however. The issue isn't just the pace of play, but the pace of scoring. If a walk made the scoreboard light up like a pinball machine, you wouldn't hear a peep about it.
It's the same bullshit, tired argument about soccer being "boring and slow" when it's actually anything but. There's a lack of scoring, not a lack of action, but the average American sports fan is too drunk on below average domestic beer to know the difference.
CoffeeNerdness said:
The Red Sox (and 'so many' other teams) had a golden opportunity to grab Shields, given how long he sat out there. The fact that he fell as far as he did relative to the heated market for Scherzer and Lester speaks volumes about his perceived value. Maybe Nicky could educate all of us why he has definitely concluded that this was such a win for the Padres and a massive miss by those stats-obsessed front offices in Boston and elsewhere. You know, given that his argument is so common sensical and all.
His argument for the Sox "missing the boat" on Shields would go a lot further if he could explain exactly what Shields would bring to their clubhouse that is lacking. That "Red Sox clubhouse is toxic" theme died after 2013, didn't it?
Merkle's Boner said:
Is it, though? Attendance is up, television revenue is up. Football is king, but with an even worse pace of play problem, IMHO. Do fans prefer a 12-10 slugfest? Or do they enjoy the constant barrage of scores, information and images? Or do they prefer rooting for their home club -- the same way ol' dad did? Everyone says pace is a problem, but how do we know? Where's the evidence? If people have a problem with baseball, it's with the essence of the game -- i.e., it's not football. No one bleeds on the diamond.
CoffeeNerdness said:
Perhaps the Globe could move the decimal point one place to the left on his paycheck, and when he complains, they could say "the number on your paycheck doesn't override the respect and prestige we have in you!"
Timothy Leary (not the pitcher, the other one) would be impressed with Nick's Yankee optimism:
Beltran is staring into the professional abyss; Teixeira (who of course knows something about starting gates, thanks Nick) at 35 isn't likely to move much more than slowly, except into the decline of his career. The other 3 are 31; they aren't going to get better.
Beltran is staring into the professional abyss; Teixeira (who of course knows something about starting gates, thanks Nick) at 35 isn't likely to move much more than slowly, except into the decline of his career. The other 3 are 31; they aren't going to get better.
Nick is talking to his sources at McLean Hospital again. I would guess that there may literally not be a single relevant person who thinks this.
According to Nick, Dave Dravecky had "trouble adapting" to being a lefty with no left arm.
The 'A' lineup with ARod as its inappropraite centerpiece? (centaurpiece?)
Remember: Nick isn't debating with himself... 'We' are debating with 'ourselves'.E5 Yaz said:
Otherwise know as "mass debation"Dick Pole Upside said:
I haven't read him in a while now, but it seems like there's an increase in these useless question/debates that Nick makes no attempt to resolve or shed light on beyond posing the question. I wonder if this is some deliberate attempt to follow the Facebook "you should see what happens next" kind of thing, except that there's never any payoff with Nick's dumb question.
- Status