They Have Blogs Too
Nationals Farm Authority looks at the Top-5 hitters and top-4 (because he can't find five!) pitchers at single-A Potomac, our friends to the south.
If you're an Ian Desmondite, you'll want to read!
Nats Blog looks at RFK's qualifications as a pitcher's park. (It's more qualified than Miers!) But more importantly, they discuss what it means when acquiring pitchers.
Distinguished Senators strolls through the stats, surveying for statistical surprises.
He does answer the age-old question of exactly how bad is Cristian Guzman. [Insert another Miers joke.]
Last, but not least, Curly W, who's not afraid to make an unpopular opinion (such as his defense of Jimmy Bo), puts up a pseudo defense of Smulyan.
I can't say that I agree with him. He attacks the carpetbagger canard, which as I've said a few times, I think is BS. But he also states that corporate ownership might not be a bad thing.
Those are two separate arguments (one with merit, one without) and he blurs them. Corporate ownership isn't ideal because they have other mouths to feed. Their responsibility is to the shareholders, not to the team, the community, the fans, or any of the other BS we contrive to make us feel good about our team's owners.
The recent history of corporate ownership is a short-term one. Disney, Fox, etc, have mostly been in and out, milking out the tax advantages, or trying to tap into as many revenues as they can. Tribune, the long-time owners of the Cubs, has a less-than stellar stewardship of that team. Its sole goal seems to be milking as much money out of the team as possible without investing nearly as much as they could for a team as popular in such a large market. (Which doesn't surprise anyone who's followed how the Tribune company runs their newspapers)
He's right in that MLB looks for consensus, but that consensus is typically among the Lords themselves, other parties be damned.
No, the doomsday scenario I laid out yesterday isn't likely, but with MLB, you never know.
If you're an Ian Desmondite, you'll want to read!
He does answer the age-old question of exactly how bad is Cristian Guzman. [Insert another Miers joke.]
I can't say that I agree with him. He attacks the carpetbagger canard, which as I've said a few times, I think is BS. But he also states that corporate ownership might not be a bad thing.
Those are two separate arguments (one with merit, one without) and he blurs them. Corporate ownership isn't ideal because they have other mouths to feed. Their responsibility is to the shareholders, not to the team, the community, the fans, or any of the other BS we contrive to make us feel good about our team's owners.
The recent history of corporate ownership is a short-term one. Disney, Fox, etc, have mostly been in and out, milking out the tax advantages, or trying to tap into as many revenues as they can. Tribune, the long-time owners of the Cubs, has a less-than stellar stewardship of that team. Its sole goal seems to be milking as much money out of the team as possible without investing nearly as much as they could for a team as popular in such a large market. (Which doesn't surprise anyone who's followed how the Tribune company runs their newspapers)
He's right in that MLB looks for consensus, but that consensus is typically among the Lords themselves, other parties be damned.
No, the doomsday scenario I laid out yesterday isn't likely, but with MLB, you never know.
posted by Chris Needham at
9:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home