+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Minor League Roundup (/thread-7397.html)
Minor League Roundup - Kid - 08-20-2009
<b>August 19:</b>
![[Image: t451_logo_sm.gif]](http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/images/logo/t451_logo_sm.gif){kind=logo}
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Iowa (63-61) 9 11 1
Portland (53-72) 10 17 3 (F/13)
WP: Walter Silva (6-5)
LP: Blake Parker (2-2)
HR: POR - Valentino Pascucci (17)
Mitch Atkins: GS, 4.0 IP, 6 R, 6 ER (7.08 ERA), 6 H, 3 BB, 4 K
Matt Craig: 3-6 (.258), 2 2B (14), 2 RBI (31), 2 R, BB, K
Chris Robinson: 2-4 (.333), 2B (21), 4 RBI (47), R, 2 BB<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
![[Image: t553_logo_sm.gif]](http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/images/logo/t553_logo_sm.gif){kind=logo}
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Chattanooga (26-26) 4 7 2
Tennessee (27-25) 5 10 2
WP: Marco Carrillo (3-1)
LP: Matthew Sartor (4-5)
Andrew Cashner: GS, 4.0 IP, 3 R, 3 ER (3.29 ERA), 5 H, 2 BB, 6 K
Robinson Chirinos: 2-3 (.364), R, BB
Tyler Colvin: 2-4 (.295), RBI (33), R<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
![[Image: t450_logo_sm.gif]](http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/images/logo/t450_logo_sm.gif){kind=logo}
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Daytona (22-29)
Tampa (36-14) (Cancelled/Lightning)<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
![[Image: t480_logo_sm.gif]](http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/images/logo/t480_logo_sm.gif){kind=logo}
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Spokane (27-31) 0 7 1
Boise (27-31) 1 6 0
WP: Robert Hernandez (3-3)
LP: Braden Tullis (2-2)
SV: Dionis Nunez (5)
Hernandez: GS, 6.0 IP, 0 R, 0 ER (3.24 ERA), 4 H, 1 BB, 3 K, 2 HBP
Eduardo Figueroa: 2.0 IP, 0 R, 0 ER (8.84 ERA), 2 H, 0 BB, 2 K
Hak-Ju Lee: 2-4 (.317), PO<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
![[Image: l130_logo_lg.gif]](http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/images/leagueheaderlogos/l130_logo_lg.gif){kind=logo}
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Cubs 1 (35-33) 4 6 6
Orioles (25-44) 5 10 2
WP: Lorenzo Montas (2-4)
LP: Francory Pineda (2-2)
Enyel Gonzalez: GS, 4.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER (4.35 ERA), 4 H, 0 BB, 2 K, E (1)
Juan Pena: 2-2 (.264), 2B (17), R, 2 BB, CS (2), 2 E (30)
Vismeldy Bieneme: 1-2 (.269), 2B (6), 2 R, 2 BB, HBP, 3 SB (40), E (16)<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Red Sox (43-25) 4 5 0
Cubs 2 (15-51) 2 6 5
WP: Luis Bastardo (4-2)
LP: Darlin Castro (1-5)
SV: Ernesto Reyes (5)
Santo Rodriguez: GS, 3.0 IP, 2 R, 1 ER (3.43 ERA), 2 H, 2 BB, 2 K, WP, E (2)
Roneidy Mejia: 3.0 IP, 0 R, 0 ER (3.48 ERA), 1 H, 0 BB, 3 K
Gregori Gonzalez: 2-5 (.179), R<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
Minor League Roundup - Coach - 08-20-2009
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 19 2009, 09:52 AM) *
QUOTE (Ace @ Aug 19 2009, 06:56 AM) *
QUOTE (BT @ Aug 18 2009, 10:34 PM) *
QUOTE (Ace @ Aug 18 2009, 07:07 PM) *
QUOTE (BT @ Aug 18 2009, 01:07 PM) *
QUOTE (Ace @ Aug 18 2009, 06:34 AM) *
QUOTE (Coach @ Aug 18 2009, 07:32 AM) *
Flaherty has run through some bad luck in the average category, but has performed much better than it appears.
Shrug. He's a three-year starter in college, he's 23, and he's in A ball with an OPS under .800. I'm not saying he's not still a prospect, but he's been top five on peoples' lists all season. I don't see it.
Kevin Goldstien at BP would politely disagree.
QUOTE
Ryan Flaherty, INF, Cubs (Low-A Peoria)
While Double-A is a bit of an aggressive push for a player's full-season debut, for a guy like Flaherty, a supplemental first-round pick last year out of Vanderbilt, beginning the year at Low-A seemed a bit conservative, so his slow start to the year was cause for genuine concern. Happily, not only has he found his stroke, he's also maintained his power; after hitting homers on Saturday and Sunday, he's now hitting .301 since the All-Star break, and .267/.333/.467 overall. As a player with that kind of pop who can at least hold his own at three infield positions, he's definitely still a prospect.
Um, how does that disagree with what I said?
In lawyer speak? It doesn't specifically. In tone? Both Goldstien and Coach seem much higher on him than you. Goldstien says he is definitely a prospect. You said "shrug".
I did say shrug. I also said - explicitly - that he is still a prospect.
Explicitly? No. You said you weren't ruling out the fact he could be a prospect. I'm not trying to split hairs here, but since you've taken offense at my initial post, saying:
QUOTE
I'm not saying he's not still a prospect, but he's been top five on peoples' lists all season. I don't see it.
isn't anywhere near "explicitly" saying he is a prospect. In fact it's pretty far from it.
I'm only keeping on this because it's you, BT, and you like precision. Not a fight. Just being precise.
What part of "I'm not saying he's not still a prospect" is unclear? I know there's a double negative in there, but that's me EXPLICITLY saying he's still a prospect. There's not really another way to read that.
Coach and Goldstein sound higher on him than I do, sure. But Goldstein said almost exactly the same stuff I did.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sold on him totally, as I just said that he had played better than the numbers had shown.
Also, I have yet to find someone that has him ranked in the Cubs top 5, as you said.
Anyways, Goldstein and I basically said the same thing.
Minor League Roundup - BT - 08-20-2009
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I'm only keeping on this because it's you, BT, and you like precision. Not a fight. Just being precise.
What part of "I'm not saying he's not still a prospect" is unclear? I know there's a double negative in there, but that's me EXPLICITLY saying he's still a prospect. There's not really another way to read that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, you are drunk. Of course there is another way to read it. You can read it like the rest of the planet reads it when someone says "I'm not saying he isn't (insert fact), but..."
"He is a prospect" is explicitly saying he is a prospect. "I'm not saying he's not still a prospect, but...." is NOT explicitly saying he is a prospect. In fact, it not only leaves open the possibility he is not a prospect (as you haven't ruled that out either), but it is assumed that everything that comes after the "but" will seriously question his status. And if it's open to question, that's pretty much the opposite of "explicit". Isn't it?
You are a lawyer, aren't you? (I can't remember). If so, you'd NAIL a guy for trying to get away with this. Explicitly saying fact A, and refusing to rule out fact A are NOT the same thing. OR...
"Ace is a heterosexual" is explicitly confirming your heterosexuality.
"I'm not saying Ace is not a heterosexual, but..." simply says I don't have enough proof to definitively say that Ace is gay, but I'm now going to list some facts which tend to feed my suspicions that he could be polishing poles orally.
One statement explicitly rules out homosexuality. The other does not.
Minor League Roundup - VanSlawAndCottoCheese - 08-20-2009
BT, we need to find you a Cards fan troll upon whom your power of parsing language can be used for the forces of good. Where's EncarnaciOWNED when you need him? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]
Minor League Roundup - Coach - 08-20-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-"BA on Burke"+-->QUOTE ("BA on Burke")<!--QuoteEBegin-->The value of patience
Kyler Buke, OF, Cubs (Low-A Peoria)
Tuesday's stats: 2-for-2, 2B, 2 R, 2 RBI, 2 BB
Burke's second-half explosion continued on Tuesday, as he's now hitting .328/.437/.508 since the All-Star break. Beyond the overall averages, the most striking part of the run is that Burke has suddenly turned into a walk machine as he's drawn a pair of free passes in each of his last four games, and 20 in his last 18. It's the perfect combination, as he's waiting for his pitch, and then doing damage when he gets it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Minor League Roundup - Butcher - 08-20-2009
How old is Kyler now?
Minor League Roundup - Coach - 08-20-2009
<!--quoteo(post=59031:date=Aug 20 2009, 11:35 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 20 2009, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How old is Kyler now?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
21
Minor League Roundup - Ace - 08-20-2009
<!--quoteo(post=59005:date=Aug 20 2009, 09:31 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 20 2009, 09:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I'm only keeping on this because it's you, BT, and you like precision. Not a fight. Just being precise.
What part of "I'm not saying he's not still a prospect" is unclear? I know there's a double negative in there, but that's me EXPLICITLY saying he's still a prospect. There's not really another way to read that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, you are drunk. Of course there is another way to read it. You can read it like the rest of the planet reads it when someone says "I'm not saying he isn't (insert fact), but..."
"He is a prospect" is explicitly saying he is a prospect. "I'm not saying he's not still a prospect, but...." is NOT explicitly saying he is a prospect. In fact, it not only leaves open the possibility he is not a prospect (as you haven't ruled that out either), but it is assumed that everything that comes after the "but" will seriously question his status. And if it's open to question, that's pretty much the opposite of "explicit". Isn't it?
You are a lawyer, aren't you? (I can't remember). If so, you'd NAIL a guy for trying to get away with this. Explicitly saying fact A, and refusing to rule out fact A are NOT the same thing. OR...
"Ace is a heterosexual" is explicitly confirming your heterosexuality.
"I'm not saying Ace is not a heterosexual, but..." simply says I don't have enough proof to definitively say that Ace is gay, but I'm now going to list some facts which tend to feed my suspicions that he could be polishing poles orally.
One statement explicitly rules out homosexuality. The other does not.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BT, let me say up front: don't do the "you're a lawyer" thing. It is unnecessarily derisive, even if you don't mean it that way. Yes, I am a lawyer. I'm a fucking great one.
You're dead wrong, and the reason is that casual ellipses after the word "but."
It's pretty simple, and since you like analogies, here goes:
"I'm not saying that tennis ball is not a ball, but it's not orange."
That's what I said, homey. The "but" does not negate the former clause. My point was that the ball is not orange. That's the point I wanted to make. Hence the but. It does not negate the fact that the ball is a ball, which I explicitly said via a double negative, because it isn't on the same plain of comparison.
In conclusion, I would hope you would know by now that I'm not one of those douches who says something imprecisely (or simply wrong), and then claims that's what they meant all along. I say I fucked up all the time.
This time I did not. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. The kid is still a prospect. He's just not a top five prospect (to Coach's point: maybe I was imprecise, but he was in SEVERAL top five's preseason).
Minor League Roundup - BT - 08-20-2009
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->BT, let me say up front: don't do the "you're a lawyer" thing. It is unnecessarily derisive, even if you don't mean it that way. Yes, I am a lawyer. I'm a fucking great one.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm. In no way shape or form was what I said anywhere near derisive. I WORK in a law firm. Most of my friends are lawyers. Saying that you, as a lawyer, would be more aware of the precision of statements, is not the same thing as saying you fucking chase ambulances. And yes, it matters if I meant it that way. Or at the very least if I actually wrote it that way. Since I met neither of those requirements, this is an absurdly out of place aside. In other words, if I don't actually say something insulting, and I didn't actually mean something insulting, it's kind of tough shit if you are insulted (no offense).
As for the rest of this, let's play it you way. Let's drop the contentious "but". The only reason I included what followed the but is that not ONLY did you not explicitly say he was a prospect, but including the but seemed to imply he wasn't. But that is entirely beside my initial problem with your statement. So let's drop that part of it. This is your argument then. Tell me if you see any holes.
Your first statement -"I'm not saying he isn't a prospect".
Your subsequent statement- "I EXPLICITLY said he was a prospect".
No. You didn't. You may have meant he was a prospect. You may have believed he was a prospect. But you sure as fuck did not explicitly say he was a prospect.
Or, to use your example:
"I'm not saying that is not a ball".
"I explicitly said that it WAS a ball"
No, you didn't.
How about thes. If I said "I'm not saying the Cubs aren't good", am I explicitly saying the Cubs are good? If I say "I'm not saying he isn't gay", am I explicitly saying he is gay? No. I'm simply stating that I'm not claiming the opposite.
Minor League Roundup - Kid - 08-20-2009
I like a good semantics argument as much as anyone. But I think this should settle it.
"I didn't say A isn't B" could definitely mean "I think A is B."
"I didn't say A isn't B" could also mean "I don't know whether A is B."
Minor League Roundup - Ace - 08-21-2009
I've never been in one of these spats with BT, and from the outside, I always wondered why they blew up.
I'm not going to do this, BT. You care WAY too much, and it's not worth my opinion of you changing over something stupid like this.
"I'm not saying he isn't still a prospect" - the reason I'm "not saying it" is because clearly he IS still a prospect. I'm sorry if you chose to read it some other way - your reading is a legitimate reading, I suppose, but worth this kind of blow up? Hardly. You can't just give up the "but," because the but is what emphasizes my point: "I'm not saying he's not still a prospect, but <i>instead</i>, the point I'm trying to make is that he isn't an <i>awesome </i>prospect." This really isn't that complex.
I know what I said; I know what I meant; I said what I meant; and I meant what I said.
Minor League Roundup - Coldneck - 08-21-2009
BT could argue the tits off tits off a stripper. He's that good at it.
Minor League Roundup - Ace - 08-21-2009
<!--quoteo(post=59206:date=Aug 21 2009, 08:14 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 21 2009, 08:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->BT could argue the tits off tits off a stripper. He's that good at it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's very good.
Even when he's wrong.
Minor League Roundup - Scarey - 08-21-2009
<!--quoteo(post=59204:date=Aug 21 2009, 06:59 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Aug 21 2009, 06:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I've never been in one of these spats with BT, and from the outside, I always wondered why they blew up.
I'm not going to do this, BT. You care WAY too much, and it's not worth my opinion of you changing over something stupid like this.
"I'm not saying he isn't still a prospect" - the reason I'm "not saying it" is because clearly he IS still a prospect. I'm sorry if you chose to read it some other way - your reading is a legitimate reading, I suppose, but worth this kind of blow up? Hardly. You can't just give up the "but," because the but is what emphasizes my point: "I'm not saying he's not still a prospect, but <i>instead</i>, the point I'm trying to make is that he isn't an <i>awesome </i>prospect." This really isn't that complex.
I know what I said; I know what I meant; I said what I meant; and I meant what I said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why didn't you just say "He's a prospect, but a mediocre prospect."?
Minor League Roundup - Kid - 08-21-2009
<b>August 20:</b>
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Iowa (64-61) 3 6 1
Portland (53-73) 1 5 1
WP: J.R. Mathes (12-6)
LP: Josh Geer (2-3)
SV: Blake Parker (17)
Mathes: GS, 8.0 IP, 1 R, 0 ER (3.36 ERA), 5 H, 1 BB, 3 K, HBP; 0-2 (.190), R, BB
John-Ford Griffin: 2-3 (.285), 2 RBI (33), BB
Steve Clevenger: 2-4 (.263), 2B (11), RBI (23)<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Chattanooga (27-26) 8 12 1
Tennessee (27-26) 6 10 2
WP: Javy Guerra (3-1)
LP: Brian Schlitter (1-7)
SV: Harvey Garcia (2)
HR: CHT - Eduardo Perez (10); TEN - Tyler Colvin (11)
Hung-Wen Chen: GS, 5.1 IP, 2 R, 2 ER (4.62 ERA), 6 H, 2 BB, 9 K
Colvin: 1-3 (.295), 2 RBI (35), 2 R, 2 BB
Starlin Castro: 3-3 (.255), 2 RBI (7), R, BB, SB (1), 2 E (6)<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Brevard County (30-17) 10 9 2
Daytona (22-30) 2 4 3
WP: Michael Bowman (4-4)
LP: James Leverton (8-11)
Leverton: GS, 5.1 IP, 6 R, 3 ER (4.35 ERA), 4 H, 4 BB, 1 K, HBP
Dan McDaniel: 2.0 IP, 1 R, 1 ER (4.78 ERA), 4 H, 1 BB, 0 K
Jose Pina: 1.2 IP, 3 R, 1 ER (4.15 ERA), 1 H, 3 BB, 1 K, WP<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
![[Image: t443_logo_sm.gif]](http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/images/logo/t443_logo_sm.gif){kind=logo}
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Clinton (24-28) 0 6 0
Peoria (32-20) 3 8 0
WP: Manolin De Leon (4-3)
LP: Brian Moran (0-2)
SV: Christopher Huseby (17)
Carlos Zambrano: GS, 5.0 IP, 0 R, 0 ER (0.00 ERA), 4 H, 0 BB, 5 K, WP
Ryan Flaherty: 2-4 (.272), 2B (21), RBI (70), R, K, CS (6)
Brett Jackson: 2-4 (.310), 2B (5), R, 2 K<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Boise (28-31) 9 16 1
Yakima (22-37) 3 8 4
WP: Kenneth McNutt (3-0)
LP: Christopher Odegaard (1-6)
HR: YAK - Brent Greer (7)
Su-Min Jung: GS, 3.1 IP, 2 R, 1 ER (4.38 ERA), 3 H, 2 BB, 1 K
Hak-Ju Lee: 3-5 (.324), 2 2B (13), RBI (30), 2 R, K, SB (22)
Jae-Hoon Ha: 2-5 (.255), 2 2B (14), 4 RBI (32), R, 3 K<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
![[Image: l121_logo_lg.gif]](http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/images/leagueheaderlogos/l121_logo_lg.gif){kind=logo}
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Angels (13-7) 7 14 2
Cubs (11-9) 6 11 1 (F/12)
WP: Michael Rocco (1-2)
LP: Steven Grife (1-1)
SV: John Hellweg (6)
HR: LAA - Eric Oliver (4), Jose Jimenez (3)
Brooks Raley: GS, 1.1 IP, 2 R, 2 ER (7.71 ERA), 2 H, 0 BB, 1 K
Brandon May: 3-5 (.600), RBI (1), 2 K, SB (1)
Kevin Soto: 3-6 (.340), 3B (3), RBI (10), K, 2 SB (13), CS (6)<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
White Sox (41-28) 0 2 2
Cubs 1 (36-33) 3 4 1
WP: Starling Peralta (1-3)
LP: Luis Payano (5-3)
SV: Jhon Rodriguez (1)
Peralta: GS, 5.0 IP, 0 R, 0 ER (4.10 ERA), 1 H, 1 BB, 6 K, WP, HBP
Rodriguez: 4.0 IP, 0 R, 0 ER (3.38 ERA), 1 H, 0 BB< 4 K, WP
Xavier Batista: 1-2 (.245), RBI (38), BB<!--c2--><!--ec2-->
<!--c1-->CODE<!--ec1--> R H E
Cubs 2 (15-51) 2 7 1
Royals (26-40) 2 4 0 (F/6)
Yilver Sanchez: GS, 5.2 IP, 2 R, 1 ER (3.45 ERA), 4 H, 2 BB, 4 K, E (2)
Ricardo Parra: 2-2 (.225), 2B (2), RBI (3), R
Smaily Borgues: 2-3 (.322), 2B (14), CS (12)<!--c2--><!--ec2-->