11-19-2009, 10:49 PM
<!--quoteo(post=69607:date=Nov 19 2009, 02:06 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 19 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69605:date=Nov 19 2009, 02:03 PM:name=MW4)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MW4 @ Nov 19 2009, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69602:date=Nov 19 2009, 11:57 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Nov 19 2009, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69599:date=Nov 19 2009, 01:50 PM:name=MW4)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MW4 @ Nov 19 2009, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I didn't see anywhere people talking about this article from MLB insiders club magazine
Seems like a sharp guy.
Does this change anyone's opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's always seemed like a really good guy and he does a great interview. But that's pretty secondary. Not even secondary -- tertiary. Maybe even below that (whatever the word for that is).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well...I never saw uncle Milty in an article like that, just sayin.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uncle Milty's biggest problem last season was that he didn't hit like he usually hits. If he stays healthy (like he did) and hits the ball (he didn't), most of his shenanigans are forgiven without a second thought.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Needless to say, I agree with Butch on this one. If Ol' Milty is leading the league in OPS, (which would mean that the Cubs are winning a lot more games), you don't think there's a whole lot less tension in the clubhouse and in the stands?
As far as Granderson: he is a sharp guy, perhaps one of the coolest big leaguers out there. I love him. But as Butch implied, being a great player on the field is more important to me.
I also think Crawford's value <i>is</i> certainly higher than Granderson's, and I agree that he would "fit" better in our lineup. He'd be a true leadoff hitter, and he could man CF (and probably win a Gold Glove...he's probably the best fielding LFer in baseball.)
Seems like a sharp guy.
Does this change anyone's opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's always seemed like a really good guy and he does a great interview. But that's pretty secondary. Not even secondary -- tertiary. Maybe even below that (whatever the word for that is).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well...I never saw uncle Milty in an article like that, just sayin.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uncle Milty's biggest problem last season was that he didn't hit like he usually hits. If he stays healthy (like he did) and hits the ball (he didn't), most of his shenanigans are forgiven without a second thought.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Needless to say, I agree with Butch on this one. If Ol' Milty is leading the league in OPS, (which would mean that the Cubs are winning a lot more games), you don't think there's a whole lot less tension in the clubhouse and in the stands?
As far as Granderson: he is a sharp guy, perhaps one of the coolest big leaguers out there. I love him. But as Butch implied, being a great player on the field is more important to me.
I also think Crawford's value <i>is</i> certainly higher than Granderson's, and I agree that he would "fit" better in our lineup. He'd be a true leadoff hitter, and he could man CF (and probably win a Gold Glove...he's probably the best fielding LFer in baseball.)
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance