KingKat

Um... Did you miss the whole Olympic champion business?

ftfy

I checked the Syracus and Knoxville rosters and didn't find anything too promising. Edit: I was checking 91 and 92.

No it's not but that's not the point. If at some point, a mod asks people not to make such comparisons and fair warning is given and ignored, there will be repercusions. Until then, it's assumed o.k. because we've let it slide for so long. We don't have clear guidelines or consistent rules so it's pointless to even have that expectation. Each mod is different and is on a different schedule so it's always going to be a bit anarchic and trying to untangle precedents is largely pointless. All the mods no matter their approach are just trying to keep things running smoothly and making highly fallible judgement calls in the process. That doesn't always work out but everyone's intent is largely the same. No one is 100% consistent with themselves much less other mods but no one is out to get anyone. I think most mods just want you to please comply when asked not to do something (even if you don't agree with it). In this case, maybe I was right to give out a warning maybe I was wrong. FWIW, I think I was right but I also think it's highly subjective and not really worth debating. I put out a warning. It was ignored. I had to make good on my warning.

It's a really messy signature to be sure. One thing that's peculiar is that there seems to be a middle initial A. You can clearly see that the pen was lifted before and after forming it. Who signs like that? Timlin does have the middle initial A. If he was signing Michael A. Timlin at the time instead of Mike Timlin then it would be him. I have no other theories.

Seems like he pretty much always used it too judging from Google. That and the legible hand writing pretty much rules him out. Timlin has terrible hand writing so maybe it's him though it doesn't really look like it. I looked up the Syracus and Knoxville rosters from those years on Baseball Reference too and didn't find anything. I can't resist a mystery but this one has me stumped.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NzUwWDU0Mw==/z/gPYAAOSwcnpToLZy/$_35.JPGhttp://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/mike_timlin_autograph.jpg

Yeah but who cares? You think Martin got his contract because of the pickoff play? That's just details and just a very small part of the value these players bring to the table. In any case, no one is arguing against getting rid of MLB scouts altogether. The argument is merely that they are not important.

Yes scouts are important. Amateur and International ones are to be precise.. Major League scouts not so much.

Was last spotted in Toronto playing for Team U.S.A. in the Pan-Am games.

Say it ain't so, Derek. http://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/887412

You must be disappointed. The whole reason I started following that blog was because of you.

I didn't.

Wouldn't that just be in the early years though? After awhile, you would get your s*** down wouldn't you and have less new material to develop? (I haven't really followed the overall argument but I thought I'd make that small point).

Otherwise you'd have to make the same deduction for Chavez who was also a dumpster diving acquisition. It's a pretty dumb argument.

http://media.giphy.com/media/FmsOcKwVAFwUo/giphy.gif

Quintero isn't too exciting either. Can't hit. Old as f***.

N'importe quoi.

Second impression really. First was the Estrada extension.

Someone who was in the system from 2006 to 2012 and had a 541 OPS across all levels. Maybe the like something about his receiving skills or perhaps more likely they expected to need someone to fill a backup catcher role in one of the leagues and his name came up.

It's like some forget that the A's picked up Chavez from the Jays' garbage pile.

Not but I'm wrong in saying that these are very early projections what will fluctuate and I can also quite legitimately put a serious question marks on an IP total from Steamer because their playing time projections have no real value. That IP total is completely unprecedented from Chavez.

It's early. Projected roles within team contexts will cause those projections to move. Right now they have Hendriks down for 55 IP and Chavez down for 174 so basically Chavez providing 3 times the value by providing 3 times the innings.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about the Leafs but this absurd angle on the trade did come to mind almost immediately.

This trade doesn't necessarily mean that Sanchez won't get traded and possibly in a more interesting trade. Not saying it will happen but you have to kind of see how things play out before you attack the trade from that angle AND that's assuming that the A's wanted Sanchez in the first place. We have no idea how the A's value Sanchez. For all we know, they might be laughing at the Jays for giving so much more leverage to Sanchez than to Hendriks.