Van Everyman said:
From your lips to Nick's ears:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/12/04/market-for-jon-lester-keeps-growing-with-new-teams-mix/kt8ubT2kf25oZOQNu4f4BO/story.html
Protecting the Shields -- The Nick Cafardo Thread
- Thread starter MyDaughterLovesTomGordon
- Start date
- Status
From your lips to Nick's ears:
Does this buffoon bother to do any research? That's not how tax rates work. They pay individual taxes based upon where the game is played, not the state of their respective team.
But sure, let's just continue to let this guy publish this garbage.
Corsi said:
To be fair to Nick.....a player will play at least the plurality of his games in the team's "home" state, and might (by law or reality) be a resident of that state. I suspect it was *that* aspect of state income taxes to which he was referring.
joe dokes said:
Even if that's what he was thinking, he's still wrong. And that wasn't what he was thinking because if you do the math he's basically applying the rate differential to the whole contract.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Globe sports section, Ben Volin wrote about the state tax impact of the Patriots spending more time than usual in San Diego in preparation for their game this week. (To make sure his calculations made sense, he consulted with an expert on taxation of athletes. If only Nick could figure out how to use a source who does not work in Boras's office...)
GreenMonster49 said:
Maybe we could point out that Boras' office is in California and it would cost Nick less in taxes to develop a source in say, Illinois!!!
"scouts and baseball writers..."
Is there any doubt that this "debate" was comprised of Nick hitting the buffet for seconds, running into a sole asshole-buddy scout, and shooting the breeze while piling mac & cheese and cookies on a plate?
In today's column, Cafardo opines that "As fun as it is to pore over some sabermetric stats, batting average, home runs, and RBIs pretty much tell the story of a hitter." Later, in the same column, Cafardo suggests that the Phillies should release Ryan Howard and eat his $60m contract "even though he knocked in 95 runs last season."
Huh??
Huh??
I saw that and threw the paper across the room. Cafardo needs to be beaten with a tire iron.Zincman said:
Hey, Nick wants you to know that Stephen Drew sucked last year due to a personal issue. Boras told him so!
ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE ACE
This was the typical, "Oh shit, I have a column due and no one is around at Christmas" story that Nick Cafardo writes every year (actually every week) and next week is going to be worse.
This was an amalgam of crap:
- Johnny Damon is ready to play again. Even though he hasn't played since 2012 and is 41, but Scott Boras says he's ready!
- Scott Boras also says that his client, Max Schurzer, is going to be worth five games improvement to any team that signs him next year. Which may or may not be true, I don't know but I have a feeling Cafardo doesn't know either.
- Stephen Drew had "family problems", according to Boras. Yeah, the main family problem is that the Drews always listen to Scott Boras. BTW, it appears that the only person who was around last week was Scott Boras. Fuck the holidays, there are wheels to grease!
- The Rays are going to improve from this year to next year. Maybe. Cafardo thinks that they'll improve all the way to fifth place in the AL East.
I can't stand this guy.
This was an amalgam of crap:
- Johnny Damon is ready to play again. Even though he hasn't played since 2012 and is 41, but Scott Boras says he's ready!
- Scott Boras also says that his client, Max Schurzer, is going to be worth five games improvement to any team that signs him next year. Which may or may not be true, I don't know but I have a feeling Cafardo doesn't know either.
- Stephen Drew had "family problems", according to Boras. Yeah, the main family problem is that the Drews always listen to Scott Boras. BTW, it appears that the only person who was around last week was Scott Boras. Fuck the holidays, there are wheels to grease!
- The Rays are going to improve from this year to next year. Maybe. Cafardo thinks that they'll improve all the way to fifth place in the AL East.
I can't stand this guy.
I also liked the fact that the Red Sox are good for 84-88 wins ONLY if they get an ace, but the Orioles, who don't have or need an ace despite losing Cruz and Markakis, are good for 90+ wins.
All the Boras stuff and "sabremetrics r stoopid " stuff was nauseating.
All the Boras stuff and "sabremetrics r stoopid " stuff was nauseating.
Nick with quite the error today:
This is completely backwards, of course. Once Monacada is cleared, the Red Sox can sign him anytime up to July 2 and pay a large tax on that money. After July 2, however, they will be unable to sign him entirely (including any player over $300,000) for the next two signing periods.
I enjoyed yet another proposal from him to limit defensive shifting, because teams being smart cannot be tolerated!
Also, it's incredible that he has pieces on both Papelbon and Hamels expressing amazement that neither has been traded yet. Hey Nick, their GM has a wide reputation as the most difficult, unrealistic pain-in-the-ass trader in the entire game; it's hardly a shtunner neither player has been traded yet because Amaro is a stubborn moron.
God, the depth of Cafardo's stupidity continues to shock me. I look forward to Speier eating his lunch in print.
Also, it's incredible that he has pieces on both Papelbon and Hamels expressing amazement that neither has been traded yet. Hey Nick, their GM has a wide reputation as the most difficult, unrealistic pain-in-the-ass trader in the entire game; it's hardly a shtunner neither player has been traded yet because Amaro is a stubborn moron.
God, the depth of Cafardo's stupidity continues to shock me. I look forward to Speier eating his lunch in print.
Were you interested in another Dan Uggla update?
Tough shit because you have a longer one today.
Tough shit because you have a longer one today.
The Papelbon blurb was Cafardo at his Cafardoiest.
Why has no one traded for Papelbon? Nick asks the question, then notes that he has a reputation for being a pain, his velocity has dropped, and he is due a ton of money. Huh, I wonder why no one has traded for him, you're right Nick, it's a real mystery. There's just no reason at all, except for the three big ones you yourself just pointed out.
Why has no one traded for Papelbon? Nick asks the question, then notes that he has a reputation for being a pain, his velocity has dropped, and he is due a ton of money. Huh, I wonder why no one has traded for him, you're right Nick, it's a real mystery. There's just no reason at all, except for the three big ones you yourself just pointed out.
Bigpupp said:
Yeah, very often he has one of these, where I wonder "how come I know this stuff and this guy doesn't?". I just follow the sport as a fan, it's his job, yet he rarely tells me anything I don't know, tells me tons of things I don't care to know, and even tells me things I know to be wrong. Quite puzzling.
In what universe is MLB going to "restrict defensive shifting" Nicky? Teams can position all 9 defensive players on the infield if they want--there is absolutely nothing in the rules to prevent them from doing so. The horse is dead; stop beating it already, will ya?
It's almost as if Carfado doesn't realize that the traditional defensive alignment already contains shifting. Imagine his reaction if he ever figures that out. 'Hey, second baseman! What are you doing halfway between first and second?! Get back to your bag and stay there, jackass! And who's that jerk between second and third? I mean, if you're not the pitcher or the catcher, and you're not a baseman, and you're not contributing to home plate collisions, then get the hell out of the infield!'
Or that within that alignment, there are shifts that are acceptable to Carfado - e.g. a third baseman playing in a few steps in anticipation of a bunt - that are no different from the ones he despises (in that they both place a fielder in a better position to field the ball from that particular hitter). I guess shifting like that, or middle infielders at double play depth, or outfielders in a 'no doubles' defense, are all OK forms of shifting, because they were being done back in the good ol' days, like when Jason Bay was on the Sox. He never should have left.
Or that within that alignment, there are shifts that are acceptable to Carfado - e.g. a third baseman playing in a few steps in anticipation of a bunt - that are no different from the ones he despises (in that they both place a fielder in a better position to field the ball from that particular hitter). I guess shifting like that, or middle infielders at double play depth, or outfielders in a 'no doubles' defense, are all OK forms of shifting, because they were being done back in the good ol' days, like when Jason Bay was on the Sox. He never should have left.
Some of Cafardo's past suggestions for "improving" the game or the Red Sox:
- Eliminating intentional walks
- Eliminating minor league rehab assignments
- Hiring Bobby Valentine
- Holding the World Series on a neutral site because it's more convenient for Scott Boras
There's probably a few others that I missed.
- Eliminating intentional walks
- Eliminating minor league rehab assignments
- Hiring Bobby Valentine
- Holding the World Series on a neutral site because it's more convenient for Scott Boras
There's probably a few others that I missed.
I thought I was hallucinating when I read that yesterday. He doesn't really think they're going to restrict "shifting" does he? How can the Globe employ someone who thinks this is a good idea? Can't we get Ryan, or even CHB, to point out how ridiculous the idea is?
I don't agree with the premise and have no issue with shifting, but does anyone really think MLB would never consider an illegal defense? All they would have to do is restrict the number of infielders on either side of 2nd base to two. Pro sports have made many more drastic changes in the pursuit of increased offense.
Again, not a proponent of the idea, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.
Again, not a proponent of the idea, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.
Bunt4aTriple said:
I think it might get considered in response to diminishing offense, but there are more problems than solutions. The Ortiz shift, for example, has an "infielder" playing 75-100 feet back from the infield. Is he still an "infielder" (the 3rd one on the right side) within the meaning of the rule? (or are you saying that 2 is mandatory, and that a shift leaving only 1 on the left side would therefore be illegal?)
I, too, think its a stupid idea, but I have no problem bouncing it around while the temperature plummets toward zero.
joe dokes said:
Yes, and there's also the fact that we don't really know how much shifting is affecting offense. As I understand it, the evidence points to a change in the strike zone as the cause of elevated strikeouts and diminished offense. I think the shift just offends the sensibilities of folks like Cafardo because it's discernible change, and change, as we all know, is bad.
I want the umpires to get that soccer foam and put a circle around the approved fielding spots. That way the third basemen can't play in -- cheating -- on the Juan Pierre's of the world to defend where they bunt.
Nick Cafardo named NSSA Massachusetts Sportswriter of the Year.
http://nssafame.com/2015/01/08/raftery-schaap-mccoy-visser-elected-to-nssa-hall-of-fame/
http://nssafame.com/2015/01/08/raftery-schaap-mccoy-visser-elected-to-nssa-hall-of-fame/
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
Cafardo: I know it when I see it.
Edit: Whoops, I thought you were referring to drafting a rule against shifts.
I'm disappointed at the lack of an "after" photo of a blood-soaked Dan Patrick standing proudly over the carnage.joe dokes said:Anyway...this is last year's NSSA award ceremony:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/09/red-sox-announce-minor-league-staffs-for/kezJmbGMrS9fi8uuOBXOqN/story.html?p1=Article_InThisSection_Bottom
I think its Jon Nunnally.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/n/nunnajo01.shtml
Someone call the NSSA; maybe it's not too late for them to reconsider.
- Status