what's left to root for
nifty way to wrap up the home schedule. after shelling brad lidge for 5 runs back on april 8 in their first crack at him for 2007, the cardinals had gone just 1 for 17 against him --- until last night. albert pujols reached base all four times he faced lidge this year ---- once on an error, twice on walks, and last night on an rbi single.
with the victory, the '07 cardinals ensured that they won't stand alone as the worst of la russa's 12 st louis teams; they're now tied with the 1997 cardinals at 73 wins and can pass them with just one more W. with 3 more victories, they'll also pass the '99 team; those were senor tony's only sub-.500 finishes in st louis before this season. a few other ignoble deeds remain to be avoided, however:
1. with 7 games to play, the cardinals have allowed 795 runs. the worst runs-allowed total in franchise history belongs to the 1999 cardinals, at 838. they need to hold their opponents to 43 runs or fewer this week to avoid becoming the most scored-upon cardinal team of all time. in their average 7-game segment this year, they've allowed 36 runs; could be a close call. the cards have allowed more than 43 runs in 2 of their last 4 segments of 7 games --- the totals (working backwards) are 52, 32, 45, and 30. here are the worst runs-allowed totals in franchise history:
| yr | runs | nl rank |
|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 838 | 11th / 16 |
| 1912 | 830 | 7th / 8 |
| 1922 | 819 | 7th / 8 |
| 1929 | 806 | 5th / 8 |
| 2007 | 795 | 12th / 16 |
2. last night's win left the cards' run differential at negative 105 --- 690 runs scored, 795 runs allowed. the last cardinal team to get outscored by 100 runs or more was the 1955 squad, which scored 654 and gave up 757. as it currently stands, the 2007 cardinals' run differential is the worst of the last 91 years; the last team to get outscored by more than 105 was the 1916 team managed by miller huggins (-153). that was rogers hornsby's rookie year. the worst marks since then:
| yr | runs | opp runs |
diff | w-l | pl |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1916 | 476 | 629 | -153 | 60-93 | 7th |
| 1955 | 654 | 757 | -103 | 68-86 | 7th |
| 1990 | 599 | 698 | -99 | 70-92 | 6th |
| 1995 | 563 | 658 | -95 | 62-81 | 4th |
| 1919 | 463 | 552 | -89 | 54-83 | 7th |
you might have noticed that three of those years --- 1955, 1990, and 1995 --- marked the end of a managerial regime (eddie stanky, whitey herzog, and joe torre, respectively). just sayin' . . . . .
3. the 1916 team also was the last cardinal team to lead the league in negative run differential. the 2007 cardinals still might achieve that; they're tied for 3d place at the moment in a breathless competition:
| runs | opp runs |
diff | |
|---|---|---|---|
| was | 636 | 750 | -114 |
| pgh | 704 | 813 | -109 |
| fla | 758 | 863 | -105 |
| stl | 690 | 795 | -105 |
| hou | 696 | 790 | -94 |
this year's group didn't quit, and they managed to hold our interest well into september; for that, we should admire them. but the bottom line doesn't lie: it's one of the worst cardinal teams in a long, long time. we ought to keep that in mind when discussing what sort of personnel moves are in order next season.
read elsewhere dept.:
- here's an interview w/ new houston gm ed wade, mainly about his gmship in philadelphia
- this year's dodgers illustrate that youth movements are never easy, even when you have good prospects
- the Management by Baseball blog takes a look at the best pitching coach in baseball (hint: not dave duncan, not leo mazzone)
- yankee fans are really steamed at al reyes, who has blown 3 saves vs the red sox this year (and only 1 vs the rest of the league). if he'd converted all 3 saves, the yanks would be in first place
- mark buehrle killed a bear
- ryan howard is about to set a new single-season record for strikeouts
- ned yost: not my fault, blame the umps. anybody else think yost is toast?
- let's go, colorado rockies
0 recs |
79 comments
Comments
For what it's worth
by Hinkster on Sep 24, 2007 8:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Walt last night
by StLHugo on Sep 24, 2007 8:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the difference
by john vb on Sep 24, 2007 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This year was historically bad...
Mulder was signed hurt.
Reyes. Thompson. Kip Wells. Mike Maroth. These guys have hurt the team and aren't injured. Who signed them? Who kept playing them? This was a seriously flawed team. The worst Cardinals team in our lifetimes in terms of run differential. If you give Larussa and Jocketty credit for the good years, you have to give them credit for the bad ones. The team has been declining in terms of runs scored and allowed for more than one season. This is not due to a couple of flukey injuries in one season. There are significant, worsening problems.
Larussa and Jocketty both had many good years with the club. But I don't think the club is a good match for their skills anymore.
by tarakas on Sep 24, 2007 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Overreacting much?
by StLHugo on Sep 24, 2007 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those good-for-nothings
It's easy to bitch about how badly the season went, but even with hindsight at our disposal, it's hard to say how Walt could have constructed this roster that much better than he did with the budget and commitments we had going into the winter—and the 29 other teams he would've had to outbid for whatever players you think would have helped.
It'll be a fun exercise in a week or two, no doubt.
by liam on Sep 24, 2007 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
im convinced
how can you guys say that arguably the worst cards team in history should keep the same manager next year because hes 'earned the right'?
two straight years of absolutely awful pitching and the pitching coach has no worries about his job security
and INJURIES, even last year this team only won 83 games and they did absolutely nothing to improve upon that.
we have no budget? a single season attendance record and we have no budget? none of this makes any sense.
tony has already said he wants miguel cairo back next year, a sign that tony needs to MOVE ON.
FRUSTRATION IS TURNING TO ANGER
by Dankston on Sep 24, 2007 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two better sources predicting TLR's return
by nycardfan on Sep 24, 2007 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anybody catch
by stl tyler on Sep 24, 2007 9:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Story in DP
by StLHugo on Sep 24, 2007 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't realize
by stl tyler on Sep 24, 2007 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not same story
That article is about how hot the Rockies are, how they are hazing the rookies and how as a team they are picking each other up. I really respect them for the way they are playing right now and that article is a good one.
by StLHugo on Sep 24, 2007 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heeeere we go
Blessed be the internets.
by stl tyler on Sep 24, 2007 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
his explosion may have been a bit much,
by jeff abs on Sep 24, 2007 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
imo there's been
by hit and run on Sep 24, 2007 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
by nycardfan on Sep 24, 2007 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
from what I read
When Bradley got to first, he turned to the first base ump and asked him if he had told Runge that Bradley threw the bat in his direction and the first base ump said yes. Then Bradley went, well, Milton Bradley on him.
Bradley could've let it go and, in the article I read, all the first base ump did was answer Bradley's question. He didn't provoke Bradley; Bradley was looking for a fight and got one.
"As Bradley walked to the plate in the eighth inning, he and umpire Brian Runge talked for about 25 seconds. Bradley said later the conversation concerned Runge's accusation that Bradley had tossed his bat in the vicinity of Runge after the umpire called Bradley out on strikes in the fifth inning.
Bradley said Runge told him that fellow umpires said Bradley had thrown the bat toward the umpire.
After Bradley reached first base, he asked Winters if he was the umpire who accused him of tossing the bat, and Bradley said Winters said he had. The player and umpire then engaged in a heated discussion, and Black raced from the dugout to try to save his player."
by chuckb on Sep 24, 2007 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not what i heard
and according to espn first take this morning, meacham even said that one of the things the umpire said could be considered a racial remark
this is for sure he said/he said, and as they also said on that espn show, todd helton is the only neutral party who knows exactly what was said
by bigcardsfan5 on Sep 24, 2007 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
really?
Perhaps, Winters said, "Yeah, and don't ever do it again. We don't like being shown up!" If so, it was an unnecessary response but doesn't absolve Bradley, as some here seem to be trying to do. Bradley's in a pennant race with 1 week left in the season, and he said, "Fuck it! I'm going to get myself suspended." It was a selfish act, w/o any regard for his team or his teammates. He should've known better.
Why even ask the question? Does it matter? His job, right then, was to do what he could to score a run to get his team back in the ballgame. If he asked the question -- and the Houston Chronicle, with the story from the AP, said he did -- he was looking for a confrontation -- an unnecessary one at that. I don't know what Bobby Meacham said in trying to defend his outfielder and maybe Winters reacted inappropriately. But Bradley should've been focused on 1 thing, and 1 thing only -- scoring. Instead, he wanted to know who said what and why they said it.
In doing so, he got injured and will be suspended during the last week of the season with his team in a pennant race. To blame this on the umpire, as some are too often willing to do, is more than a little misguided.
by chuckb on Sep 24, 2007 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even
In the video I watched, both Bradley and the ump were engaged in verbal sparring. In fact, it appeared that Bradley tried to drop it and even took his lead-off before calling time out.
The ump was likely egging Bradley on, no matter what the esteemed Houston Chronicle or the AP says. Who were the sources in that article? Bradley is the only person they quote. Did you write that article, housoncardinal?
Further, I don't think discussing the bat incident is inappropriate. A player would want to make sure the air is cleared so that they were getting a fair shake from the ump. Now, I'm not saying that Bradley handled it properly or nicely. I'm just saying that the ump looks less than innocent in all of this.
Should Bradley have let it drop? Yes. He could've filed a complaint after the game and gotten his 1st base coach and Helton to back him up. Instead, he pulled a Milton Bradley. But that doesn't excuse the umpire from being out of line, too.
by spants on Sep 24, 2007 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry...
from the comment i saw from meacham, he never said if the question was asked, but i am assuming it was
from seeing the play, reading about it, and hearing bradley's response after the game, here is what i would say happened:
runge asked bradley at the plate about the bat throw, this upset bradley because he claims he didnt throw the bat at all, he then goes to first, and asked the first base umpire if he told runge that, i think winters said he did, and they jawed back and forth a bit about it, bradley takes his lead, and at some point i think winters said whatever meacham said was racial, and that is when bradley went back to first, called time, and all hell broke loose
now, even if this is exactly what happened, it doesnt make bradley right in doing what he did, but i do wonder if the ump would have been as into the whole thing if it were someone other than bradley? another thing about the incident i would have liked to see was the at-bat before to see if he really threw the bat or not
personally, i think bradley and the ump should both be suspended
as far as you saying he shouldnt have even asked winters the question, i think he had the right to do so if he DIDNT throw the bat, if he did, then milton was the one trying to stir it up by asking the question
by bigcardsfan5 on Sep 24, 2007 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley's case is
The best umpires walk away from players with heated tempers, instead of fanning the flames. Those are also the umpires you don't see in the highlight clips.
by hit and run on Sep 24, 2007 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact is
But in this case, Bradley started the confrontation. And that's what (I thought) we were talking about -- this circumstance. Bradley was 100% wrong, no matter what the umpire said to him b/c he started the conversation when he should've just let it die. They're in a pennant race w/ 1 week left and Bradley was more concerned w/ what an umpire had said about his bat throwing than in staying in the game and helping his team win it. In fact, he was more concerned w/ what 1 umpire said than in playing in the next several, as he's sure to be suspended.
You refer to "actions like that" from the umpire. I'm wondering which actions you're referring to b/c, as the story clearly implies, Winters' actions involved answering Bradley's question. "I was the one who told Runge you threw the bat at him." That was Winters' contribution to this. If he said it like, "Yeah, I told Runge that. Don't ever do it again!" it still doesn't justify Bradley's actions. Bradley began the incident by asking Winters about it. Those are the facts as they've been reported. He was wrong to do so b/c he had to know that it would lead to a confrontation that would only hurt the club during a pennant race.
So stand by your comment that umpires are too often the aggressor. I'll stand by the story from the AP as reported in the Houston Chronicle that this one was started by Bradley.
by chuckb on Sep 24, 2007 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
from buster olney's blog
by willievinceterry on Sep 24, 2007 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your Mattheny
I've felt this way about umps for a while. I want to see the league take a stand against umpires in general who exacerbate arguments. The ump's job is to diffuse the situation, not fan the flames.
Players need to act like professionals as well, and they are the cause of the problem most of the time. But player attitude is more difficult to address, and the responsibility for that would fall to team management.
by hit and run on Sep 24, 2007 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Milton Bradley's Temperament
I hope he gets some help before it destroys him or someone else.
by AustinBOB on Sep 24, 2007 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
most recently
by sdesserman on Sep 24, 2007 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's to my ElBirdo's famly
by Yadier on Sep 24, 2007 11:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The all-time runs allowed record
As for the Dodgers, it seems that Jeff Kent doesn't realize that players like Loney and Matt Kemp are the only reason why they stayed close for so long. The young players are the best players on that team. If they'd played the entire season, rather than playing Garciaparra, Pierre, and Gonzalez far too frequently, they might be in the playoff hunt.
So maybe the young'uns do smile too much in the dugout or listen to their music too loudly, but they're also the reason why Jeff Kent has played meaningful games this late in the season. He should remember that the next time he decides to pop off!
by chuckb on Sep 24, 2007 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If the Cubs sign A-Rod...
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Sep 24, 2007 12:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
AROD
by ICbirdfan on Sep 24, 2007 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Cubs at $100M this year.
by Zubin on Sep 24, 2007 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lots of backloading though
2008 ~ 98M to 14 players
2009 ~ 90M to 8 players
2010 ~ 80M to 6 players
2011 ~ 53M to 3 players
2012 ~ 36M to 2 players
It's going to be very tough for them to take on a $30M/year salary in the 2008-2010 timeframe.
by SleepyCA on Sep 24, 2007 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they signed ARod
Looking at the tables I put together a week ago and tweaking it to include ARod.
2008
ARod (32) $30 M
Zambrano (27) $15 M
Soriano (32) $13 M
D Lee (32) $13 M
Ramirez (30) $14 M
Lilly (32) $ 7 M
Marquis (29) $ 6.4 M
Jones (33) $ 5 M
Derosa (33) $ 4.8 M
Blanco (36) $ 2.8 M
Total $ 111 M
That gives the Cubs 3 starting pitchers 2/3 rds of the outfield and the entire infield.
2009
ARod (33) $30 M
Zambrano (28) $17.8 M
Soriano (33) $16 M
D Lee (33) $13 M
Ramirez (31) $15.7 M
Lilly (33) $12 M
Marquis (30) $10 M
Derosa (34) $ 5.5 M
Total $120 M
That gives the Cubs 3 starting pitchers, 1/3rd of the outfield and the entire infield.
2010
Arod (34) $30 M
Zambrano (29) $17.8 M
Soriano (34) $18 M
D Lee (34) $13 M
Ramirez (32) $15.7 M
Lilly (34) $12 M
Total $106.5 M
That gives them 2 starting pitchers, 1 OF and 3 IF.
2011
ARod (35) $30 M
Zambrano (30) $17.8 M
Soriano (35) $18 M
Ramirez (33) $14.6 M
Total $80.4 M
A pitcher, an outfield, 2 infielders.
Unless they really think Marshall, Hill, Soto and Pie are the 'future' for their big league club, they'll have to operate for a few years at $140+ to fill out the roster.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 24, 2007 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
man that Soriano contract
by sdrone on Sep 24, 2007 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
soto is a wild card
I also think they can consider Hill a foundation of their rotation for the next few years. He's been great. However, both Hill and Marshall will probably be super-2 arb eligible after 2008 (potentially Marmol as well, though he may slip through to '09).
They also owe Dempster 5.5M, Howry $4M and Trachsel $3M for 2008, which is technically 5-6 starting pitchers, a closer, IF and OF and one reliever for about $133M. They'd still need bench players and additional relievers, so $140M is a reasonable estimate for '08.
anyway, don't know what the point of this was other than to fill time at work. Bleh.
by SleepyCA on Sep 24, 2007 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Next year
by Yadier on Sep 24, 2007 12:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
by Minerball30 on Sep 24, 2007 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Juan Uribe!!!
Juan Uribe is awful!
Please tell me they are not even considering him.
by ICbirdfan on Sep 24, 2007 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
give up
by Dankston on Sep 24, 2007 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I killed a bear...
by Yadi4MVP on Sep 24, 2007 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rolen or Tony?
So, who do you prefer? Would you prefer to have a HOF-defensive 3B who may be done offensively or may have finally had the surgery he should have had 18 months ago.
Or would you prefer a vidictive, fingerprints on everything HOF manager who has trouble handling the development of young players and clearly holds grudges in a hypocritic way?
With the trading of Rolen, don't immediately think that getting rid of him clears him off payroll. I would imagine any deal involving the damaged goods Rolen would involve the Cardinals picking up atleast $18 M of the $36 M owed him. That clears about $6 M a year off of payroll and forces the Cardinals to find 3 new IF (3rd base, 2nd Base, SS) one of which will have to provide atleast doubles power and the ability to drive in 80 runs or so.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 24, 2007 2:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What?
by sdrone on Sep 24, 2007 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
unsourced yapping is all I've seen too
by nycardfan on Sep 24, 2007 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Post-Dispatch
By Joe Strauss
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
09/23/2007
[...]
La Russa met with third baseman Scott Rolen prior to Friday night's elimination. Their relationship remains cool enough that some close to the player believe Rolen may ask out of his no-trade protection if La Russa remains. Rolen had little to say after a 20-minute, open-door exchange.
"Informative and honest," Rolen said, stopping there.
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 24, 2007 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
some close to the player
by nycardfan on Sep 24, 2007 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joe Strauss
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 24, 2007 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
even if you grant Strauss
It could turn out to be true; it could be pure speculation. I think Strauss is generally reliable, but he's really admitting that he's speculating here based upon other people's speculations. He's not making much of a claim.
by nycardfan on Sep 24, 2007 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus
The Cardinals would have to eat a huge chunk of the contract to get him out of here. Then would have to pay even more to replace him, considering the cost of adding an additional power-hitting third baseman.
The end result is a lose-lose. Rolen looks like a complaining and declining devalued commodity and the Cards have to foot a huge bill. I don't see it happening from either end.
by enoscountry on Sep 24, 2007 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's interesting
by sdrone on Sep 24, 2007 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rolen
Rolen putting up good numbers and being healthy will squash any talk of him and Larussa not getting along. Just like Edmonds earlier in the year. When players underperform it is amazing how many stories you hear.
I don't know if you pay attention to how many crazy stories there have been about Zambrano this year. Well it comes down to him underperforming.
I can guarantee you nothing has changed with Carlos, Scott, or Jimmy. The thing is performance on the field leads to more on field coverage and less off field garbage that probably has little to no baring on the players performance.
by ICbirdfan on Sep 24, 2007 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can play that game too
Or would you rather have an over-the-hill, oft-injured, overpaid third baseman who might hit ten homeruns next year?
If La Russa leaves, don't immediately think that getting rid of him makes us a better team. I would imagine that Joe Girardi would be the only guy who could come in here and do a good job of picking up where Tony left off. Jose Oquendo just doesn't have the experience.
Truth be told, I'm somewhere in the middle (OK, leaning a little toward keeping Tony). But you can make the facts as one-sided as you want to try and get people to subscribe to your school of thought. I just thought I'd point out the other end of the argument.
by Mr Redbird on Sep 24, 2007 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Duncan vs. Duncan
Chris blames his hernia on Shelley and their competitive workouts:
by enoscountry on Sep 24, 2007 2:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
those 2 are quite the charecters
by erik on Sep 24, 2007 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pump you up!
by Zubin on Sep 24, 2007 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus all the humping
by Alxfritz on Sep 24, 2007 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris
by Hardcore Legend on Sep 24, 2007 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This'll give anyone a hernia
by Alxfritz on Sep 24, 2007 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It still gets me every time
by Mr Redbird on Sep 24, 2007 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offseason
by Zubin on Sep 24, 2007 3:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks to the Cards...
But seeing Ankiel get the GW hit was pretty sweet too. This was a season to forget for a lot of reasons but last night was fun. Thanks to the Redbirds for it.
by birdjam on Sep 24, 2007 3:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah...
by Ankiels Missing Curveball on Sep 24, 2007 4:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Matt Clement
Carp, Wainwright, Clement, Mulder, Reyes/Looper
Of course we would need at least one more guy as a place holder until Carp and Mulder get healthy. Anyway, there don't seem to be a lot of really good free agent pitchers out there, but this was one guy I would be interested in.
On anotehr note, I hope Jocketty stays and La Russa goes. He's been a great manager, but I think a change could be a positive thing. Maybe Girardi - someone who likes having young talent. I hope we sign Jocketty to a long term deal and let him pick the new manager. Just my two cents.
by Toddius396 on Sep 24, 2007 4:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Tweak to that rotation
by Mr Redbird on Sep 24, 2007 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Surely we're taking enough
by sdrone on Sep 24, 2007 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no more injured pitchers
They need to find the best "healthy" FA pitcher and get to bidding on that guy. Really they need to make sure he is an inning eater.
Matt Clement has not been that good since he was on the Cubs. They traded him wisely, he was pretty good for Boston but that line drive off his head put him in a downward spiral.
STL just can't commit money to anymore injured players.
by ICbirdfan on Sep 24, 2007 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on that......
by jillsinmo on Sep 24, 2007 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitching
I fell about 70% sure Looper can pitch next year like this year.
There is no other pitcher I feel good about next year.
It is not good to feel only 70% sure about your #2 starter either. The Cardinals main issue is pitching. I don't know what can be done. It will be real hard because everyone wants pitching.
I say FA is the only option because the Cards would have to give up talent to get a trade for a pitcher. I think the best option is overspend on a FA pitcher. If they don't pan out is it salary. But if you trade someone good and the pitcher is bad you are in trouble.
by ICbirdfan on Sep 24, 2007 5:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So where are they gonna dump
Damn, is it already time to start a salary spreadsheet?
by sdrone on Sep 24, 2007 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
insurance
Wells, Taguchi, Eckstein, Wilson contracts add up to about $10-11 million
by tdawg on Sep 24, 2007 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually
Pretty neat experience, talking baseball with those guys. Also the Director of Operations was there, but I forget his name. Cool stuff.
by Toddius396 on Sep 24, 2007 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I envy you.......I have been watching
by jillsinmo on Sep 24, 2007 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nick Leva
by Zubin on Sep 24, 2007 9:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs



















