HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgs@stein.u.washington.edu (Steven Smith)
Subject: Re: Baseball Weekly Loses It
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:35:07 GMT

In article <Dec.17.19.06.41.1992.19668@pilot.njin.net> gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes:
>The other funny thing about this is that according to baseball weekly,
> 3/4 of the teams in baseball improved.  if someone improves, usuall
>y someone has to go down (unless it's one of those rare good for both
> team trades).  
>
>- bob gaj

Actually, it's only 15/26 improved, with one team staying the same (Expos).
If you add up all the average ratings for all 26 teams you get 18.2, for
an average improvement of 0.7 per team, which does sound a little fishy.
But if we subtract 0.7 from every team's average rating, we still have 15
teams improving, at the heavy expense of 5 teams (Brewers, Twins, A's, 
Pirates, and Padres), which almost sounds reasonable.

Here are the totals for each of the "ex-spurts":

Gammons +47.0
White   +20.0
Rains   +16.0
Wendel  +10.0
Beaton   -2.0

My man Peter G. has 18 teams improved, 3 the same, and 5 a teensy-weensy
bit worse.  My only regret is that they didn't get ratings from Ray Knight,
too.

--Steve
-- 
 sgs@u.washington.edu             * "The tall people want what the 
 Steve Smith                      *  short people got."
 University of Washington HR-20   *    --D. Wiggin-"Philosophy of the World"	 
 Seattle, WA 98195                *
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Followup to yankees/giants trade rumours.
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:32:34 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: yanks/giants rumour, and signings.

v085f2wd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Theodore J Kury) writes:

>In article <Dec.14.16.09.23.1992.14899@pilot.njin.net>, gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite) writes...
>> 
>>Rumoured trade - bam bam, silvestri, and pat kelly to the giants
>> for matt williams.

>Interesting, but I don't see it (which means it's official by now). The 
>Giants need a big bat in the 5 hole, and an infield of Clark/Thompson/
>Clayton/Williams is light-years ahead of Clark/Kelly/Silvestri/Meulens
>(or Clayton/Meulens or Clayton/Silvestri, for that matter). The Giants
>effectively lose their 5 and 6 (where Thompson belongs) hitters with just
>Meulens to replace them. They'd better hope Bam-Bam does a Sheffield.
well, bam bam has been putting up very nice MLE's at columbus, 
 so he wouldn't pull too much of a sheffield.  260 with 20 homers, over
 a full year, would be right in line with him.  

>>if true, robby thompson is gone from the giants, silvestri would go
>You don't just cut the NL's #2 2b loose (or #3 if you like DeShields #2),
>but what can you get for him ? He's not exactly a big name, and his best
>years are behind him (now that he's learned to walk, he can't steal
>anymore, ironic). I'd let the Yanks keep Silvestri and Kelly, and trade
>Williams for Bam-Bam and Militello. 

the followup (in the radio report) said that bob quinn is apparently 
 going to kill all the giants salaries excepting clark, bonds, and
 for some unknown reason, the newest signee, dave martinez.  you
 wonder what you could get for thompson - well, before 1 month ago, the
 orioles and dodgers both had a heavy interest in a real second
 baseman.  bet the red sox could be convinced to take him, and i'm
 only being half-joking; i mentioned last week when dawson turned
 down the cubs offer that "who would want him?  bosox, royals...?"
 in a joking way, and they signed him.  

>>bob melvin signs 2 years with the red sox.  why???  eric wedge is
>> ten times the player melvin is, at 1/10 the cost.
>Because Eric Wedge was lost in the draft.
what i was saying, in between the lines, was - wedge wasn't lost
 in the first round.  they should have pulled him back, and 
 exposed some high price, bad player.  the red sox seem to have the
 market cornered on those kind of people.

- bob gj
Date: Tuesday, 15 Dec 1992 18:45:03 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Trivia Question
Distribution: usa
 <1992Dec15.202049.25693@math.toronto.edu>

oh yeah.  fielder's choice, too.  so nine.

bob vesterman.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: All-Dietz Team
Organization: Clark University
Date: 18 DEC 92 01:53:38 GMT


dietz@parody.Data-IO.COM (Kent Dietz) writes:

>Couldn't resist (sure hope I get this right, I don't have an Encyclopedia
>handy):
> 
>Catcher - Dick Dietz, Giants(?)

Boy, are you in luck.  Allow me to introduce you to Dutch Dietz (christened
Lloyd Arthur Dietz), righthanded pitcher for the Pie Rats and Phils
1940-1943.  

Strike 'em all out, Dutch.

Heather
HHENDERSON@vax.clarku.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein)
Subject: Re: All-Henderson Team;All-Jewish Team
Reply-To: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:17:13 GMT

In <BzB9I9.H7G@cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:

>In <15DEC92.12341126@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>>Ted Frank writes:
>>
>>>How about an all-Jewish team?
>>> 
>>>C: Moe Berg
>>>1B: Hank Greenberg
>>>2B: Rod Carew
>>>SS:
>>>3B:
>>>OF: John Lowenstein
>>>OF:
>>>OF:
>>>P: Sandy Koufax
>>>P: Steve Stone
>>>P: Ken Holtzmann

[ ... ]

>How about Rod Carew?  I remember hearing that he was Jewish (or
>perhaps just married to a Jewish woman).  Or was that just an "urban
>legend" (like about Sammy Davis Jr.)?

Oh well, it must've been in my blind spot :-) -- he's already on the
list above.  Never mind ...

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dietz@Data-IO.COM (Kent Dietz)
Subject: Winfield a TWIN!
Organization: Data I/O Corporation
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:08:10 GMT

I just heard that Dave Winfield, native son, has returned home to 
the Twin Cities for probably the final two years of his career!

Now Kirby doesn't have to worry about intentional walks (and stepping
on the plate to swing!)

And we don't have to watch Larkin DH!

Happy days (now if they could only find a pitcher to replace Smiley).

Kent Dietz
Twins in '93

I wonder what this does to the Twins rating in the Baseball Weekly poll
of how teams did in the off season?
From: rinehart@aramis.rutgers.edu (Mark J. Rinehart)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Wade Boggs
Keywords: Hope he doesnt resign with Boston
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:02:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Dec16.124017.25669@cm.cf.ac.uk> G.R.Price@cm.cf.ac.uk (G R Price) writes:

> Has anybody heard anything about Boggs' current situation.
> I heard the Sox were not offering him arbitration (?), is he talking to
> anyone?
> 
> Gwyn

NO! 8^)



Mark
From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: All-Time A's Team
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:44:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

Thus spake zurawski@cbnewse.cb.att.com (lawrence.w.zurawski):
>
>	I haven't seen an All-Time A's team yet, so here goes:

Hey, you're cheating!  You took Philly *and* KC *and* Oakland. :-)

>	1B Foxx
>	2B Collins

Hard to argue so far...

>	3B Baker

There *has* been a long, dry spell, hasn't there...

>	SS Campaneris

I might be tempted to take Eddie Joost, actually.  

>	OF Henderson
>	OF Jackson
>	OF Simmons

Ouch.  Not bad.

>	C  Cochrane

Weren't his best years elsewhere?  Or am I confused?  Gene Tenace is probably
the #2 guy...

>	SP Grove
>	SP Waddell
>	SP Plank
>	SP Hunter

Actually, I'd take Chief Bender before Catfish, I think.  Eddie Rommel
gets some votes, too.

>	RP Fingers
>	RP Eckersley

Speaks for itself.

>	Manager Mack
>
>	This team stacks up pretty well alongside the other All-Time teams.

It gets harder if you split Philly from Oakland.  The outfield for the Philly
A's looks something like Simmons/Harstel/Bob Johnson.  The pitching staff is
still sound, but no relief available.  Jack Quinn, maybe.

The Oakland All-Time team would be something like

	C	Tenace		(Steinbach)
	1B	McGwire		
	2B	Green (feh)
	3B	Bando
	SS	Campaneris
	LF	Henderson
	CF	Dw. Murphy
	RF	Reggie
	DH	Joe Rudi/Harold Baines/Dave Henderson

	SP	Vida Blue
	SP	Catfish Hunter
	SP	Dave Stewart
	SP	Ken Holtzman

	RP	Eckersley
	RP	Fingers

-- 
       David Tate        |"Out of the dugout endlessly swinging,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Out of the manager's throat, the sound fundamentals,
 Prof. of Story Problems | Out of the six-month season..."            
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR | 	Walt "Lefty" Whitman
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cazabon@csd.uwo.ca (Yvan Cazabon)
Subject: Yet Another Ex-Jay
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:28:54 GMT

Candy Maldonado signed a $3 million, 2 year contract with the Chicago Cubs.

Yvan Cazabon
cazabon@csd.uwo.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: same name (WAS Re: Maddux signs with Braves (Was Re: Juan Guzman/STATS))
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:02:24 GMT

In article <1gdq1iINNqn9@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> rickert@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (John H. Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.191903.19818@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu  
>(Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>> (good thing the expos traded gardner away, isn't it? can you imagine
>> having mike gardiner and mark gardner on the same team?
>> it was confusing enough when they were in different leagues :^)
>
>Similar things have happened before.
>A few years ago the Tigers had Billy Benae and Billy Bean
>and the 1962 Mets had Bob Miller and Bob Miller.
>
>I also saw a AA game a few years ago in which 
>Chuck Howard faced Chuck Howard (I still don't know 
>if it's ever happened in the majors - Anyone got some 
>1981 box scores so that we can check out the Mike Marshalls?)

no, though i do remember the battery of Steve Trout and Steve Lake.
i always did like that one.

(i suppose Ken Griffey and Ken Griffey is cheating, right? :^)

--
charles
From: gerry@skatter.usask.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Barry Bonds is a Giant! NOT!
Date: 15 Dec 1992 12:23:19 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: skatter.usask.ca

From article <1992Dec9.171600.2932@novell.com>, by bradley@novell.com (Brad Soe):
> In article <382@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>>
>>any other though.  Under normal circumstances it probably wouldn't
>>be an issue but considering that Lurie is essentially being forced to
>>accept a deal he didn't make, then it's at least reasonable to argue
>>he's entitled to get has been proven to be the full vaule of his 
>>property in return, however the new owners might come up with the money.
>>
>>PSG 
>>
> 
> What do you mean forced? Poor guy only getting 100 Million instead of
> 115. That is only an 80 Mil profit instead of 95 Mil. He is not being
> forced to do anything. He can always keep the team. 

It was his property he can decide to sell or not. Why should another
group of people who weren't going to buy it get to decide what the price 
of Lurie's property is?

> I am a Giants fan, and I would love to have Bonds. I am excited, but sorry,
> the SF group made an offer and Lurie accepted. That's how business works.
> If you get an asset for less than another person, the more power to you. 
> Does anyone really know the value of this team? I would think that it is
> relative to recent sales of other teams and what it costs to start a new
> franchise.

The SF group made an offer and the other owners accepted, Lurie wanted
$115M and was refused this amount.

As far as I know the only way to really tell the monetary value of
something is what someone else is willing to pay for it, thus the SF
Giants are worth $115M. The new owners will have made a profit of $15M
by buying the franchise for less than what it is worth on the open market.
--
Gerald Gryschuk            Saskatoon,Saskatchewan = a place with 9 months
gerry@sask.usask.ca           of hockey and 3 months of poor skating.
Go Habs!!!		              (The Bum rules!!!)
Organization: Freshman, IM - Graphic Communications, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:25:44 -0500 
From: Josh S Linder <jl6p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: New York Announcers (was Re: The Mets' All-Time Team)
	<13DEC199220543922@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>
Distribution: na

A. I hate McCarver - the guy is a yutz and the only thing I respect
Deion Sanders for doing is "ice bucketing" him.  My late grandfather was
seriously questioning his like for the Mets when they hired Timmy.

B. The WPIX team is excellent, but was better with Bill White (those
were the days when Tommy Hutton and Hank Greenberg were the WABC 770AM
team).  Ah, yes, the losing Yankees of old.

C. Your quotes from Kiner are perfect.  "And it's the bottom of the
ninth, with the home team leading."  (yeah, OK Ralphie, the bottom is
the SECOND half of the inning, buddy).


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Baseball Salaries
Organization: Pitzer College
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.164728.2917@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <92346.144640UD156844@NDSUVM1.BITNET> <UD156844@NDSUVM1.BITNET> 
writes:>>I've been real interested in the rise in baseball salaries.  Does 
anyone>>know of any publications which post salaries of all Major League 
players?>>I've looked at several baseball stat books but they never seem to 
include>>their salaries.  I've been told that Baseball Weekley has an issue 
which>>posts salaries, is it true?
>
>I know that the New York Times lists all the salaries at the beginning of
>the season.
See USA Today, November 4, 1992, for this year's salaries.  Baseball Weekly 
has one as well, but McPaper should be available at your library.  (For 
prior years check around November 1 of each year.  

Note to archivists:  we should try to get these online sometime.  Interested 
parties can e-mail me with ideas.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: dzappala@caldera.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Worrell to the Dodgers!!!!
Date: 11 Dec 1992 15:26:40 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: dzappala@caldera.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala)
NNTP-Posting-Host: caldera.usc.edu


In article <1992Dec11.214934.31794@watson.ibm.com>, mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
|> 
|> Yeah? Here's Offerman's splits:
|>              AVG  AB 2B 3B HR BB  K  OBP  SLG
|> Batting #1  .265 268 11  3  1 28 50 .332 .340
|> Batting #8  .258 264  9  5  0 28 47 .329 .330
|> .332 still blows chunks for a leadoff hitter. Interestingly, Butler did seem
|> to like batting second. His splits:

Thanks for getting the stats.  I was hoping you would. :-)  So....it looks
to me like the main difference is that Butler walks more as a leadoff hitter.
How many more walks would it take to up Offerman's OBP to .354?  I maintain
that he has the necessary skills to make him into the .354 OBP leadoff man
that you would like.  

|>              AVG  AB 2B 3B HR BB  K  OBP  SLG
|> Batting #1  .269 324  6  7  1 53 46 .374 .340
|> Batting #2  .362 224  8  4  3 40 20 .460 .460
|> Now, I'm not going to claim that "Butler hits better as the #2 hitter" based
|> on 224 AB's, but the difference is striking enough that I'd give him some
|> time at #2 next year IF I had another leadoff hitter. Say, someone within 20
|> points of Butler's OBP when leading off.
|> 


Daniel
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Eeyore's Evil Twin)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Bay Area baseball
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:01:05 GMT
Organization: Pooh Corner Country Club -- A Planned Community

boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell) writes:

>Closers  - Swift, Beck

Dusty Baker on KNBR said he'd consider Swift as a starter if that's what
Swift wanted to do and they felt his arm as up to it. From his interview,
he's avoiding making committments for positions and hitting lineups until
after he talks to everyone involved and gets their feedback. (wow. what a
concept. asking the players where they feel they fit in best).

Personally, I love Bill Swift as a starter -- if I thought his arm could
handle it. His offseason training will have a lot to do with that, and I
don't know how that came along.

>Long relief - Hickerson, Jackson, Righetti (gag), ?

Rags-man is a "one batter, get the lefty out" reliever, not a long relief
man. He's a spot, situation reliever now.

-- 
            Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX)
                      Member, SFWA =+= Editor, OtherRealms
                chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ 

                       Sterling Holloway: We'll miss you.
From: bouchard@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Roger Bouchard)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Red Sox Underground bulletin
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:54:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: oasys.28436
Reply-To: bouchard@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Roger Bouchard)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

I sent a check for one year subscription of Red Sox Underground (12
dollars) last September and haven't gotten it yet. Anyone of you know
what's going on???I am not sure if I hear right..this publisher is going
out of business???
    I am looking forward to having this subscription because here papers
(Washington Post) don't expose Red Sox articles much.
Roger
Organization: Senior, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:11:12 -0500 
From: Amit Likhyani <al1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PIRATES WILL RULE!!!!

Excerpts from netnews.rec.sport.baseball: 12-Dec-92 Re: PIRATES WILL
RULE!!!! by Paul S Galvanek@pitt.edu 
> The reports of a trade for Willie McGee are not true.  Also last night on 

Thank god
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 12:08:53 EST
From: Wayne Barber <BARBER@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Baseball Weekly Loses It

In article <1gnn2iINN604@transfer.stratus.com>, jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
(Jim Mann) says:
>
>The latest issue of the USA Today Baseball Weely is proof that, even
>for a paper that specializes in baseball, the writers often don't
>know what the hell they're talking about.  Proof of this is the
>ratings they gave to teams on how well they fared during the
>off season.  For the American League, ratings ranged from +3.4 to
>-4.4.  And guess who got the +3.4 -- Boston!!

I noticed that none of the writers mentioned the loss of Plantier,
just the addition of Calderon and Dawson.  If you count Boggs as
a loss, too, then it could be a +3.4 in attitude, if nothing else.

--------------------------------------
Wayne Barber - Data Support Specialist
University of Maine System
INTERNET: Barber@Maine.Maine.Edu
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Baseball Weekly Loses It
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:05:32 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:

>tim wendel is a schmuck.
you got it, bob!!
{deleted}
>about how stupid the yankees' front office was, because they lost hayes.
>i'll agree that the yankees' front office is pretty dumb, but losing
>hayes was by no means bad.  the guy just plain sucks offensively, and
>he's average defensively.  wendel's reasoning here was, "well, hayes
>played a zillion games for the yankees last year.  the yankees had
>twenty third basemen in the past two years.  hayes is obviously great,
>since he played so many games."  duh.
well, bob, as you'll find out when you come back to jersey, the
 yankee fans reasoning tends to be "he's our best third baseman
 since nettles!".  of course, *MY* reasoning is "he's an average
 third baseman who had a decent year when bam bam is better, and
 they've got other choices".

and when hayes hits 20 something homers in denver, fans will think
 that he could have done that in new york. it'll be awful.

>what a hoser.  do you need to be a grade school graduate to write for
>this paper, or what?
 college graduate: english.  grade school dropout: baseball 101.

- bob gaj
From: clgs11@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Key,Ward & Henke
Date: 10 Dec 92 09:55:46 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster


Could anyone tell me what's happening with Jimmy Key ????

Have the Jays given up on him ????

Also, what's the situation with Henke and Ward ?? I heard that Henke was

going to the Bosox and that Ward was part of a deal with Atlanta. Any news

on this would be gratefully appreciated. 


-: In The End :-

Anton.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: mb@cray.com (Maynard Brandt)
Subject: Re: Stupidest rule in baseball (perhaps a new one)
Organization: Cray Research Inc
Date: 13 Dec 92 09:28:48 CST

My apologies if this replicates an earlier post.  To me the dumbest rule
has always been:

With 0 or 1 strikes on a batter, a foul ball is a strike.  However, except
for a bunt, a foul ball with 2 strikes on a batter is *NOT* a strike.

If it isn't a strike the last time, why should a foul ball ever be included
in the ball-strike count?

I remember someone commenting on a TV broadcast that at one time foul
balls weren't included in the ball-strike count.  Does anyone on the
net know if this is true or false and, if it is true, when the rule
changed?

If it was true during Babe Ruth's or Walter Johnson's time, it just may
change some net opinions concerning Ruth's hitting ability or Johnson's
strikeout total when making comparisons to current players.

Thank you.
-- 
Regards,

Maynard Brandt
Cray Research, Inc.
From: gajarsky@pilot.njin.net (Bob Gajarsky - Hobokenite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: KEY SIGNS WITH YANKEES
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:10:56 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in Hoboken

nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.090143.4643@spcvxb.spc.edu> 5checki_m@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
{deleted}
>>they could only get another, and obtain Joe Orsulak via free agency, might we 
>>be talking about a contender.  Comments are welcome!!!!!

>They really don't need another pitcher; they have at least 6 quality pitchers,
>from what I see (Abbott, Key, Perez, Militello, Wickman, and Kaminiecki), and
>Brien Taylor should be ready soon.
nelson - don't include kamienekci.  especialy when they've got
 other players.  hitchcock is ready, NOW.  they're well stocked with
 pitchers.

>Now, if they obtain Joe Orsulak via free agency, then we *won't* be talking
>about a contender.  (Come on, Orsulak displacing O'Neill, Williams, or
>Tartabull?)
the yankees major weakness is hitting. i heard stick on the radio say
 that "two or three clubs" had contacted him about gallego.  if that's
 true, take ANYTHING that they have to offer.  kelly at second, owen
 at short, and stankewicz in between.  i don't see their hitting being
 anything special, especially since they "have" to play mattingly
 (by that, i mean, because he's perceived as being good, the ny fans
 would lynch the yankees if he were benched, although they should).

and charlie hayes would NOT be the hitting solution. - bob gaj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
From: Edward_Lunny@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Lunny)
Subject: Re: Cito- Gillick-reply steve
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:17:04 GMT

Definition-  in baseball no one gets too good and no one gets too bad. It's
bad for business.
--

 " Ted "
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball