Marc Lancaster gets paid to write this shit? Makes us wonder why we went to college and grad school. Instead of applying to McDonalds when we were 15, we should have sent a resume to the Tampa Tribune.

In his latest blog entry, Marc Lancaster shows us exactly how desperate he is to find an interesting topic to write about the Devil Rays or he gets a kick out of showing somebody a pile of shit and telling them it’s gold.

The latest entry on Curt Schilling’s blog details his votes in the MLB Players Choice Awards.

Keeping in mind that players aren’t allowed to vote for anyone on their team, which in this case is particularly applicable to rookie of the year, Schilling tabbed Delmon Young as the top rookie and Carlos Pena for comeback player of the year while also voting for Pena as the top first baseman. Carl Crawford also gets a mention in sort of the “others receiving votes” category among outfielders.

I still have a very difficult time picturing Schill in a blue & sunburst Rays uni next year, but there you go.

We shouldn’t have to waste time pointing out how idiotic it is to go from “Carlos Pena for comeback player of the year” to “Curt Schilling wants to pitch for the Devil Rays”, but let’s do it anyway for shits and giggles.

  1. Yes, he picked Pena for CPOY and top firstbaseman. What were his other choices? and let’s look at what Schil said about Pena…”Another accolade for an outstanding season by an outstanding person”. That’s right. Pena was with the Red Sox last year and even though he only spent the Spring a small regular season stint with the Sox, Schilling obviously got to know him well enough that there appears to be a personal bias towards a friend.
  2. As Lancaster pointed out, Schill can’t vote for teammates. Everybody that knows baseballs are white with red stitches knows that the two top candidates for rookie of the year are Dustin Pedroia and Delmon Young. And what “praise” does Schill bestow upon Delmon and the Rays in this category?…”He’s going to drive in close to 100 runs and hit close to 300, not sure there are many guys outside of Dustin who can challenge that. Dustin, imo with a lot of obvious bias, deserves to win it. He’s had a phenomenal season on both sides of the ball”. That’s right, he praises Pedroia.
  3. Schilling also names Alex Rodriguez for player of the year and top third baseman, along with Jorge Posada for top catcher. Is that Schilling’s way of expressing “love for the Yankees”? Or is he indicating he wants to pitch for the Yankees in 2008? And what is more likely. Schilling in a Red Sox or Yankees uniform in 2008 or Schilling a Rays uni? If you have to even spend more than 1 katrillion millionth of a second thinking about it, you need to need to reevaluate whether or not you should be a baseball fan.

More love from Schilling [TBO]
One celebration down, 4 to go. [38 pitches]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
 
 

21 Comments

  1. Elijah's 6th Love Child says:

    Pena is the only choice at first base and CPOY. Somebody might try to make an argument for Morneau, but that would be stretch.

    and even if Morneau's numbers were the same or even slightly better than Penas, keep in mind that Schilling has played against Pena 18 or 19 times this year including a series this past weekend that included a games in which Pena went yard twice.

    Boston has played against the Twins a grand total of 3 games so far and that was the first ween in May!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  2. Anonymous says:

    The Rays have some of the worst reporting in baseball, and yet strangely perhaps some of the best blogs.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  3. Robert Rittner says:

    I am non-plussed at the hostility to the columnists who cover the Rays. I read the St. Pete Times regularly and consider Topkin and Romano first-rate, fair minded, balanced and informative. I think Encino is also fine. Those times I have read Lancaster he has also been worthwhile.

    As for this article, your critique seems petty at best and silly at least. I don't see Lancaster saying Schilling wants to pitch for TB, and in any case, the article was hardly intended as anything more than conversational. The columnists do indeed have to write regularly and sometimes their product is uninspiring as a result, but there is nothing wrong with that. It is the columnists who, under this pressure, create nonsense and mean-spirited controversies that should be criticized.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  4. Elijah's 6th Love Child says:

    RR-He was obviously making a reference to the recent non-story in which Schill said he would be willing to pitch for the Rays. As the Prof showed earlier, that was blown way out of proportion when it was reported.

    And to perpetuate and already overblown and clearly false myth, based on who Schill thinks is the CPOY is idiotic.

    All Lancaster proved was that if you looked hard enough for evidence you will find some, even if it doesnt really exist.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  5. Robert Rittner says:

    I am not suggesting that Schilling's comments should be taken seriously nor that Lancaster wrote a serious column. And I think it entirely possible that sometimes these columns are filled with innocuous stuff because the writers are desperate for something to say.

    But that is quite different from asserting that "Devil Rays Columnists Suck". Not only are they not hacks or poor writers, I consider them exceptionally fair, often informative and sometimes insightful. Although they have not fully embraced sabermetric thinking, itself not a necessary qualification anyway, they have referred to it occasionally with respect and a willingness to recognize the value of its insights. They call attention to problems while also stressing the progress being made.

    Even in this article, Lancaster is not extending a rumor or myth for effect. We all know that Schilling did make some comments about liking TB; Lancaster merely refers to that. He does not use it to assert anything more than anyone might reasonably infer. In fact, it is perfectly legitimate to read his statement as somewhat tongue in cheek, unless of course, you are blinded by irrational hostility or personal animosity and so want to use any tidbit to further that attitude.

    I repeat that I think such criticisms are petty and smack of the kind of irritating rancor we find in columnists like Plaschke and Shaughnessy.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Leave a Comment