Devil Rays (66-96)
Our questions have been answered!

DRaysBay will be changing their colors to match those of the new Tampa Bay Rays uniforms and logos that will debut next season. They will also be changing their logo (Please make it a sunburst!). Patrick Kennedy sounds like a kid losing his woobie when he talks of trying to refer to the team by their new moniker.

I will try and respect the team’s decision and refer to the team as the ‘Rays’ as much as I possibly can, although having grown up a fan of the Devil Rays and having written about the team online for 33 months, that will be admittedly difficult.

But one thing will not change at DRaysBay

we are all committed to wanting the Devil Rays to become a championship organization as soon as possible.

Thats right folks. DRaysBay writers are “committed to wanting” the Rays to be good. We are not sure what “committed to wanting” means, but we envision all the writers at DraysBay already have “Tampa Bay Devil Rays: World Champions” tattooed on their asses. Now that is “commitment to wanting”.

DRaysBay to Change as the Team Does [DRaysBay]


  • On the last day of the season, Jim Hickey, passed Randy Johnson, and took home the “Most White Trash Story of the Year” Award. [Drunk Jays Fans]
  • The Hardball Times takes a close look at Scott Kazmir and try to answer questions concerning where his career is headed. One has to wonder if Derek Carty was the right choice to write this piece. Can a Mets fan truly analyze Kid K from an unbiased viewpoint? [The Hardball Times]
  • When Jake McGee and Wade Davis go out to dinner, do they go to the bathroom together? Once again the two pitching prospects are found attached at the hip. This time it is on Baseball America’s list of the top 20 prospects in the Florida State League. McGee and Davis are #3 and #4 respectively. [Baseball America]
  • Joe Henderson believes that the Rays may regret the decision to not extend the contract of Bill Evers. We don’t like the idea of losing a guy like Evers will all his experience and old-school style, but a bench coach needs to be a consigliere…His confidant. Apparently Joe Maddon and Bill Evers did not have this type of relationship and bench coach is the one assistant that the manager needs to be completely comfortable with. [TBO]


  1. Anonymous says:

    wow. that entire piece reads like a "woe is us". God forbid the Rays management not consult DRB before making the decision to make the changes.

  2. Patrick says:

    To the first commenter, not at all. I am unhappy about the changes and I see them as a step backwards. I have made my opinion known on that and I want to re-state it just to make my biases clear. That way people can interpret my post however they want. I am excited about having the opportunity to re-design the site and I will work hard to do so, but I am not happy with the team's change. I think you are overstating the role my personal opinion took in that post. It was actually quite minor as compared to the description of upcoming changes.

    Cork, is there some issue that you would like to get out into the open regarding our site? You seem to be on some sort of quixotic vendetta against our site for some strange reason and I can't figure out why. This was an internal post meant to inform people of changes upcoming with the site. I am not self-important, I simply want people to know what is forthcoming because they deserve to know. You are more than entitled to criticize my post on merit, but I'm not really sure you are trying to do that.

    You have consistently gone out of your way to dedicate entire columns to ripping R.J., so I thought that it was something between the two of you. But I'm not particularly sure why your vitriol has extended out to be inclusive of the site as a whole. Please, I would like to know what your issue is so that we can resolve it. E-mail me any time if you'd like to talk about it.

    I know that I personally have a great respect for you and the work you do on this site. I link to you prominently at DRB and you are one of my first sites on Google Reader. Keep up the great work and I look forward to following your writing this offseason.

  3. Patrick says:

    And yes, "committed to wanting" is a ridiculous phrase that I didn't proofread out. That was ridiculous.

  4. The Professor says:

    No vendetta...imaginary or otherwise... there some issue that you would like to get out into the open regarding our site? You seem to be on some sort of quixotic vendetta against our site...You have consistently gone out of your way to dedicate entire columns to ripping R.J.

    C'mon. that is a slight exaggeration. I wouldn't say that i have "consistently" dedicated entire columns to criticizing the site or RJ.

    I have disagreed with many posts on DRB but only once did i dedicate a post to challenging DRB's position. I wrote one post last season disagreeing with RJs assessment on Rocco Baldelli. I dont think that post was critical at all.

    I made a small mention in the spring that i thought you guys were patting yourselves on the back a little too much with the interviews. They were great. but the constant backslapping in the posts actually took some flavor away from them. DRB is the biggest Devil Rays blog. No doubt about it. But just keep in mind that is like being the tallest smurf.

    I did criticize RJ for the "morons" post because I felt he took a cheap shot at fellow Rays fans simply because they didnt subscribe to his opinion.

    And this piece wasnt critical. I just found that one line (in particular) and the post (in general) to be a bit overdramatic which gave it a humorous touch.

    If i wanted to...I could probably rip apart 90% of the posts on DRB and you guys could do the same to mine, but that would be silly.

    I have a feature "Why The Devil Rays Columnists Suck" in which I can be VERY critical of those that cover the Rays...Granted DRB writers are not "Devil Rays Columnists", but NEVER will any DRB writers be featured in one of those posts or anything similar. I try to save the criticism for those that are paid to write about the Rays.

    I do not hold any grudges or vendettas against DRB, but this site is supposed to bring Devil Rays news to our readers and we only point to that which we find interesting or important. In doing so, we often offer a critique of what is written about the Rays.

    We find DRB interesting and important enough to occasional point to, but that will come with an occasional critique. If that somehow offends you, then you might not want to write in such a pubic forum...because we will not change our format.

  5. Elijah's 6th Love Child says:

    BLOG FIGHT!!!!

  6. Patrick says:

    Cork, nearly all of your references to our site over the last two months have been negative. The problem is that when you note our site it is always in a negative light. You dedicated an entire column to attacking R.J. for the Baldelli thing, and yes you were disagreeable in that post. And then you took a statement he made that clearly was limited based on the context of his post and extrapolated it to foment dislike of him.

    I don't recall what you wrote in the spring; I was not in the parade of interview conductors. But I think that Jake and R.J. did a great job bringing some key names to our site and opening up a direct communication between the fans and some notable figures. I believe that was a coup on their part and it should be lauded. Now I will agree with you that I disliked how some things were handled back then, but I think the overall effort is very commendable.

    Again, you are more than welcome to critique my post all you want. I enjoy discussing my writing. But I would rather have the issue brought up purely on merit rather than following a pattern of attacks. I don't trade in melodrama, so that wasn't the intention of my post. If you look back at my posts over nearly three years of blogging on the Rays, I have a consistent track record of keeping readers informed about what is going on with their blog. Because we pride ourselves on being a community. We aren't a unilateral site. The individual line I wrote was poorly stated and a bit humorous, but I don't find the premise of the post to be at all ridiculous.

    The problem is that you are the only one who goes attacking us. We don't return fire and a longstanding policy of ours is to avoid criticizing other blogs that cover the team. We are all colleagues in the same field dedicated to writing about the Rays for the entertainment of our readers. DRB happens to be the largest of those sites. That would follow considering that we are the Rays' representative on the Internet's largest sports blog network, we are the dean of all sites with the longest online tenure among Rays blogs, and because our format allows people to contribute in more than just the comments. I will not be bashful in saying that I think that DRB is the best Rays blog on the internet. But I don't think that we have the streak of self-importance that you claim we do. I don't see us as being in competition, Cork. I have Rays of Light and this site as my top two blogs on Google Reader because I like to read good, independant Rays coverage on the net. They are different entities that happen to cover the same thing, but I feel that we complement each other rather than compete against one another. There is no competition from my point of view.

    Your critique of our site offends me absolutely not at all. Nowhere did I indicate my "offense" at what you wrote. I vehemently disagree with some of it, but life is too short to take offense to blog posts. You have the right to criticize whom you choose, but to mischaracterize this as an "occasional" critique is being disingenuous. Look at the last several posts you have made about DRaysBay. How many of them were actually positive in any sort of way?

    Again, you have the right to post what you choose. However I would add that we never have nor ever will dedicate entire posts to critiquing trivial points on another Rays blog. The fact that you would do so here indicates to me that you have some problem with our site, but you may present whatever guise you choose on that point.

    I'll say it again. You do a great job and I relish reading your posts everyday. Thank you for contributing to the Rays fandom in a positive way.

  7. Anonymous says:

    i for one dont mind the criticism. whatever it takes to raise the level of Rays coverage.

  8. Big Mike says:

    that line was ridiculous...

    i remain committed to wanting to see Selma Hayek naked

  9. Jacob says:

    Back patting? Not so much on my part, if there was any.

  10. Robert Rittner says:

    I read all three sites and am often surprised at the criticisms this one makes of DRB and of the columnists who cover the Rays. My impression-and I consider myself impartial as I have no attachment to any of them-is that many of the criticisms are petty and silly, sort of nitpicking for the sake of seeming clever. Despite that, I do like this site because it often does raise interesting issues and has worthwhile insights, but it does appear there is a vendetta, and I find that irritating.

    In fact, even more irritating is the apparent disdain this site holds for the Rays' columnists at the Tribune and Times. I asked someone else if they knew why there was such overt hostility, and he said he saw it too but had no idea why it existed. Frankly, I find it entirely misplaced as the columnists are usually fair-minded and informative, and often insightful as well. The one with the headline "Why the Devil Rays columnists suck" was one of the most foolish posts I have ever read, and the headline was nasty and contemptible.

  11. Delmonator says:

    I for one am glad that somebody with a forum is finally complaining. Prof is only saying things that many of us have felt for years...that the Devil Rays coverage DOES suck. you guys need to get some thicker skin and quit complaining. I have read criticism of this site in other places and here in the comments and never once have I seen the Prof whine about it. never seen him start crying.

    there are plenty of sites out there that are nothing but criticism and complaining. this site is not one of them. if he did it all the time, I would probably hate it also, but the fact is he rarely does it.

    that post on Drays bay was over dramatic, so i dont see why it is such a big deal that Prof points that out.

  12. Scott says:

    Nice! Patrick's got my site on virtual speed-dial! πŸ™‚

  13. raysrule07 says:

    Oh my God, this is pathetic. I really used to like this site, but ever since the attack on RJ for the "Rays fans are morons" article, I have lost alot of respect for RaysIndex. True, RJ made a mistake in writing that article the way he did, but Cork didn't handle it well at all either. Ever since then this site has seemed much more negative and I don't know why. RI almost never links to another Rays site,or a Rays columnist saying, "Hey, this is a great read, check it out!" It's always "this sucks!" The only reason I still read this website is because I really like the webtopia section. Without that, I wouldn't read this site, and lately that seems to get buried in the negative, jealous-sounding articles.

    I'm not saying you shouldn't write what you want Corky, it's your site, just that the negativite articles you write cause(for me) a serious loss of respect, almost to the point of not reading the site anymore.

  14. Rayman says:

    You do realize that DRB is run by very young kids, and they try to do their best. They are FANS, not journalists. Just because they have not learned how to write yet (and I think they will once they get older) does not mean you should criticize them. Low blow, Cork.

  15. Patrick says:

    This isn't going anywhere positive, so let me just say this. Let's not get the offseason melodrama started early. I've noticed that for the last two years pointless arguments will pop up over the course of the offseason due to the lack of things going on to discuss. We are only a week into the offseason, so I really hope that the rest of the next four months doesn't fall into line behind this.

    I think Rays Index is a great site and I look forward to reading it throughout the offseason.

  16. Anonymous says:

    you guys need to chill out. you guys are taking this shit way too seriously. this wasnt even that critical.i understand that these so called 'negative' posts stand out more but i've seen 10,000 links in webtopia complimenting other sites, not to mention giving those sites LINKS which are important in the Googleverse and yet you guys dont seem to acknowledge those.

    keep up the good work prof. love the site.

  17. The Professor says:

    i stand behind this post and the model for this website. that is to bring as much important and interesting devil rays news to one location. offer insight when needed and when appropriate and RAISE the level of devil rays coverage. we post plenty of positive or neutral commentary. occasionally something needs a response that may be termed 'negative'. our goal is to bring EVERYBODY up to a higher standard by pointing out deficiencies.

    we have no desire to participate in a public debate about this topic. we have addressed the concerns of the authors through private email and we will not deviate from our model.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Why do you refer to yourself as 'we'? Are you schizophrenic? We will still love you even if you stop pretending you are more than one man. Maybe that would be a step towards improving Rays' coverage πŸ™‚

    Otherwise, me, myself and I like the site and hope you keep it up.

  19. Robert Rittner says:

    I like the site as well and have no problem with negative commentary or severe criticism of other sites or of the Rays. My issue is with the Stephen A. Smith style of "journalism" which is to focus on some obvious or petty point and then scream it out as if some significant insight is being provided.

    For example, a while back Topkin had an article in which he described (or perhaps the headline did) Hamel's outing as a gem. As a matter of fact, when I read that I chuckled at the overstatement and was even a bit miffed at what I thought was misrepresentation. Had I been writing about it, I would have mentioned my criticism in a sentence perhaps or as an aside, because as a matter of fact, it was a decent outing and a continuation of a string of improved performances.

    Reading the article, it was clear that Topkin understood that point and had not exaggerated. His overall assessment in the article was positive but not exuberant; only that one sentence was overdone.

    But you decided to devote a rant to the issue, examining in detail why the performance was not a gem and castigating Topkin as if he had been asleep during the game. Unless you think your readers are idiots, we do not need to be assaulted with the obvious. To me that is evidence of a vendetta, taking a minor misstep and using it as a weapon against the writer. In this case, by the way, ignoring the substance of the article.

    I could even stomach it if your comment collected a series of such exaggerated descriptives and criticized the columnist for being an excessive homer as a rule. But not only did you not do that, I do not think you could, at least not fairly, as there are plenty of very critical pieces in both local newspapers.

  20. Anonymous says:

    This is why I like Rays of Light. They're like the hippies of the Devil Rays blogs. No drama, just love.

  21. Anonymous says:

    This is just dumb... as if DRO nation didn't have enough problems.. now we all look like a bunch of dumb, "too smart for our own good", idiot bloggers. Knock it off fellas.

  22. wjlddr says:

    What's ridiculous is this entire argument, and everything that started it. The last thing our community needs is infighting.

  23. Robert Rittner says:

    I disagree. I think it is healthy. The comments are not abusive nor the language obscene. Rather, the argument is over what constitutes legitimate criticism. Every public writer deserves to hear what her/his readers think and why and may or may not accept constructive criticism. It is not infighting nor is it foolish.

  24. Jordi says:

    Meanwhile we wonder why Yankees and Sawks fans think the Rays will never compete. Can't have Rays Nation if it's autonomous states.

  25. The Professor says:


    you do bring up some good points that I will consider in the future. At times, I may become too focused on one point, when I mean to draw attention to what I consider a bigger issue.


    I am only regular writer on this site, but in the two years that I have run this site, I have been lucky enough to have 5 other people write for this site. In addition there is some behind the scenes help from people that prefer to remain "behind the scenes". And I promise that these people are different from any imaginary friends that I may or may not have.


Leave a Comment