Mike and I are able to communicate easily about things like the Phillies, this blog, and how much harder it was to save the world in 1994.
While sorting through old e-mails, I stumbled across a converstation we had earlier this year and thought it might be fun to share it with the three or four people who read our blog. Not only does it provide a behind-the-scenes glimpse of our operation, it also demonstrates that, while most of the time we make fun of the thoughts of others, we do have some original ones of our own.
Although the links and pictures were added, and it was edited slightly to make it easier to read, this is an actual e-mail conversation. Please enjoy:
Thursday, February 21, 2008
From: tmmullen
To: Hillman, Michael
So, other than the whole, "his prediction is what won him the MVP and the phillies the division" nonsense, do you see anything worth making fun of in here?
From: Hillman, Michael
To: tmmullen
The way it's written, he attributes Rollins’ lack of walks to his record number of plate appearances:
Those totals were helped by him playing all 162 games and walking so infrequently (49 times) that he also set major league records with 716 at-bats and 778 plate appearances, and he led both leagues by making 527 outs at the plate.
He tries to create a sense of dissension between Myers and Rollins when there's no evidence that any exists:
Not that everyone delights in how brightly the spotlight has shined on Rollins lately. Asked about Rollins's impact on the club last season, the right-hander Brett Myers said: "It’s not an individual game. It took all of us to win. It took all of us to make him the M.V.P."
It's a very transparent anti-Phillies, anti-Rollins piece, but I’m not sure it really lends itself to lampooning.
From: tmmullen
To: Hillman, Michael
I agree. My unofficial filtering system requires a minimum of three stupid comments before I’ll even consider a post. The walks/plate appearances is a blatant one, but I thought the others were minor, especially in light of the fact that Jimmy agrees that his comment won him the MVP, it gets even harder to make fun of the article.
Moving on... Did you like the Glavine post? Did you notice the Arrested Development, "Come on!" in there? I put it in just for you [that's what she said?]. I know it's hard to read inflection, but it was my first reaction when I read that column.
From: Hillman, Michael
To: tmmullen
I meant to point out that Jimmy agrees also.
I did like it. I didn’t notice the "Come on!" - but probably because it was written instead of spoken.
I have Phillies.com and ESPN.com loaded up, waiting eagerly for news of the Howard arbitration decision.
From: tmmullen
To: Hillman, Michael
I’ve been stockpiling some articles on that in case I decide to do a post on the whole thing when it’s over.
What do you think?
From: Hillman, Michael
To: tmmullen
Sounds good to me.
Who do you think will win? I think the Phillies will prevail.
From: tmmullen
To: Hillman, Michael
Actually, when I said "what do you think?" – I was asking what you thought was going to happen. Sorry for the confusion.
To answer your question, I'm not as confident. I think if the Phils had offered $7.5 million or more, it would have been a win... But only $7M?
Then again, it will take some big balls to give him $10M. So I guess I give the phils a slight edge. But the wild card is that whole "character" thing that apparently the arbitrator is allowed to consider. It's hard to argue that there is a better ambassador for the game right now, especially with the steroids thing going on, so...
From: Hillman, Michael
To: tmmullen
Yeah, I wonder what they offered him right before the hearing. I'm pretty concerned that it might affect his concentration this spring.
From: tmmullen
To: Hillman, Michael
To be honest, I’m not. Win or lose, I think he knows he needs to go out and perform. Does that make sense? If he loses, he needs to play well to prove them wrong - and if he wins, he needs to play well to justify the higher figure. Plus I think he has enough maturity and humility to recognize that.
And both those things, IMHO, came from the extra time he spent in the minors. A lot has been said about the Phillies hiding him in the minors behind Jim Thome as if it was some big conspiracy to keep him from getting paid, but I think it helped him in the long run. Every player is different, but the kind of extra seasoning Howard got is exactly the same kind that I thought Pimp Strut [Michael Bourn] should have gotten.
And don’t get me started on that - you know I wasn’t his [Bourn's] biggest fan, but if Burrell isn’t part of your 2009 plans (as it sounds right now), then how do you let this kid go? Plus if Burrell isn’t part of your 2009 plans, trade him to an American League team this year and get something for him. Again, you know I don’t want him gone, but to let him play out his contract and say, "Thanks for the memories, you called third strike taking motherfucker," is insane, but par for the course I guess with these owners.
Look at that, there are like three different posts in that rant if I had time to flesh them out.
From: Hillman, Michael
To: tmmullen
Nice. You should do it... That's a great point about Howard in the Minors, and I sincerely hope you’re right... And, yes, the OF is effed if Burrell is gone next year.
From: tmmullen
To: Hillman, Michael
I'm going to remind you that you said that...
---
No comments:
Post a Comment