Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 15, 2014

Diamondbacks Acquire Brett Jackson From Cubs

Yes, the wrong Cubs’ Jackson had “swing-and-miss tendencies”...

The Diamondbacks have acquired former first-round pick and top prospect Brett Jackson from the Cubs in exchange for minor league reliever Blake Cooper… Jackson had been claimed off waivers prior to the trade’s completion.

Jackson, 26, rated as one of the game’s top 100 prospects from 2010-12, according to both Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus (he topped out at No. 32 on BA’s list and No. 44 on BP’s list)... However, Jackson’s swing-and-miss tendencies caused his stock to plummet, as a problem he looked to have eliminated at the Double-A level resurfaced in Triple-A and still has yet to be corrected. Jackson was batting just .210/.298/.348 with a 37.3 percent strikeout rate for Triple-A Iowa this season and will look to deliver on some of his once sky-high potential in a new organization.

The District Attorney Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:13 AM | 45 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: blake cooper, brett jackson, cubs, diamondbacks, trades, transactions

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM (#4771570)
im shocked they got more than a bag of baseballs for him.
   2. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 07:54 AM (#4771591)
For a second I thought they traded him for Blake Parker and thought to myself, not again.

It'll be interesting to see what a change of scenery does for him. Brett is part of a group of players that I label as the "give-uppers". They are the guys that hit minor league pitching well as they come up and then after they fail at their cup of coffee they seem to give up and can no longer hit minor league pitching once they get called back down. Some guys are built to be career minor leaguers and some guys are built to be food distributor salesmen.
   3. Charles S. will not yield to this monkey court Posted: August 15, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4771620)
I guess good luck to him, but what a powerfully insignificant guy Jackson turned out to be. Just highlights how special Baez is to overcome the powerful stench of being a Hendry first round pick and give us even two weeks of interesting play in the bigs.
   4. zonk Posted: August 15, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4771631)
I guess he's probably done...

Still - is Vitters still on the 40 man? If this was the spot dropped for Turner - I'd have preferred it to have been Vitters. Vitters has been just as bad as Jackson at Iowa and has an even lesser chance of ever being useful.

Jackson can play all three OF spots, has a modicum of speed, etc... I wouldn't have been averse to giving him a shot at the 5th OF spot... K-tastic tendencies aside, just send him to the plate to take, take, take unless he gets one of those rare meatballs to drive.

Doesn't really matter, I guess.

I really thought the guy would end up being a poor man's Curtis Granderson...
   5. Spahn Insane Posted: August 15, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4771649)
Clears a roster spot and brings in a warm body. Therefore, it's a good move.
   6. Spahn Insane Posted: August 15, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4771652)
zonk--I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I also wouldn't assume the Cubs are through clearing out deadweight.
   7. Brian C Posted: August 15, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4771657)
This isn't the spot dropped for Turner. That spot was opened when Kalish was DFA'd. This leaves a spot open, which naturally leads to speculation (by me) that Bryant's getting called up today.
   8. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 15, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4771663)
Its almost like you can't count on hitting prospects all the time. Oh well, I'm sure the next crop won't fail.
   9. zonk Posted: August 15, 2014 at 10:45 AM (#4771669)
Just thinking through next year's OF...

Locks would seem to be Alcantara and Soler. Sweeney's under contract, Ruggiano is arb eligible. Coghlan has probably Schierholtzed himself into another contract.

There's still Lake and Szczur is also on the 40 man. Almora is the next closest, but I think he's still half a year away from being in any serious consideration (he's struggled since coming up to Tennessee). Logan Watkins might be worth a look, too -- he's also a converted IF like Alcantara.

Ruggiano is a nice enough 4th OF. I suspect Coghlan is going to turn out about as well as Schierholtz. I have zero use for Sweeney.

The opening day OF is probably Coghlan-Alcantara-Soler... with Ruggiano and Sweeney as the backups. I think Alcantara probably gives you the luxury of going with just a single backup IF.

I guess, since the Cubs really ought to be thinking .500 next year -- that makes sense... If I were to OOTP this team, though -- my 5 OFs would be Alcantara, Soler, Lake, Jackson, and Watkins, with Szczur getting the nod when Lake/Jackson likely falls completely flat.
   10. zonk Posted: August 15, 2014 at 10:52 AM (#4771680)
Its almost like you can't count on hitting prospects all the time. Oh well, I'm sure the next crop won't fail.


Jackson never really put any eye-popping numbers, though... Certainly nothing like what Bryant, Baez, or Soler - or even Alcantara - have done. He had a nice combined slash in 2010 between A-/A (297/395/493) and decent numbers in 2011 A+/AA (274/379/490)... but 2012 - when he got a couple months in the bigs - he hit 256/338/479. That's nice enough, but the other guys are putting up eye-popping OPSs in the 1.000+ range.

It still wouldn't surprise me if Jackson has a career... I think he's got enough other skills - defense, speed, power - that he might get some additional shots to prove he could be a moderately useful spare part OF.
   11. Spahn Insane Posted: August 15, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4771697)
Its almost like you can't count on hitting prospects all the time. Oh well, I'm sure the next crop won't fail.

We understand that you were traumatized by the mass failure of the Royals' crop of hitting prospects from a few years ago to pan out, but that doesn't make it the norm. (Not that having ALL your prospects pan out is the norm either, of course.)

EDIT: Yes, I realize Gordon has finally figured things out.
   12. Spahn Insane Posted: August 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4771703)
Coghlan has probably Schierholtzed himself into another contract.

I actually wouldn't be shocked if Coghlan sustains a good bit of what he's done this year. It's consistent with his minor league track record and his ROY season; why he hadn't done anything at the MLB level in five years until this year is anyone's guess, but he's still young enough to have a decent career. Schierholtz, I think pretty much everyone knew we were getting his career year last year. I didn't expect him to be *as* bad this year as he was, but that he regressed massively from last year didn't surprise me.
   13. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4771704)
The Cubs should count themselves extremely lucky if they get two players from this crop at all-star level or better. The most likely outcome is that the Cubs develop one very good hitter out of this crop several useful ones for awhile, and a bunch of spare parts and failed prospects.
   14. zonk Posted: August 15, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4771722)
The Cubs should count themselves extremely lucky if they get two players from this crop at all-star level or better. The most likely outcome is that the Cubs develop one very good hitter out of this crop several useful ones for awhile, and a bunch of spare parts and failed prospects.


Not to pick nits -- but wouldn't you technically call Rizzo and Castro of this crop? They've both been all-stars... Of course, I understand that from an arrival perspective - you could differentiate them from Soler/Bryant/Alcantara/Baez/et al.... However, they're in the same age group -- and the really good thing is that is that with those contracts/arb year/FA1-FA2 buyouts -- they're technically in the same boat as far as team control.

Now, you'll excuse me... I have chickens to go count before they hatch....
   15. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4771734)
Here's a thought experiment we had on another board. You have two options. Which one would you choose and which one do yo think would win more games.

Option A- Every year for the next 7 years you'd get a rookie that would replicate the career (playing time and WAR) of one of the following players: Ruth, DiMaggio, Williams, Mays, Aaron, Morgan, and Schmidt.

Option B- Every year for the next 7 years you get 15 first round draft picks.
   16. zonk Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4771742)
Option A and it's not even close... I mean, you get 7 guys stacking up with all-time greats? You'll beat the pants off of B every time.

I think you'd need to make option A something more like say guaranteed 3-4 WAR guys. I'd still take option A. Take the sure thing every time.
   17. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4771757)
If this was done from 1984 to 1990 option B would be drafting Barry Bonds, Frank Thomas, Chipper Jones, Gary Sheffield, Ken Griffey Jr, Mark McGwire, and Kevin Brown. Along with players like Will Clark, Robin Ventura, BJ Surhoff, Jay Bell, and so on. Is it so clear cut then?
   18. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4771766)
Had Jackson already been DFAed, or was that just writing on the wall?
   19. zonk Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:27 PM (#4771774)
If this was done from 1984 to 1990 option B would be drafting Barry Bonds, Frank Thomas, Chipper Jones, Gary Sheffield, Ken Griffey Jr, Mark McGwire, and Kevin Brown. Along with players like Will Clark, Robin Ventura, BJ Surhoff, Jay Bell, and so on. Is it so clear cut then?


Well - with option B, you're still predicated on picking the right guy with those 2 first rounders -- no sure thing, even if you've got the best scouting operation on the planet. I think you still take option A every time - I love prospects, but go with the sure thing. If the sure thing is also a cost-controlled early 20s/late teens guy - all the more so.

Now... if you could guarantee me those two 1st round picks AND guarantee me that I'd get the right guy (even limiting it to the right guy from amongst only first rounders; setting aside anyone that goes outside of the first round and develops into a star) -- then it probably gets interesting.

Had Jackson already been DFAed, or was that just writing on the wall?


I don't think he was DFA'ed -- he still had options so I assume the Cubs were just trying to pass him through waivers with the intention of just keeping him around if he slid through. I'm not up on the latest roster rules -- but I think the Cubs could have potentially pulled him off waivers and kept him (and also had to keep him on the 40 man) if they were so inclined. Someone can correct me - but I would imagine Jackson was on revocable waivers as opposed to someone like Turner who was on irrevocable waivers.
   20. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:30 PM (#4771781)
It isn't two first round picks but 15 first round picks every year for 7 years.
   21. zonk Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4771785)
It isn't two first round picks but 15 first round picks every year for 7 years.


Ahhh... OK... I think you'd have to set aside slotting rules, too -- but OK... In that case, maybe you do go with option B.
   22. Brian C Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4771801)
There was no news of Jackson being DFA'd.
   23. PreservedFish Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM (#4771805)
Ok, I chose these years at random. 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005.

15 first round picks means you get 50% of the players in the round. So for even numbered years I'll take every player drafted with an even pick. In odd, I take odds.

In 1980 you get: Kelly Gruber. That's about it.
1985: Surhoff, Witt, Weiss, Brian McRae, Joey Cora. (Bonds and Palmeiro were evens)
1990: Tony Clark, Alex Fernandez, Carl Everett, Mike Mussina, Rondell White.
1995: Darin Erstad, Jose Cruz Jr, Geoff Jenkins, Mark Redman, Roy Halladay.
2000: Rocco Baldelli.
2005: Justin Upton, Ryan Braun, Tulowitzki, McCutchen, Ellsbury, Garza. Wow.

The odd/even thing is quirky ... some years the odd or even picks are MUCH better than the other set.

But I think I'd rather take the 7 guaranteed inner-circle guys.

At a certain point the volume of solid players ceases to be helpful (except as trading assets). What are you going to do with players the quality of McRae, Cruz, Jenkins, White etc if you already have Upton/Braun/McCutchen/Ellsbury?
   24. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 12:54 PM (#4771817)
That's only 6 drafts and you don't get 15 picks a year that way. I'll also add that it wasn't until about 1983 that baseball started getting deep first rounds. Until that point the league would usually draft one very good player (or none-see 1975) and then a bunch of middling guys who might get into the teens for WAR.
   25. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4771834)
Here's the thing. If you have 7 inner circle HOFers in their prime, you will win the WS every year. With the random 15 first rounders, you may get as good a team, you may get a better team, but you may get a worse team. Since you can't do better than winning the WS every year, why take the chance that you might end up with a worse team?
   26. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4771841)
You wouldn't win it every year because of course it would take 7 years to get all 7 on your team and depending on how it falls some of them wouldn't have long left to play by then.

By the time the 7th player had played out his rookie season the first player would be entering his 8th season in the league. If that first player was Joe DiMaggio he would have just 6 seasons left and he would only average 126 games in those 6 seasons (obviously adjust for a 162 game season). If Babe Ruth was that 7th rookie he wouldn't become BABE RUTH until Joe had just two seasons left in him. If Mike Schmidt was the second rookie he would have just 4.25 seasons left to his career by the time Babe Ruth started hitting his stride.
   27. PreservedFish Posted: August 15, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4771952)
That's only 6 drafts and you don't get 15 picks a year that way.

Jeeze, so nitpicky. I was aware of all that. I feel like my method was at least as instructive as saying that you would just automatically get Thomas, Bonds, Griffey, McGwire ... does Option B also include the gift of perfect foresight?
   28. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4771955)
If that first player was Joe DiMaggio he would have just 6 seasons left and he would only average 126 games in those 6 seasons (obviously adjust for a 162 game season).


Well, if my hypothetical Joe Dimaggio has to go into the military for 3 years in mid career, I'd like a different player please.
   29. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4771973)
Let's take your 7 players as given, assign a moderate but reasonable WAR to DiMaggio and Williams and Mays for their war service, based on their accomplishments around the missing seasons, as assume 1 new player arriving each year, starting with Ruth. here's the WAA for the core 7:

Year 1 (Ruth only, first full season) - 1.8
Year 2 (Ruth second year, Dimaggio 1st) - 4.3
Year 3 - 12.5 (we are already in the 90 win neighborhood)
4 - 13.1
5 - 24.6 (Gave Mays 3WAA)
6 - 35.6 (Gave mays 5)

You see where this is going? Schmidt hasn't even arrived, we are only up to Ruth 1919, and already 35 wins above average, 1998 Yankees territory. I imagine if I continue it will be in the 40-60 wins above average range for the next decade or so. Just for grins, let's look at year 7

Ruth - 10.4
Dimaggio - 7.1
Williams - 8 (war year)
Mays - 8.2
aaron - 4.6
Morgan - 1.7
Schmidt - 0.4

So, we follow up our 115 win season with 120.
   30. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4771994)
Jeeze, so nitpicky. I was aware of all that. I feel like my method was at least as instructive as saying that you would just automatically get Thomas, Bonds, Griffey, McGwire ... does Option B also include the gift of perfect foresight?

You need perfect foresight to draft Bonds, Griffey, Thomas, and McGwire? I believe all of the guys I listed were drafted within the first 15 picks of their respective draft.

Well, if my hypothetical Joe Dimaggio has to go into the military for 3 years in mid career, I'd like a different player please.


Sorry those are the parameters.
   31. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4771997)
So, we follow up our 115 win season with 120.

I've rearranged them several different ways and you get a peak of about 110 to 120 wins, with 8 to 13 year period where they are consistently a very good playoff caliber team.

15 first round picks a year has basically an identical success curve if not a little better and longer if you start throwing in trades of excess.

Taking the first 15 picks of each year that I used got the option B team around 1500 WAR while taking a random 15 got you about 1200 WAR. I believe the 7 greats put up something like 900 WAR in total.
   32. Moeball Posted: August 15, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4772001)
Its almost like you can't count on hitting prospects all the time. Oh well, I'm sure the next crop won't fail.


We understand that you were traumatized by the mass failure of the Royals' crop of hitting prospects from a few years ago to pan out, but that doesn't make it the norm. (Not that having ALL your prospects pan out is the norm either, of course.)

But for a Royals fan, having none of the hyped prospects pan out IS the norm. And I'm not dissing Retro here - as a Padres fan, we have experienced the same basic phenomenon. I've been hearing Baseball America for more than a decade now keep talking about what a great talented pipeline the Padres have, but I don't see it. We got some decent years out of Chase Headley in 2010-2011 and 2013 and 2012 was a bona fide really good year, but I'm not sure that was enough to really cause anything to get excited about. I will also note that Headley already has more than 3 times the WAA in his short term with the Yankees than he had in almost 4 times as many PA with the Padres this season.

Will Venable/Cameron Maybin - Maybin has a total of 3 WAA in 4 seasons with the Padres, averaging less than 1 per year. Venable has about the same WAA and it's taken him 7 seasons to get there. These are the highlights - they are at least slightly better than average players - but there are a lot of other players that have gone through the revolving door that have done substantially less. Everth Cabrera? Yonder Alonso? I'm supposed to get excited about these guys? I don't think so.

When the Angels get a young player who's supposed to be highly promising he turns out to be Mike Trout. When the Dodgers get one he's Yasiel Puig or Clayton Kershaw. When the Padres do he turns out to be Jedd Gyorko. No thanks.
   33. Moeball Posted: August 15, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4772010)
Here's a thought experiment we had on another board. You have two options. Which one would you choose and which one do yo think would win more games.

Option A- Every year for the next 7 years you'd get a rookie that would replicate the career (playing time and WAR) of one of the following players: Ruth, DiMaggio, Williams, Mays, Aaron, Morgan, and Schmidt.

Option B- Every year for the next 7 years you get 15 first round draft picks.


I would go with Option A and it has nothing to do with my cynicism as a Padres fan. Ok, it has a little to do with - ok, it has a lot to do with my disappointment in the Padres' ability to draft and develop players. Give the Padres 105 draft picks (15 first round picks for 7 years) and they'll probably come up with another 104 Jedd Gyorkos to go along with the one they already have. People are assuming that if you have a first round draft pick you'll choose the Mike Trout or Clayton Kershaw that was available in that year's draft. But the Padres won't. Heck, look at the last 105 draft picks they have made. Have any one of them been on a level of a Mays or a Schmidt? The best player the Padres have ever had in 45 years is Tony Gwynn and, as great as Tony was, he wasn't anywhere close to that level. Always go with Option A - much more difficult to find.

Not to pick nits -- but wouldn't you technically call Rizzo and Castro of this crop?


Rizzo - part of Cubs' "successful" youth movement, also part of Padres' "failed" movement.
   34. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 15, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4772012)
When the Angels get a young player who's supposed to be highly promising he turns out to be Mike Trout. When the Dodgers get one he's Yasiel Puig or Clayton Kershaw. When the Padres do he turns out to be Jedd Gyorko. No thanks.

For a while when the Phillies had a young player who was highly promising he turned into Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, Cole Hamels, Pat Burrell, Carlos Ruiz, Ryan Madson, Gavin Floyd, Michael Bourn. Now we're getting Domonic Brown, John Mayberry Jr., Cody Asche, Vance Worley, Freddy Galvis, Darin Ruf, and Tyson Gillies.

Maybe Cameron Rupp, Aaron Altherr and Jonathan Pettibone will make good.
   35. PreservedFish Posted: August 15, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4772014)
You need perfect foresight to draft Bonds, Griffey, Thomas, and McGwire? I believe all of the guys I listed were drafted within the first 15 picks of their respective draft.


You didn't specify the first 15 picks, only 15 picks in the round. I think that makes a pretty big difference, actually.
   36. PreservedFish Posted: August 15, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4772015)
Taking the first 15 picks of each year that I used got the option B team around 1500 WAR while taking a random 15 got you about 1200 WAR. I believe the 7 greats put up something like 900 WAR in total.


How much of the 1500 can you actually use? Only thee outfielders may play at once.

This is 1500 WAR from 105 players vs 900 WAR from 7 players.

Btw I think this question is a lot of fun.
   37. Ziggy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4772022)
"Just for grins, let's look at year 7

Ruth - 10.4
Dimaggio - 7.1
Williams - 8 (war year)
Mays - 8.2
aaron - 4.6
Morgan - 1.7
Schmidt - 0.4

So, we follow up our 115 win season with 120."

No, once year 7 arrives, Ruth has left as a free agent. (I bet he'd sign with the Yankees.) And given the salaries these guys would command, nobody is keeping more than one or two of them.

Even so, I'd take option A. As much as I'd like to see my team win the world series: I've already seen it. I've never seen my team develop Babe Ruth. If any team besides the Yankees had had Ruth as their big star, that would be THE defining thing about the team. (It may even be the defining thing about the Yankees.) Hell, the Orioles have a statue of Ruth in front of their ballpark and when he lived in Baltimore the team was still located in St. Louis. Yeah, put me down for option A: I'd take Ruth even if it meant giving up a world championship.
   38. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: August 15, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4772037)
You wouldn't win it every year because of course it would take 7 years to get all 7 on your team and depending on how it falls some of them wouldn't have long left to play by then.


Also, players reach free agency after 6 years unless you get them extended. Going by the original order Babe Ruth likely leaves the team taking a 10 year $300m contract while pre-arb Aaron takes over right field.

Edit: coke to Ziggy
   39. PreservedFish Posted: August 15, 2014 at 05:38 PM (#4772067)
Going by the original order Babe Ruth likely leaves the team taking a 10 year $300m contract while pre-arb Aaron takes over right field.


Well, a modern team would do what it could to lock Ruth up early.
   40. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 05:45 PM (#4772073)
You didn't specify the first 15 picks, only 15 picks in the round. I think that makes a pretty big difference, actually.

The parameters are thin so that you can set it up almost anyway you want.
   41. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 05:49 PM (#4772077)
How much of the 1500 can you actually use? Only thee outfielders may play at once.

This is 1500 WAR from 105 players vs 900 WAR from 7 players.

Btw I think this question is a lot of fun


You can use almost all of it. Chipper Jones pulls a hamstring then you bring in Robin Ventura off the bench. Have too many 1B/DH guys? Then trade Will Clark for some pitching help.

About 90 to 95% of the 1500 WAR would be concentrated in about 60 guys coming out over a 7 year period. With probably around 50% of the WAR coming from 10 or so guys.

Was the period I picked a fluke? How about the next 7 years?
1991 to 1997 saw the following
Manny Ramirez
Derek Jeter
Jason Kendall
Johnny Damon
Alex Rodriguez
Billy Wagner
Torii Hunter
Nomar Garciaparra
Roy Halladay
Todd Helton
Lance Berkman

   42. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 05:51 PM (#4772079)
Well, a modern team would do what it could to lock Ruth up early.

As a pitcher? The trouble with Ruth is that Ruth doesn't become BABE RUTH until his 5th full season and doesn't give up pitching until his 6th full season.
   43. Lindor Truffles Posted: August 15, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4772097)
Who are the 18 other players on Option A's team, specifically pitchers? Quad-A guys? Cromulent arms? Dee P. Gordon?
   44. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2014 at 08:13 PM (#4772153)
League average pitching staff-11 WAR or so, nothing for the bench and 2 to 3 WAR for the other two batting slots.
   45. PreservedFish Posted: August 15, 2014 at 08:37 PM (#4772172)
Well, the question is what you'd be able to build while also retaining as many superstars as possible. You could (theoretically) be paying your 3 FA eligible guys $30 million each, 2 arb-guys $20 million each, keep 2 pre-arb stars and then just have total scrubs everywhere else for a $150 million payroll. I'm actually unusually interested in this so I might spend some time on it later.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(660 - 5:30pm, Oct 31)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4900 - 5:21pm, Oct 31)
Last: Danny

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(36 - 5:20pm, Oct 31)
Last: Bourbon Samurai

NewsblogRelix: Watch the Exact Moment the Phish Crowd Found Out the Giants Won the World Series
(4 - 5:16pm, Oct 31)
Last: Danny

NewsblogAFL Saguaros at Rafters
(4 - 5:15pm, Oct 31)
Last: Mike Emeigh

Newsblog2014-2015 MLB free agent power ranking
(5 - 5:11pm, Oct 31)
Last: Squash

NewsblogAP: Sandoval, Shields Among 121 Free Agents
(15 - 5:05pm, Oct 31)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogSending Gordon | Joe Blogs
(28 - 5:04pm, Oct 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogMLB.com - In pursuit of Maddon, Cubs dismiss Renteria
(14 - 5:01pm, Oct 31)
Last: Al Kaline Trio

NewsblogBoston.com: Youk Retires
(13 - 4:39pm, Oct 31)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogFree Agency Contract Calculator - Beyond the Box Score
(1 - 4:38pm, Oct 31)
Last: fra paolo

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(138 - 4:22pm, Oct 31)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogDeadline: World Series Ratings: Game 7 Scores Home Run For Fox
(33 - 4:11pm, Oct 31)
Last: BDC

NewsblogGabe Kapler to the LA Dodgers Front Office? Misadventures in Twitter Direct Messages
(1 - 4:03pm, Oct 31)
Last: asinwreck

NewsblogStatcast: Gordon stops 90 feet from tying Game 7
(17 - 4:02pm, Oct 31)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

Page rendered in 0.2829 seconds
52 querie(s) executed