Here.
-- not a great free agent year
-- a little more money to spend
-- main value of moving fences is psychological effect on hitters, not so much attracting FAs
-- Hamilton probably more years and $$ than they want to do, but they don't rule it out if within their "threshold" (similar to Prince Fielder ... but he says he had "enormous amount of discussions" with Boras re Fielder and was hoping Fielder would decide to take a shorter deal, but that they wouldn't go to the size/length of the deal he ended up getting)
-- Zunino, Franklin, Romero ... probably too young and inexperienced to compete for MLB next year. Big 3 + Maurer ... maybe.
-- doesn't want to give up the draft pick to get a guy who will "just be a nice player" (maybe referring to a Swisher-type deal?)
Cool thing was he was doing play-by-play of the Arizona Fall League game during the interview.
.
From MLBtraderumors.com:
The Mariners are ready to pursue a big name free agent, but the stakes are high after the Chone Figgins fiasco. "They know they can't be wrong on the next one," said a source to Olney.
Dr. D is more-or-less as much a fan of Bruce Lee as the next amigo is. So he was stunned to see a Chuck Norris interview in which Chuck discussed his relationship with Lee.
Point A: Norris is, by all accounts, as "nice" a person as it's possible to be nice. He's soft-spoken, gets along with everybody up to and including Sylvester Stallone, and seems to have devoted his life to spiritual causes.
Point B: Norris was a truly great martial artist. He was the 1969 Karate Fighter of the Year, held his title for six years undefeated, and (most impressively) is the only Westerner in the history of Tae Kwon Do to hold the rank of 8th degree black belt Grandmaster. The fact that they'd give him 8th means he's actually a lot better than that; 8th degree would be given to an American when nobody would argue about it. It's like saying "Felix deserves a spot on a major league roster."
Point C: In Norris' opinion, Lee wasn't a real martial artist.
:: blinks ::
An interviewer asked him one time, "So who would have won, you or Lee?," which was a dumb question to start with, considering the weight class difference. But Norris didn't mention that. He smiled, "Bruce never even got into the ring." The interviewer pressed him, but Lee was obviously fast, yada yada ... Norris shook his head and smiled again. "It's a different thing when you're doing it for real."
Much like if somebody were talking to Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, "Hey, man, there's a guy in my flag football league who can throw 105 yards and he can do this and that and the next thing." Brady would say .... what, exactly?
Which brings us to this week's pinch off BJOL:
.....................
Hey Bill, are you surprised that a lot of sports teams keep using the load-up-on-aging-free-agents strategy, even though it seems to fail miserably and expensively most of the time? I mean, adding some veteran pieces around a young or prime-age core is one thing, but counting on oldsters to carry the bulk of the load just seems to be an idea with failure built right into it. When you add in the greater cost of signing veteran players, it seems like a doubly bad idea. Any thoughts?Asked by: OwenHAnswered: 11/12/2012Well, yes, but. ...organizations that have resources tend to look to proven solutions. "Poor" organizations are willing to gamble on younger players, and become comfortable gambling on improvement from young players. Wealthy organizations tend innately to look for "proven" players.
....................
It's easy to play poker for matchsticks, but go sit down and play for real money and EVERYBODY, that's everybody, gets destroyed the first time they play for real. It's just different.
My first chess tournament, 40 moves in 90 minutes time control, I played against other low-ranking amateurs. Five games: 4 losses, 1 draw, and the draw was a miracle. Would you believe me if I said I played out-of-my-mind superbly? I really did. I just didn't have the hang of real battle.
Neither did Paul DePodesta or J.P. Ricciardi, and they'd been ringside for years and years. For you or I to imagine that we could GM a team, and do well, is delusional.
.......................
"Appeal to authority" is listed on Wikipedia as a type of logical fallacy. It isn't. Appeal to authority isn't part of formal logic at all. There's no "If A then B" inherent to it. Now, it is true that you don't want to be handcuffed with dogma like "Bobby Fischer says not to bring your Queen out early, so I'm not going to." But a wise man knows when another man is wiser than he is. And he takes an extra 5 seconds to CONSIDER the opinion of his senior.
When the real GM's have a take on an issue -- such as a free agent -- the worst thing in the world we can do, is to brush it off reflexively for not lining up with our formulas. When real GM's have a take on an issue, the appropriate response is to give the opinion a few seconds' consideration. Sabermigos have a lot to learn here.
...........................
It's fine to count up WAR, and play rotisserie, and say that Mike Carp is a better use of resources than is Nick Swisher. But we're playing for matchsticks. We are, by definition, very limited in our understanding of the situation.
Does James' reply --- > layer your understanding of the reason that Prince Fielder types seem to be overpaid every winter? Does it provide depth to your perception of the Josh Hamilton tour this winter? You might scoff at poker pros for folding out of straight draws; the math doesn't seem to jibe. But they're at the finals table. You are not.
After the Figgins soft-skills fiasco, the Mariners will want to be very careful to get somebody with exceptional talent. That's my kibitz from the penny-ante table. :- )
.
Comments
1) He's looking at trades, not FA. Might add something in FA, but not a big splash (or not the biggest splash, anyway). MAN, do I want to pry Stanton from the corpse of the Marlins' 2013 season.
2) He wants to let the minor league thing play out, and since he might trade Franklin he can't really oversell him as a piece for this year's team. Ditto Zunino vs. Montero. If Montero can't play 1B and sucks at DH, he needs to know that before making a call on Zunino. That's probably a Spring call, and Zunino might take a half-lap around Tacoma while we figure out where to place last year's big splash.
3) Has money - money isn't the issue. Has talent. Needs a straw, and won't sacrifice the #1 pick in this year's draft for a bendy straw (And yes, Spec I did think that was a Swisher reference).
I still think Montero goes in a Stanton deal (getting them a new Latin face that all the relocated New York fans know and understand). If he doesn't, then it's because the Marlins don't think he can play catcher or we love him at 1B/DH.
But that trade phone had better heat up for us, because the other signals Jack is sending seem to indicate he's not rushing more kids from the minors and he's not spending all that FA money on anybody special - so special needs to arrive in a 5-for-1.
~G
:: holds back The Claw ::
He would have mopped the floor with Chuck.
Chuck's idea of fighting was "in-the-ring fighting" with points and gloves and referees. And in that world he'd take Bruce Lee. Bruce developed his martial art after being upset with how long it took him to beat up some mobsters from China who were sent to teach him a lesson that involved removing his kneecaps.
Bruce was a street fighter, and his art was designed for real-world application, not the dispersal of points and belts.
Bruce was more like the lead character in Redbelt (played by the gov't assassin from Firefly): "I don't fight in a ring because it teaches you bad habits and dulls your edge if you have to fight for real." (paraphrased)
They trained for different arenas, and the idea that Bruce didn't get in a sanctioned ring and therefore "didn't fight" is ludicrous.
Just sayin'.
I'd like some of our young players (currently in the majors or minors, I don't care) to bring out their warrior hearts, be like water, and mess some fools up next year. And if ours can't do it, get somebody else's. More champions, fewer excuses in 2013.
~G
Reminds me of Lyle Alzado after boxing Ali: "The only place he can kick my tail is in the ring." I'm going to go look up Lee's street encounters.
Now what do you do with Lee's reply, when asked about going against an experienced ground fighter? "I would walk away." Norris had what, 40 lbs. on him? What happens when it goes to the ground?
My other Q would be -- assuming you're right there G -- what happens when the big guy is willing to come down the middle and swap blows 1-for-1? Sugar Ray Leonard doesn't attempt to fight 190-lb guys.
Not in the Gracie sense of the word.
And yes, Norris had the weight and reach advantage, but Bruce's blocking style was an offensive one, not a defensive one, meaning Norris being in range to strike Bruce was placing himself in range to be struck as well.
Bruce's disadvantage, as with all smaller men, is to get taken to the ground and rolled by a heavier man. As well as needing an immense amount of speed in his strikes to make up for the lack of mass behind them and do damage to a heavier opponent, of course.
But Lee made a habit of teaching about using surroundings, maintaining footing, and ignoring rote form in favor of function and effect. Norris always fought in the same size ring, with the same rules, and the same techniques. In an improvised fight over dynamic terrain, my money's on Bruce. I've watched enough of BJ Penn, St. Pierre and Anderson Silva not to over-count size. Tyson gave up plenty of pounds in his early career, and many fighters have climbed through multiple weight classes in both boxing and MMA to defeat heavier foes.
There are guys I wouldn't bet on Bruce Lee against (like Royce Gracie). Chuck isn't one of them. And I think Bruce would have had a lot of fun with some aspects of BJJ.
~G
But as we've seen time and again in mma, a basic grappling attack is more than enough to deal with even the most spectacular strikers who haven't competed in that forum.
Bruce Lee was amazing, but if Chuck wrestled four years of high school (i have no idea if he did or not), then Bruce is busted up bad in that fight.
Still, it's no stretch to call Lee the grandfather of modern MMA. He was groundbreaking in every aspect of martial arts he focused on.
trained/sparred with Bruce Lee - for years. I'm pretty sure he knew his way around a ground game. :)
Now, LeBell also taught Chuck Norris (later) and I think Chuck eventually studied some BJJ, but Lee wasn't a stranger to the ground game or locks.
He wouldn't have wanted to take a fight to the ground for long stretches, but he would have been able to survive there against anybody near his weight class. There are guys with ground games that could have made him pay, but IMO Norris wasn't one of em.
In a non-ring situation, I'll take Bruce. It's one of those fantasy fights, like Sabertooth Tiger vs. Mastodon, but my money's still on this particular tiger.
But now we're really far afield. *laughs*
~G
Bruce Lee was a pioneer of unarmed combat. He revolutionized the way combat masters approach improving their craft. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have continued blazing a trail on his own personal path to enlightenment, and that he would have become a founder of excellent grappling techniques fluidly incorporated into his unique style.
But ;-) as Doc said earlier: practicing and competing are completely different animals. I personally believe that Bruce was like Georges St. Pierre in his ability to instantaneously incorporate a maneuver into his arsenal without all that pesky practice most people complain about. Given enough actual experience, such as MMA or Vale Tudo, he would have certainly mastered those techniques as well. But having competed a bit in wrestling (and I do only mean a bit) and boxing, I can attest that there is nothing like practicing for a month, sorting out a bag of tricks, going to the mat and learning that at least half of everything you learned was worse than useless to you, it actually cost you the match.
Again, I have no doubt that given enough combat experience, Bruce Lee would have become a master of ground fighting, but I am unaware of him actively competing in grappling events. During his day, grappling was almost universally underappreciated, so it's not Bruce's fault that he might not have gotten around to it before his tragic death, lol. And The Way of The Intercepting Fist is more about active defense and maintaining safety than it is about dominating your opponent...like shown in that scene in one of Lee's films (Fist of Fury?) where he demonstrates real life defense against a man using an armbar on you ;-) Obviously the man had game, haha.
And maybe I place too much emphasis on competitive experience. Also, I'm not a huge fan of Norris. But my assertion was that, had Chuck wrestled in high school competitively, then his ability to defend against Bruces strikes would have allowed him to eventually take the fight to the ground and overpower Bruce with a combination of size and experience. And you're dead on about the mythical matchup angle. "Pegasus or Unicorn? Unicorn has the magic horn, gotta be him!" "Naw, man..Pegasus just fly away until Unicorn got tired, then swoop in and BAM! Game OVAH!"
Nice to be able to talk about this stuff at a baseball site. Just downloaded the sample to your book, by the way:-) I'm helping my brother with a prequel novella right now, and it's a lot of fun. Did you upload Mason's Order to any other publishing sites like smashwords, kobo or such?
Norris, though powerful, and a master at strikes, could be no match for Lee's Jeet Kune Do style. Lee wrote the book on MMA 50 years before there was MMA. Next time you're at Barnes and Noble, take a gander at Bruce Lee's Fighting Method Vols. 1-4. You should probably skip lunch, and take some dramamine before you do look through them.
Lee had a well developed ground game integrated into Jeet Koon Do, where he had a great understanding of grappling, small joint manipulation, and strangling. Lee was the modern cage fighter 50 or so years before his time. But, he also had something that they aren't even doing now. The center of Lee's style is that you must win at all costs, and there is absolutely no holds barred. He encourages biting, eye-gouging, punching in the throat, crushing testicles, and any other way to secure an advantage against a stronger opponent. Norris could not defeat Lee using ordinary methods.
Observe what would really happen:
At the superfight, Norris and Lee would square off at the pre-fight conference, Norris would try to stare Lee down, and Lee would summarily pluck out Norris' insolent eye.
There is no decisive victory, Norris is maimed, and Lee goes to jail for mayhem.
Yeah, the idea that Bruce Lee didn't have a ground game is very strange. Jeet Kun Do has something like 33 different techniques for takedown, joint locking and submission. Lee referred to Jeet Kun Do as "scientific street fighting". It isn't about points - it's about inflicting damage while avoiding taking it. I don't doubt that someone like Norris could "out point" Lee in a Tae Kwon Do style tournament. I also have no doubt that Lee would have broken several of Chuck's limbs in a real fight.
Yeah, I put Mason's Order up on Smashwords. I should probably review it, but it's up there. Also, I'm on the bug ship now on Admiral Who? so chugging right along through reading that book. :)
~G
We had a lot of fun putting that book together. Gambit was even more fun because we were really in touch with the characters. When I say "we," I'm referring to my measly contributions being the editing. My brother gave birth to the whole thing...it's a story he had rattled around for awhile in his head, then a lightbulb popped and he slogged through the grind of putting it down on e-paper.
The bug ship was probably the part he needed the most help with, if I remember correctly. He had some issues there, lol. It's also where the story starts to get...fun :-)
And I've gone through the four 'pop culture' books listed above. I remember seeing Lee go to hair pulls, eye gouges, biting and stuff like that and the editor sheepishly adding "He would not normally have used the hair pulling stuff in a real fight but... he um wanted to show you it could be effective, too."
That Lee studied jujitsu and judo, is clear - that he practiced it, is not so clear. Real ground jujitsu (and Greco-Roman for that matter) takes a loooonnnnng time to master. Gene LaBell took I think 4 years in Japan working at Judo every day before he was even decent.
And when you do master it, you don't go 140 lbs. against 190 lbs. Ever see weight classes mixed like that in MMA?
................
But it's cool to see Bruce Lee fans argue his case. Maybe (seriously) he really was the greatest pound-for-pound fighter who ever lived. Except for Bas Rutten :- )
He was on David Letterman one time, who asked him whether he knew how to kill somebody. Norris smiled, looked away, and then suddenly touched a second-knuckle strike to Letterman's trachea. You can imagine Letterman the rest of the show...
Every martial artist, much less Norris, has a variety of bone-breaking techniques including neck-breaking techniques. All you do is aim the same shots at the short ribs or liver instead of at the solar plexus, at the temple or windpipe instead of the chin, at the side or front of the knee instead of the groin. Any high school wrestler could choke an enemy to death if he wanted to. :- )
Speaking as an aikidoka myself, I can assure you that it is VERY hard to get an armlock on a bigger, stronger opponent in a real battle. On a smaller one, maybe. On a guy who has 40 lbs. on you and who is trained? Just forget it.
......................
Have an anecdote here of a friend who was in a dojo when the 40-something Norris visited... he invited anybody there to do light sparring. A street fighter type there stepped in and tried some non-TKD techniques, landing one. My friend said that Norris "whipped up on that guy pretty good, man." Just sayin'. If the image of Norris is that of a cloistered sensei who hasn't tested his techniques, well....
There are martial arts senseis who are street naive but Lone Wolf ain't one of 'em.
Okay, who's got the computer simulation?!
He wrestled four years in high school, might have placed his senior year. We're farm strong country boys, flipping hay bales one handed as mid-teenagers. When he was in his twenties, he competed in full contactTKD and placed 2nd or 3rd in nationals.
I asked him one day how he would describe himself as a fighter, and he unflinchingly replied "wrestler with reasonable kicks." I pressed, and he didn't bat an eye by continuing, "I've lost a fewfights that were pure striking affairs, but I've never lost when it went to the ground. Even people who practice judo or submission grappling don't know how to deal with top control in a real life situation." He cut his teeth in north Portland...and never lost. He even joked about spiking people on their heads when he was outnumbered 3 to 1, and after the first one went limp, the others lost the will to fight.
Eye gouges and bites generally make submission/positional grappling less effective in a street combat situation. Greco-Roman style style throws can be deadly on concrete though.
I'd probably take Lee in a straight street fight. Neither guy was experienced in the other's arena.