quote:

---

again, it's not the initial "ace" list that he came up with...its him digging his heels in and listing all those other guys that were "close" and soooo far ahead of ceeej that is just ridiculous.

---

Well, if it makes you feel better, I've said many a time I disagree with Corleone and he's got a stick up his butt about this.

Edit- Again- Weak #1, better suited as a #2. He's been better than what Corleone gives him credit for.

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 10/14/2013 8:56p).]

quote:

---

If he thought that CJ was a #2 at best, he should have said CJ was a #2 at best. If he included the "#3 at best", then one can only assume that is what he thought (and he hasn't back off of it).

---

When a person says "CJ is a #2 or #3 at best", I can only assume he thinks CJ is a #2 or #3 at best.

Which is not the same thing as CJ is a #3 at best.

quote:

---

again, it's not the initial "ace" list that he came up with...its him digging his heels in and listing all those other guys that were "close" and soooo far ahead of ceeej that is just ridiculous.

---

I think what I said was that a GM would take them all over CJ.

Gonna refute that?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If he thought that CJ was a #2 at best, he should have said CJ was a #2 at best. If he included the "#3 at best", then one can only assume that is what he thought (and he hasn't back off of it).

---

When a person says "CJ is a #2 or #3 at best", I can only assume he thinks CJ is a #2 or #3 at best.

Which is not the same thing as CJ is a #3 at best.

---

If all else fails, when a person tells you he didn't mean CJ was at best a #3, then its best to assume he didn't mean CJ was a #3 at best.

quote:

---

quote:

---

again, it's not the initial "ace" list that he came up with...its him digging his heels in and listing all those other guys that were "close" and soooo far ahead of ceeej that is just ridiculous.

---

Well, if it makes you feel better, I've said many a time I disagree with Corleone and he's got a stick up his butt about this.

---

If thinking CJ is not an ace, not good in the playoffs, and a 2/3 moving forward is having stick up my ass, then I'm guilty!

[This message has been edited by Corleoneag99 (edited 10/14/2013 8:58p).]

It's not just the initial ace list or him digging his heels on it -- it's that he only pops back up to comment "ace" (something that I never actually claimed ironically) when CJ has a bad game.

Nary a peep from corleone in April of 2012 (CJ putting up a sub 3 ERA). But 3 bad starts in a row in May and he was chiming in "ace".

Then CJ put up a dominant two months and the idiot was nowhere to be found. But in August when he struggled again he popped back up with "ace".

Ditto 2013.

He's absolutely consumed by it.

quote:

---

It's not just the initial ace list or him digging his heels on it -- it's that he only pops back up to comment "ace" (something that I never actually claimed ironically) when CJ has a bad game.

Nary a peep from corleone in April of 2012 (CJ putting up a sub 3 ERA). But 3 bad starts in a row in May and he was chiming in "ace".

Then CJ put up a dominant two months and the idiot was nowhere to be found. But in August when he struggled again he popped back up with "ace".

Ditto 2013.

He's absolutely consumed by it.

---

I'll never bring up again that CJ isn't an ace if you don't, ok little buddy?

Good. You're both dug in over things the other didn't say.

Now give each other a kiss and say good night.

BTW, I'm still curious what you think CJ is, mhayden.

quote:

---

I think what I said was that a GM would take them all over CJ.

Gonna refute that?

---

only your dumbass would try and refute something that cant be measured.

quote:

---

CJ was the #1, huh?

There's a couple guys who probably disagree.

---

again, only your dumbass would argue ceeej wasnt the #1 for texas in 2010, 2011. you know, the pitcher that lead the staff in starts, innings, wins, era, era+...that made it to the world series in both season. so tell me, who was the #1 for texas in those seasons?


here we go again, dig your heels in!


txag11...didnt understand your post on halladay and his 2011 season?

Edit. Missed the "n't"

Sorry. I was saying good call on taking CJ over Halladay after 2011, but I missed the "n't"



[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 10/14/2013 9:10p).]

haha

[This message has been edited by LeFraud (edited 10/14/2013 9:11p).]

So CJ was the Rangers best pitcher in those playoffs, Lefrayden?

#2 or #3 is dependent on the rotation.

He didn't say he was a #3 at best meaning he'd be a #3 on every team.

But a #2 or #3 could mean that on certain teams he is #3. If Wilson were in Detroit, he would certainly be #3 and maybe even #4.

However, he'd be a certain #1 in Houston, Miami and perhaps a couple of others. But saying you are the #1 in Houston is like saying you were the "king of the dip****s" in high school.

Say Chowdah nailed it.

quote:

---

#2 or #3 is dependent on the rotation.

He didn't say he was a #3 at best meaning he'd be a #3 on every team.

But a #2 or #3 could mean that on certain teams he is #3. If Wilson were in Detroit, he would certainly be #3 and maybe even #4.

However, he'd be a certain #1 in Houston, Miami and perhaps a couple of others. But saying you are the #1 in Houston is like saying you were the "king of the dip****s" in high school.

---

quote:

---

So CJ was the Rangers best pitcher in those playoffs, Lefrayden?

---

dig those heels!

agreed chowdah, but ceeej was in fact a #1 for two teams that made the world series...not the houston l'astros

quote:

---

quote:

---

So CJ was the Rangers best pitcher in those playoffs, Lefrayden?

---

dig those heels!

agreed chowdah, but ceeej was in fact a #1 for two teams that made the world series...not the houston l'astros

---

Answer the question?

answer mine - was ceeej the #1 for texas in 2010, 2011?

was verlander an ace in the 2011 playoffs? does that make him less of an ace? absolutely not.

[This message has been edited by LeFraud (edited 10/14/2013 9:22p).]

quote:

---

agreed chowdah, but ceeej was in fact a #1 for two teams that made the world series

---

That doesn't necessarily mean that he was the best pitcher in baseball does it? Being the #1 on a WS team does not mean that you are the #1 in every rotation that is behind you. Even the top #1's get beaten.

But in a 7 game series, the #1 may pitch twice... Their team can still lose. In a 5 game series they will most likely only pitch once.

of course not, just pointing out that ceeej wasnt just a #1 for some last place, non-contending team.

quote:

---

answer mine - was ceeej the #1 for texas in 2010, 2011?

was verlander an ace in the 2011 playoffs? does that make him less of an ace? absolutely not.

[This message has been edited by LeFraud (edited 10/14/2013 9:22p).]

---

I thought Cliff and Colby lead the staff, personally.

So now answer my question? Was CJ their best pitcher in those playoffs?

quote:

---

of course not, just pointing out that ceeej wasnt just a #1 for some last place, non-contending team.

---

Like I said earlier, no dog in this fight, no opinion prior to 10/14/2013.

Out.

keep diggin them heels. you give the nod to cliff based on 2 playoff starts, which i can be ok with but 2011?

2011

pitcher a)
16-7
2.94 era
150 era+

pitcher b)
14-10
4.40 era
100 era+


2010

pitcher a)
3.35 era
134 era+

pitcher b)
3.98 era
123 era+

However, I am curious as to whether La Fraud and mhayen are socks.

Forewarning: sniffing out dirty socks is an internet hobby of mine (Corleone and 2011 can both testify to my tenacity on this subject). But in this case, I really don't care - until I do.

quote:

---

keep diggin them heels. you give the nod to cliff based on 2 playoff starts, which i can be ok with but 2011?

2011

pitcher a)
16-7
2.94 era
150 era+

pitcher b)
14-10
4.40 era
100 era+


2010

pitcher a)
3.35 era
134 era+

pitcher b)
3.98 era
123 era+

---

So you think CJ was their best pitcher in both playoffs?

quote:

---

of course not, just pointing out that ceeej wasnt just a #1 for some last place, non-contending team.

---

True, and he deserves credit for that.

I've long held you could win with CJ, but you needed a deep staff to make it happen over a longer period- and that's what the Rangers had.

I would propose, though, him being a #1 on a World Series team was as serendipitously the result of signing with the Rangers as Felix Hernandez signing with the Mariners was bad luck- and now the hands down better pitcher has barely sniffed the post-season.

Credit to CJ, though. I feel like a broken record, but I do think he could be your "#1" but you better have a deep staff because he's not as good as some guys and he's certainly not as consistent as some guys.

Let's assume the Tigers make the World Series. Anibal Sanchez could make the claim he was the best pitcher on a World Series team. Knowing he's been as mediocre the rest of his career as CJ has been the past 2 years, how comfortable with him as your "#1"?

We kind of poked fun at Lester earlier- what if the Red Sox make the World Series? You prepared to go forward with him or Lackey as your "#1"? (Buchholz's badass half-season aside)

[This message has been edited by TXAggie2011 (edited 10/14/2013 9:40p).]

I guess the other question is the definition of "Ace". Does "Ace" mean as in the WW2 combat flyer/tank crew type (5 confirmed air to air kills/tank to tank kills)? Or are we referring to Ace as a deck of cards being the number 1? Every teams has the latter definition. Few have the former.

quote:

---

I guess the other question is the definition of "Ace". Does "Ace" mean as in the WW2 combat flyer/tank crew type (5 confirmed air to air kills/tank to tank kills)? Or are we referring to Ace as a deck of cards being the number 1? Every teams has the latter definition. Few have the former.

---

I consider an ace the former. You'll sign them to a long term contract, feel about as good about it as you can about a contract, and you don't feel as pressed to nail down a "1B".

I consider a guy like CJ to on a lower level. Planning for him to be my #1 best pitcher over a number of seasons would make me pretty nervous. I'd want a 1B, or I'd want to make CJ my 1B and/or my #2 (as the Angels did).

And his contract reflects that.

It does.

I'll add I think the level CJ is at is pretty crowded right now, if my post on page 1 didn't intimate that enough.

I'm actually not sure, with the resurgence of pitching and defense, how well team's will be able to compete in the long term without either an "ace" or at least 2, maybe 3 guys on CJ's level on their staff.

I think in Baseball, the term "Ace" means the elite of the elite. Or the ace of aces. The number one in a group of number 1's.

i see it as

"yea that guys an ace" - verlander, felix, kershaw, sabathia

"that guys an ace for his staff" - darvish, weaver, lee, hamels, price, wainwright, etc...

there are several "aces" but only a few "elite aces"