Nutty

1,751 Views | 17 Replies | Last: 10 mo ago by AgRyan04
AgRyan04
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:56a, 3/21/25
One personnel decision I've struggled with was not bringing back Nutty after he was given add'tl eligibility from his time at JUCO. He had a .440 OBP and stole 18 bases for us last season and could be playing 2B or OF for us.

This year at St Edwards he is hitting over .330 with an OPS over 1.000 and already has 23 SBs and 33 runs in just 107 ABs. He's scoring in 30% of his at bats.

I get that St. Edwards isn't playing SEC opponents, but he was productive for us last year and we didn't have room for him this year.

I've seen posts about our depth being an issue - he was a solution to that. Even if he came off the bench as a PH or PR.

I know that he tried to come back after the NCAA ruling but I was very surprised he didn't get a look.
Reply Quote
4
HowdyTexasAggies
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:08p, 3/21/25
AG
100% agree, they should have brought Chestnut back. His SEC conference batting average was .322, the best on the team. Very bad move to not find a way to get him back.
Reply Quote
1
Wabs
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:16p, 3/21/25
AG
Would have loved to see him back, but he's probably better off where he is. We don't use our speed to steal bases around here.
Reply Quote
1
AgRyan04
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wabs • 12:18p, 3/21/25
Even if you handcuffed him to the base, at least he would still be on base.

Kiel and Hensler are the only starters with a higher current OBP than his .440 from last year.
Reply Quote
1 edit
ensign_beedrill
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:26p, 3/21/25
AG
I thought his waiver was denied.
Reply Quote
11
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ensign_beedrill • 12:32p, 3/21/25
AG
ensign_beedrill said:
I thought his waiver was denied.
That was what I remembered and the reason he is at a lower level.
Reply Quote
8
eATMup-Reveille
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 12:45p, 3/21/25
powerbelly said:
ensign_beedrill said:
I thought his waiver was denied.
That was what I remembered and the reason he is at a lower level.
So how does that work? He is denied eligibility for the upper level, but can play at the lower level? If so, what kind of BS is THAT?
Reply Quote
powerbelly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eATMup-Reveille • 12:46p, 3/21/25
AG
eATMup-Reveille said:
powerbelly said:
ensign_beedrill said:
I thought his waiver was denied.
That was what I remembered and the reason he is at a lower level.
So how does that work? He is denied eligibility for the upper level, but can play at the lower level? If so, what kind of BS is THAT?
Its the NCAA, who ****ing knows.
Reply Quote
7
eATMup-Reveille
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to powerbelly • 12:48p, 3/21/25
powerbelly said:
eATMup-Reveille said:
powerbelly said:
ensign_beedrill said:
I thought his waiver was denied.
That was what I remembered and the reason he is at a lower level.
So how does that work? He is denied eligibility for the upper level, but can play at the lower level? If so, what kind of BS is THAT?
Its the NCAA, who ****ing knows.
Very true.
Reply Quote
StinkyPinky
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgRyan04 • 12:48p, 3/21/25
AG
AgRyan04 said:
One personnel decision I've struggled with was not bringing back Nutty after he was given add'tl eligibility from his time at JUCO. He had a .440 OBP and stole 18 bases for us last season and could be playing 2B or OF for us.

This year at St Edwards he is hitting over .330 with an OPS over 1.000 and already has 23 SBs and 33 runs in just 107 ABs. He's scoring in 30% of his at bats.

I get that St. Edwards isn't playing SEC opponents, but he was productive for us last year and we didn't have room for him this year.

I've seen posts about our depth being an issue - he was a solution to that. Even if he came off the bench as a PH or PR.

I know that he tried to come back after the NCAA ruling but I was very surprised he didn't get a look.
And he was a very good base runner. I also thought he was a solid contributor in light of the periodic hitting droughts.
Reply Quote
jkag89
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:15p, 3/21/25
I think AgRyan is referencing this court ruling from this past December that possibly could have allowed to Chestnut to comeback. IMO, timing was key here. Get this ruling in the early fall, yep by all means bring Chestnut back but by December it was too late and unfair to those that were part of fall ball.
Reply Quote
6
Killzone3abc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ensign_beedrill • 2:29p, 3/21/25
AG
ensign_beedrill said:
I thought his waiver was denied.

It was. After the Pavia court case they granted eligibility used in JUCO. In response a player that was formerly D1 and sitting in D2 transfered to Tennessee to play baseball with that new eligibility. He was having to go through court again though at thr begining of the season. I assume he got his eligibility but I haven't kept up with the story since the season started.
Reply Quote
5
RED AG 98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eATMup-Reveille • 2:36p, 3/21/25
AG
eATMup-Reveille said:
powerbelly said:
eATMup-Reveille said:
powerbelly said:
ensign_beedrill said:
I thought his waiver was denied.
That was what I remembered and the reason he is at a lower level.
So how does that work? He is denied eligibility for the upper level, but can play at the lower level? If so, what kind of BS is THAT?
Its the NCAA, who ****ing knows.
Very true.
and to further complicate, the NCAA doesn't govern JUCO ball. That would be the jurisdiction of the NJCAA, a completely distinct organization.
Reply Quote
2
ensign_beedrill
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jkag89 • 3:49p, 3/21/25
AG
jkag89 said:
I think AgRyan is referencing this court ruling from this past December that possibly could have allowed to Chestnut to comeback. IMO, timing was key here. Get this ruling in the early fall, yep by all means bring Chestnut back but by December it was too late and unfair to those that were part of fall ball.
Exactly what I was thinking. That ruling came a little too late. I think we'd have Chestnut on the team if there were a possibility of it. From what he posted on socials, he was holding out for a while waiting on the NCAA.
Reply Quote
4
ensign_beedrill
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Killzone3abc • 3:51p, 3/21/25
AG
Killzone3abc said:
ensign_beedrill said:
I thought his waiver was denied.

It was. After the Pavia court case they granted eligibility used in JUCO. In response a player that was formerly D1 and sitting in D2 transfered to Tennessee to play baseball with that new eligibility. He was having to go through court again though at thr begining of the season. I assume he got his eligibility but I haven't kept up with the story since the season started.
I believe Tennessee was a special case where they had room to bring in a player because one of their players decided he no longer wanted to play baseball. We would not have had a space at that point.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
TAMU1990
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:58p, 3/21/25
AG
This same ruling also caused us to lose Aschenbeck
Reply Quote
RED AG 98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TAMU1990 • 4:22p, 3/21/25
AG
TAMU1990 said:
This same ruling also caused us to lose Aschenbeck
Not really. This ruling did not cause us to lose Aschenbeck or Chestnut. It was the prior interoperation and enforcement of NCAA rules that prevented them from returning.

The ruling, if it had come earlier, would have allowed both to return though.

Pedantic, yes. More accurate, yes as well.
Reply Quote
2
AgRyan04
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jkag89 • 6:23p, 3/21/25
jkag89 said:
I think AgRyan is referencing this court ruling from this past December that possibly could have allowed to Chestnut to comeback. IMO, timing was key here. Get this ruling in the early fall, yep by all means bring Chestnut back but by December it was too late and unfair to those that were part of fall ball.


Yes, this is what I was referencing....the court ruling.

He definitely attempted to come back after the ruling but good point on the timing - that is the only thing that would make sense. His spot was probably already committed to George or Royo.

Ash had already given up and signed with the Cubs prior to the ruling.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.