That's right, you heard me.
You call it a "polar vortex," I call it "a regular god damn Canadian winter."
We've been spoiled, us southern-Ontarians, with some pansy-ass winters in the past decade. Is this directly related to my habit of leaving my car idling in the staff parking lot while I'm at work all day, and my hobby of burning vast quantities of Styrofoam out on the Leslie Street Spit, twice weekly? Perhaps.
You want a bullshit winter? Take the one we had a couple of years ago. A little below freezing, a little above freezing. Dancing around the zero-mark like friggin' Fred Astaire after a baker's-dozen Pomtinis. Snow? Barely any, then it's a grey, slushy, stupid mess. Then you get a little more, and it sort-of melts again. Lather, rinse, repeat, blow out brains.
But this... this is what January should be like. It was twenty-three-below if it was a degree this morning, I tell you. Had to dodge a wooly mammoth on St. Clair Avenue on the way into work. Potholes the size of football* fields. Children freezing into solid blocks of ice on their way to school. In short, it's the best winter we've had in a good long while.
The rest of our Home on Native Land makes fun of us, and rightly so, for being wusses about the cold. "Cold?", a Winnipegger might ask. "You call this cold? Why, we'd be out in our flip-flops in this."
...except Vancouver. They can go suck an egg, far as I'm concerned. (Enjoy those 60.2 hours of January sunshine on average, losers.)
In conclusion, there are 24 days until the Tigers' pitchers and catchers report for Spring Training.
___________
* Canadian ones, no less.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Hey, J, what do you look for in a woman?
I know what you're thinking (mostly because I took a six-week course which showed me exactly how to do that) -- Hey, fella, how come you haven't managed to club a woman over the head, drag her back to your lair, make sweet love to her, and make her your bride?
Well, friend, I assure you I've accomplished steps 1 through 3 as described above many times. Many times. (Usually with your mom.) But that last step, that one's proven to be a doozy, and I'll tell you why: I'm fairly picky when it comes to women.
I mean, sure, you can have dinner with them a few times, take them to bed for the finest lovemaking they've ever experienced, and all that -- but if I'm going to spend the rest of my life with just one woman, I've gotta choose well. And, I have high standards.
Let me give you a little tutorial on exactly what I'm looking for. I figure it's easiest to go from the ground upwards, piece-by-piece, breaking down attributes in an informative, yet easy-to-read, manner. This is because I'm both logical and helpful.
1. Feet/Ankles
Winds these days are pretty gusty, so you've gotta make sure the woman you choose won't just blow over in a stiff breeze. Simple physics will tell you that the best way to solve this problem is to have big feet; the longer and wider, the better. Sensible footwear is also a no-brainer. High heels? That's a recipe for disaster, far as I'm concerned. Oh, and ankle-strength is paramount; I suggest looking for women who have played a lot of hockey, preferably goalie.
2. Legs (aka "Gams")
Look, you could try to seek out a woman who has thin, shapely legs. I can certainly see the appeal in that. But, it's a rookie move; strictly bush-league. This woman's going to be carrying your children around, both pre- and after-birth, and you're not going to want to trust your DNA legacy to a pair of popsicle sticks. Now, I'm not saying you should look for tree-trunks, but I certainly wouldn't fault you if you did.
3. The Hoo-Ha Area
I'm nothing if not a gentleman, so if there are any ladies reading this, I'll be sure to use carefully-encoded euphemisms to describe the parts of their anatomy they've seen every day of their existence. (You're welcome.) Basically, hair helps to trap chemicals called "pheromones" which are attractive to the opposite sex. So, logically, it stands to reason that a woman's funny-business should have as much of that decoration as possible, for maximum allure. Let the 1970s and their down-there-grooming practices reign yet again, I say! Waxing is for communists and metrosexuals, and I don't see them getting laid anytime soon.
4. Posterior (aka "Dumper")
Anthropologically speaking, a round behind is tightly correlated to full hips and breasts, which can more successfully birth and nurse a baby, respectively. (Yeah, I think I have that the right way around.) As such, I'll defer to the words and wisdom of a guy I was in residence with, in first-year of university, who was from England: "Gimme a girl with a three-stone* arse. That'll keep me warm in bed at night."
____________________
* 1 stone = 14 pounds
5. 'Twixt Collar and Waist
They say a woman with curves is what you're shooting for. "They," of course, are the vast, unwashed masses, who buy things like Nickelback albums, chips with fake fat in 'em which give you the runs, and Toyotas. That's why you have to think outside-the-box here. It's like that movie Moneyball, where Billy Beane shopped around and found players who were great in unconventional ways. The result? The Oakland Athletics won the World Series seven times in the first decade of the 21st century. That's a fact, you can look it up.
6. Face (aka "Mug")
Symmetry reigns supreme here: it's a subconscious sign that she's disease-free and thus can crap out a bunch of healthy kids. I suggest bringing along pocket-sized mirrors to various nightclubs, house parties, and other assorted places where you might meet a woman (e.g. the bank, the dentist, the abbatoir). Check her facial symmetry subtly, though; you're going to have to be a ninja about this. I'm not saying you're going to nail the "hold it up to the midpoint of her face vertically and perpendicular to the plane of her cheekbones and then take it away quickly, evaluating the differences between the reflection and the real thing" move on the first try. You'll likely get punched. But, then again, like most things in life, practice makes perfect.
7. Hair (aka "Mane")
Is long hair more feminine than short? Blondes or brunettes? (Or, if you're feeling randy and don't mind a little syphilis, a redhead?) Do you like a Skrillex-ish hairstyle wherein part of one side of her head is shorn down like someone pulled a practical joke on her as she was passed out, drunk, after downing one too many whiskey-sours? Curly hair or straight? Are extensions alright? How about wigs? Do you just solve this problem and only pursue women with alopecia? Lots more questions than answers here, folks.
That about covers it, unless she's wearing a hat (no fucking hats, I cannot stress this enough). I mean, sure, it'd help if she had a fun personality, no serious criminal convictions, a rapier wit and the ability to read and write, but at this point, can I really be that picky?
Well, friend, I assure you I've accomplished steps 1 through 3 as described above many times. Many times. (Usually with your mom.) But that last step, that one's proven to be a doozy, and I'll tell you why: I'm fairly picky when it comes to women.
I mean, sure, you can have dinner with them a few times, take them to bed for the finest lovemaking they've ever experienced, and all that -- but if I'm going to spend the rest of my life with just one woman, I've gotta choose well. And, I have high standards.
Let me give you a little tutorial on exactly what I'm looking for. I figure it's easiest to go from the ground upwards, piece-by-piece, breaking down attributes in an informative, yet easy-to-read, manner. This is because I'm both logical and helpful.
1. Feet/Ankles
Winds these days are pretty gusty, so you've gotta make sure the woman you choose won't just blow over in a stiff breeze. Simple physics will tell you that the best way to solve this problem is to have big feet; the longer and wider, the better. Sensible footwear is also a no-brainer. High heels? That's a recipe for disaster, far as I'm concerned. Oh, and ankle-strength is paramount; I suggest looking for women who have played a lot of hockey, preferably goalie.
2. Legs (aka "Gams")
Look, you could try to seek out a woman who has thin, shapely legs. I can certainly see the appeal in that. But, it's a rookie move; strictly bush-league. This woman's going to be carrying your children around, both pre- and after-birth, and you're not going to want to trust your DNA legacy to a pair of popsicle sticks. Now, I'm not saying you should look for tree-trunks, but I certainly wouldn't fault you if you did.
3. The Hoo-Ha Area
I'm nothing if not a gentleman, so if there are any ladies reading this, I'll be sure to use carefully-encoded euphemisms to describe the parts of their anatomy they've seen every day of their existence. (You're welcome.) Basically, hair helps to trap chemicals called "pheromones" which are attractive to the opposite sex. So, logically, it stands to reason that a woman's funny-business should have as much of that decoration as possible, for maximum allure. Let the 1970s and their down-there-grooming practices reign yet again, I say! Waxing is for communists and metrosexuals, and I don't see them getting laid anytime soon.
4. Posterior (aka "Dumper")
Anthropologically speaking, a round behind is tightly correlated to full hips and breasts, which can more successfully birth and nurse a baby, respectively. (Yeah, I think I have that the right way around.) As such, I'll defer to the words and wisdom of a guy I was in residence with, in first-year of university, who was from England: "Gimme a girl with a three-stone* arse. That'll keep me warm in bed at night."
____________________
* 1 stone = 14 pounds
5. 'Twixt Collar and Waist
They say a woman with curves is what you're shooting for. "They," of course, are the vast, unwashed masses, who buy things like Nickelback albums, chips with fake fat in 'em which give you the runs, and Toyotas. That's why you have to think outside-the-box here. It's like that movie Moneyball, where Billy Beane shopped around and found players who were great in unconventional ways. The result? The Oakland Athletics won the World Series seven times in the first decade of the 21st century. That's a fact, you can look it up.
6. Face (aka "Mug")
Symmetry reigns supreme here: it's a subconscious sign that she's disease-free and thus can crap out a bunch of healthy kids. I suggest bringing along pocket-sized mirrors to various nightclubs, house parties, and other assorted places where you might meet a woman (e.g. the bank, the dentist, the abbatoir). Check her facial symmetry subtly, though; you're going to have to be a ninja about this. I'm not saying you're going to nail the "hold it up to the midpoint of her face vertically and perpendicular to the plane of her cheekbones and then take it away quickly, evaluating the differences between the reflection and the real thing" move on the first try. You'll likely get punched. But, then again, like most things in life, practice makes perfect.
7. Hair (aka "Mane")
Is long hair more feminine than short? Blondes or brunettes? (Or, if you're feeling randy and don't mind a little syphilis, a redhead?) Do you like a Skrillex-ish hairstyle wherein part of one side of her head is shorn down like someone pulled a practical joke on her as she was passed out, drunk, after downing one too many whiskey-sours? Curly hair or straight? Are extensions alright? How about wigs? Do you just solve this problem and only pursue women with alopecia? Lots more questions than answers here, folks.
That about covers it, unless she's wearing a hat (no fucking hats, I cannot stress this enough). I mean, sure, it'd help if she had a fun personality, no serious criminal convictions, a rapier wit and the ability to read and write, but at this point, can I really be that picky?
Friday, January 17, 2014
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Look out for one another, please.
It's always a shock when someone you know dies "before their time," as the saying goes. But when you learn that this person purposefully ended their life, that adds a new dimension to the sorrow.
I went to high school with J. We occasionally hung out in the same circles, saw each other at parties from time to time. He was a quiet kid, but almost always had this impish grin on his face, like you knew he was up to something. When he spoke, there was, oddly, both a playfulness and a wisdom to what he said; if he cracked a joke, it was likely to be one similar to what your parents might tell.
Naturally, when people leave home and go away to school somewhere, there's a tendency to drift apart. You meet new friends, they meet new friends, and like an oak tree reaching for the sky, your lives diverge farther apart, with more and more filling the space between you. So, I hadn't seen J since I was in university, easily... but his dad and mine went to high school together, and would run into each other now and again, and I'd get updates from time to time about what he and his older brother were up to.
The last time our dads saw each other was just before Christmas, and naturally when I visited over the break, I got another update. But, since I don't visit terribly often, my parents choose to use this time to update me on every single person I know, and many I don't. Oh, did I tell you Gracie McWhatsherface is in a home now? You probably don't know her, she's your grandpa's barber's cousin-in-law. So, you tune out. Hell, I even mentioned to them, after about the third hour of updates, "Hey, so, all I get when I come home is all this stuff about people I barely know. What gives?"
To be honest, I can't remember what my dad told me J's dad told him about what J was up to. I'd probably already tuned my dad out by that point, or was trying to do a crossword puzzle, or something equally inconsequential. But another old high school friend of mine called me up late on Friday night and told me the news, so I felt it proper to let my parents know on Saturday afternoon. They're going to the visitation.
Here's the point I'm trying to make. J was a pretty shy guy, and it's incredibly easy for people like that to fly under most peoples' radar. It's easy to forget about the quiet ones, and I'm probably as guilty of that as the next person (despite being a quiet person throughout most of high school myself). If there's someone you know who's a little on the reticent side of the spectrum, drop them a line. Give them a call, poke them on Facebook, do what ya gotta do. I'm not saying something like that could've saved J, but it certainly couldn't have hurt.
I went to high school with J. We occasionally hung out in the same circles, saw each other at parties from time to time. He was a quiet kid, but almost always had this impish grin on his face, like you knew he was up to something. When he spoke, there was, oddly, both a playfulness and a wisdom to what he said; if he cracked a joke, it was likely to be one similar to what your parents might tell.
Naturally, when people leave home and go away to school somewhere, there's a tendency to drift apart. You meet new friends, they meet new friends, and like an oak tree reaching for the sky, your lives diverge farther apart, with more and more filling the space between you. So, I hadn't seen J since I was in university, easily... but his dad and mine went to high school together, and would run into each other now and again, and I'd get updates from time to time about what he and his older brother were up to.
The last time our dads saw each other was just before Christmas, and naturally when I visited over the break, I got another update. But, since I don't visit terribly often, my parents choose to use this time to update me on every single person I know, and many I don't. Oh, did I tell you Gracie McWhatsherface is in a home now? You probably don't know her, she's your grandpa's barber's cousin-in-law. So, you tune out. Hell, I even mentioned to them, after about the third hour of updates, "Hey, so, all I get when I come home is all this stuff about people I barely know. What gives?"
To be honest, I can't remember what my dad told me J's dad told him about what J was up to. I'd probably already tuned my dad out by that point, or was trying to do a crossword puzzle, or something equally inconsequential. But another old high school friend of mine called me up late on Friday night and told me the news, so I felt it proper to let my parents know on Saturday afternoon. They're going to the visitation.
Here's the point I'm trying to make. J was a pretty shy guy, and it's incredibly easy for people like that to fly under most peoples' radar. It's easy to forget about the quiet ones, and I'm probably as guilty of that as the next person (despite being a quiet person throughout most of high school myself). If there's someone you know who's a little on the reticent side of the spectrum, drop them a line. Give them a call, poke them on Facebook, do what ya gotta do. I'm not saying something like that could've saved J, but it certainly couldn't have hurt.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Union shops.
I took a peek at the London Free Press tonight, to see what's going on back-home-a-ways, and saw a story that described how Unifor is looking to organize workers at Toyota plants in Woodstock and Cambridge. (Apparently it isn't the first time they've tried.)
Like an idiot, I took a look at the comments section below the article. At the best of times, they're inoffensive and stupid... but, of course, this being an article about unions, it brought out the labour-bashers in full force.
London has been a manufacturing town for a long time, but lately a lot of industry has left the area for Right To Work (i.e. "right to work for less") US states, Mexico, China, the whole nine. Now, you'd think that, in an environment like that, people would be in favour of organizations that look to protect workers and good-paying jobs, right? Wrong.
I saw a comment which went along the lines of, "If unions went away, that would make the cost of doing business less, which would make goods cheaper, and you could live on a lower wage and still buy these things." There are, however, several things wrong with this.
Could it possibly be that unions help raise the standard for all workers? Think about it... two companies, X and Y, run widget factories. X is unionized and Y isn't; Y pays lower wages than X for the same job. Now, if the gap between wages at X and Y is too big -- i.e., Y is too low -- Y isn't going to be able to attract enough workers, because they'll all go to work at X. (If they settle for Y, they're probably not going to be as happy or productive, and their output suffers; you get what you pay for.) Therefore, wages at Y are tied to the wages at X, and a rising tide lifts all boats, q.e.d.
Like an idiot, I took a look at the comments section below the article. At the best of times, they're inoffensive and stupid... but, of course, this being an article about unions, it brought out the labour-bashers in full force.
London has been a manufacturing town for a long time, but lately a lot of industry has left the area for Right To Work (i.e. "right to work for less") US states, Mexico, China, the whole nine. Now, you'd think that, in an environment like that, people would be in favour of organizations that look to protect workers and good-paying jobs, right? Wrong.
I saw a comment which went along the lines of, "If unions went away, that would make the cost of doing business less, which would make goods cheaper, and you could live on a lower wage and still buy these things." There are, however, several things wrong with this.
- Prices are, as economists say, "sticky downward" -- they go up quickly and easily enough, but they don't come down without a big fight.
- You mean to tell me that some company which is chintzy enough to cockblock their workers' (totally legal) right to unionize wouldn't just pocket the difference between union and non-union wages as profit?
- They obviously would.
- If they didn't, and their shareholders found out, that company would have a mutiny in the boardroom.
- Your motivation for denying people their right to organize and flex their collective muscle is because you want to be able to buy a couple of things a little cheaper?
Could it possibly be that unions help raise the standard for all workers? Think about it... two companies, X and Y, run widget factories. X is unionized and Y isn't; Y pays lower wages than X for the same job. Now, if the gap between wages at X and Y is too big -- i.e., Y is too low -- Y isn't going to be able to attract enough workers, because they'll all go to work at X. (If they settle for Y, they're probably not going to be as happy or productive, and their output suffers; you get what you pay for.) Therefore, wages at Y are tied to the wages at X, and a rising tide lifts all boats, q.e.d.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Rolling Stone's top ten albums of 2013.
First off, I have a pretty cruddy cold. Just puttin' that out there.
When I read Rolling Stone, I often get a little discouraged. All those words spilled about the likes of Miley Cyrus, Drake and Eminem? Who the hell cares! Nobody's going to care about them in 20 years, which is why I usually listen to old stuff: has it stood the test of time, or is it disposable and ridiculous? (I'll do you a favour and tell you to stay the hell away from the Billboard charts. They're depressing.)
But, alas, their editorial staff have given me hope. They've rated the top 50 albums of 2013, and while the three artists I've mentioned above do indeed appear in the list, they're not in the top ten. So that's something, at least.
Without further ado, here are RS's top ten albums of 2013.
1. Vampire Weekend -- Modern Vampires of the City
I admit I don't know a whole lot about this band, but what I've heard sounds interesting and quirky. (I have a KEXP compilation album on which they appear, live in the studio, and it's a good cut of a good song they did a few years ago.) Definitely worth checking out.
2. Kanye West -- Yeezus
Haven't knowingly heard a single note from this album. Don't feel the compulsion to check it out. Didn't he just name his kid North? Moving on.
3. Daft Punk -- Random Access Memories
I'm not much of a fan of electronic music, but what I've heard of this album is interesting and weird and kinda funky. I'm not going to run out and get this album, but I can appreciate its place.
4. Paul McCartney -- New
I was driving somewhere a couple of weeks ago and heard the title cut from this album on the radio. My first thought was, "Hey, whoever this is, they sure as hell like the Beatles." Then the voice kicked in, and I thought, "Hold on a minute, is that Paul McCartney?!" And then, without a word of a lie, the hair on the back of my neck stood up. For someone who idolizes the Beatles, to hear what could easily be a cut from that band in 2013 if they still existed... wow. Amazing.
5. Arcade Fire -- Reflektor
There are a few reasons why I'm not much of an Arcade Fire fan, which I've outlined before. But, y'know what? The title cut of this album ain't bad at all. I can deal with this.
6. Queens of the Stone Age -- ...Like Clockwork
Josh Homme can be a prickly SOB, but I'll be damned if he doesn't write some interesting music; Songs for the Deaf has aged quite well. I know people who hate this band, but frankly I can't figure out why -- they do know he has a sense of humour, right? There aren't that many bands that are both heavy and melodic at the same time, and this is one of them.
7. Lorde -- Pure Heroine
Look, I get it -- she's precocious. So were Tracy Chapman, Fiona Apple, Adele and Amy Winehouse. What I've heard from her has been... well... alright, I suppose. Not terribly compelling. But then again, I don't listen to lyrics, and the electronic-y instrumentation of "Royals" doesn't really thrill me.
8. The National -- Trouble Will Find Me
I'm a little torn on this band, frankly. They sound kinda moody and gloomy, which doesn't usually sit well with me, and their singer sounds like Morrissey after a couple of roofies. But I went to a show they put on at Yonge Dundas Square in the summertime, and it was actually really, really solid. The true test of a band is their live show, which is why it's baffling to me why anyone would ever want to see an electro-whatever band (or a rapper, for that matter) in person. What's there to watch? Someone at a laptop, hitting F3 over and over? I guess if you're tripping on MDMA, I guess it doesn't really matter.
9. Arctic Monkeys -- AM
Full disclosure: I hated this band when they were 19 and telling women how good they'd look on a dance floor; they were loud, fast, and not particularly good. But have you heard anything from this album? They've grown up, they really have. And it's much, much better.
10. John Fogerty -- Wrote a Song for Everyone
Well, he re-recorded a lot of CCR stuff with a bunch of guest artists. I suppose that's alright, but I've always thought it was weird when bands re-did songs they already laid down, years later. I'd hope that the original remains the definitive version, but... ah well. I guess he took decades away from his CCR stuff during all those legal battles and really wanted to play those songs again. Can't fault the guy for that; they're great songs. Still seems weird, though.
There's good music out there, folks. You just won't find it on too many pop radio stations, is all.
When I read Rolling Stone, I often get a little discouraged. All those words spilled about the likes of Miley Cyrus, Drake and Eminem? Who the hell cares! Nobody's going to care about them in 20 years, which is why I usually listen to old stuff: has it stood the test of time, or is it disposable and ridiculous? (I'll do you a favour and tell you to stay the hell away from the Billboard charts. They're depressing.)
But, alas, their editorial staff have given me hope. They've rated the top 50 albums of 2013, and while the three artists I've mentioned above do indeed appear in the list, they're not in the top ten. So that's something, at least.
Without further ado, here are RS's top ten albums of 2013.
1. Vampire Weekend -- Modern Vampires of the City
I admit I don't know a whole lot about this band, but what I've heard sounds interesting and quirky. (I have a KEXP compilation album on which they appear, live in the studio, and it's a good cut of a good song they did a few years ago.) Definitely worth checking out.
2. Kanye West -- Yeezus
Haven't knowingly heard a single note from this album. Don't feel the compulsion to check it out. Didn't he just name his kid North? Moving on.
3. Daft Punk -- Random Access Memories
I'm not much of a fan of electronic music, but what I've heard of this album is interesting and weird and kinda funky. I'm not going to run out and get this album, but I can appreciate its place.
4. Paul McCartney -- New
I was driving somewhere a couple of weeks ago and heard the title cut from this album on the radio. My first thought was, "Hey, whoever this is, they sure as hell like the Beatles." Then the voice kicked in, and I thought, "Hold on a minute, is that Paul McCartney?!" And then, without a word of a lie, the hair on the back of my neck stood up. For someone who idolizes the Beatles, to hear what could easily be a cut from that band in 2013 if they still existed... wow. Amazing.
5. Arcade Fire -- Reflektor
There are a few reasons why I'm not much of an Arcade Fire fan, which I've outlined before. But, y'know what? The title cut of this album ain't bad at all. I can deal with this.
6. Queens of the Stone Age -- ...Like Clockwork
Josh Homme can be a prickly SOB, but I'll be damned if he doesn't write some interesting music; Songs for the Deaf has aged quite well. I know people who hate this band, but frankly I can't figure out why -- they do know he has a sense of humour, right? There aren't that many bands that are both heavy and melodic at the same time, and this is one of them.
7. Lorde -- Pure Heroine
Look, I get it -- she's precocious. So were Tracy Chapman, Fiona Apple, Adele and Amy Winehouse. What I've heard from her has been... well... alright, I suppose. Not terribly compelling. But then again, I don't listen to lyrics, and the electronic-y instrumentation of "Royals" doesn't really thrill me.
8. The National -- Trouble Will Find Me
I'm a little torn on this band, frankly. They sound kinda moody and gloomy, which doesn't usually sit well with me, and their singer sounds like Morrissey after a couple of roofies. But I went to a show they put on at Yonge Dundas Square in the summertime, and it was actually really, really solid. The true test of a band is their live show, which is why it's baffling to me why anyone would ever want to see an electro-whatever band (or a rapper, for that matter) in person. What's there to watch? Someone at a laptop, hitting F3 over and over? I guess if you're tripping on MDMA, I guess it doesn't really matter.
9. Arctic Monkeys -- AM
Full disclosure: I hated this band when they were 19 and telling women how good they'd look on a dance floor; they were loud, fast, and not particularly good. But have you heard anything from this album? They've grown up, they really have. And it's much, much better.
10. John Fogerty -- Wrote a Song for Everyone
Well, he re-recorded a lot of CCR stuff with a bunch of guest artists. I suppose that's alright, but I've always thought it was weird when bands re-did songs they already laid down, years later. I'd hope that the original remains the definitive version, but... ah well. I guess he took decades away from his CCR stuff during all those legal battles and really wanted to play those songs again. Can't fault the guy for that; they're great songs. Still seems weird, though.
There's good music out there, folks. You just won't find it on too many pop radio stations, is all.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Prince Fielder, we hardly knew ye.
Personally, I always really liked the guy. Stand-up fella.
But, trading Fielder to Texas for 2B Ian Kinsler opens up some interesting options. Consider...
But, trading Fielder to Texas for 2B Ian Kinsler opens up some interesting options. Consider...
- Cabrera can be moved back to 1B, where he's a decent fielder (unlike, well, Fielder). He's better at 3B than people give him credit for, but let's face it, Prince was a modern-day Dr. Strangeglove.
- This also allows Victor Martinez to put in some time at 1B, if Cabrera shifts back to third or DHs for a game; V-Mart showed himself to actually be a pretty nimble defensive first baseman in limited time there this year. (He wasn't much of a catcher, admittedly.)
- The elephant in the room, of course, is Nick Castellanos. From all reports, he wasn't ready to make the move from 3B to the outfield anytime soon, despite spending most of his time in LF this year in both Toledo and Detroit. Having him at his natural position makes everybody breathe a little easier, not in the least being Dave Dombrowski.
- What to make of Omar Infante, then? He's got a little pop, and plays solid defence at second... but, of course, his contract is up and he's a free agent. Do they re-sign him and plug him in at third, to buy time until Castellanos proves he's a ready-for-prime-time player? My guess is no, because Infante's too valuable on the open market. Someone's gonna snap him up, and that someone isn't Detroit.
- The Tigers just put Jordan Lennerton on the 40-man roster. I saw him this summer in Toledo, albeit briefly, but he seemed to carry himself pretty well. (He's Canadian, too.) He's not what you'd call a prospect per se, but DD must see some sort of future for him, and he knows the game pretty well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)