The Unresolved Bullpen Angst Thread

[Pre]

Wuertz's slider if filthy this year

I know he gets a lot of hate, but Wuertz was always pretty effective with the Cubs.

[Internet Apex]

They have a guy like him. His name's Aaron Heilman.

[Kermit, B.]

Wuertz's slider if filthy this year

I know he gets a lot of hate, but Wuertz was always pretty effective with the Cubs.

I don't understand why he got hate at all.  When he was used properly, he was terrific.

[Internet Apex]

Wuertz's slider if filthy this year

I know he gets a lot of hate, but Wuertz was always pretty effective with the Cubs.

I don't understand why he got hate at all.  When he was used properly, he was terrific.

I think it's the whole "Handle With Care" tag that got on Lou and Hendry's nerves and got him shipped out. As a fan, it kind of bugs the piss out of me too. Oh, for the days of pure unadulterated use of PEDs. Times as simple as American League baseball.

[Weebs]

Wuertz's slider if filthy this year

I know he gets a lot of hate, but Wuertz was always pretty effective with the Cubs.

I don't understand why he got hate at all.  When he was used properly, he was terrific.

You mean any time he actually came in with runners on?  I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning.  How did Lou not see that?

[*In a Nutsack]

They have a guy like him. His name's Aaron Heilman.

AN-HELL GOOZMAN!

[Eli]

Wuertz's slider if filthy this year

I know he gets a lot of hate, but Wuertz was always pretty effective with the Cubs.

I don't understand why he got hate at all.  When he was used properly, he was terrific.

I think it's the whole "Handle With Care" tag that got on Lou and Hendry's nerves and got him shipped out. As a fan, it kind of bugs the piss out of me too. Oh, for the days of pure unadulterated use of PEDs. Times as simple as American League baseball.

We all went over the "handle with care" thing a while back it turned out that it wasn't true.

[Saul Goodman]

Lou just didn't like Wuertz for some reason.  He complained about him and how 'all that guy does is throw sliders' in winter meetings. So Hendry got rid of him. He's probably still glad he's gone. Which makes no sense. The Sox manager is supposed to be the irrational one! I don't know what to believe anymore!

[Pre]

You mean any time he actually came in with runners on?  I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning.  How did Lou not see that?

I was curious, do you just regurgitate what other stupid people tell you, or do you look
up the stats and not understand them and make the wrong conclusions?

Wuertz had between an above average and an excellent IS% in his time with the Cubs.
He was good at stranding inherited runners.  He's putting up another excellent year
with the A's doing just that.

Living in a twisted world of your selective memory might help you pass the days feeling
like you're the world's most awesomest at everything, and I'm cool with that.  But
please stop projecting your crazy on our conversations.

[Weebs]

You mean any time he actually came in with runners on?  I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning.  How did Lou not see that?

I was curious, do you just regurgitate what other stupid people tell you, or do you look
up the stats and not understand them and make the wrong conclusions?

Wuertz had between an above average and an excellent IS% in his time with the Cubs.
He was good at stranding inherited runners.  He's putting up another excellent year
with the A's doing just that.

Living in a twisted world of your selective memory might help you pass the days feeling
like you're the world's most awesomest at everything, and I'm cool with that.  But
please stop projecting your crazy on our conversations.

I actually was saying, in response to BK's post about "when he was used properly," that Wuertz was best with runners on.  He was incredible at getting out of jams.  All his trouble came when he had to start off an inning himself and would seem to create his own trouble to get out of.

But no, assuming I was saying the wrong thing is more fun.

[Tank]

You mean any time he actually came in with runners on?  I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning.  How did Lou not see that?

I was curious, do you just regurgitate what other stupid people tell you, or do you look
up the stats and not understand them and make the wrong conclusions?

Wuertz had between an above average and an excellent IS% in his time with the Cubs.
He was good at stranding inherited runners.  He's putting up another excellent year
with the A's doing just that.

Living in a twisted world of your selective memory might help you pass the days feeling
like you're the world's most awesomest at everything, and I'm cool with that.  But
please stop projecting your crazy on our conversations.

I actually was saying, in response to BK's post about "when he was used properly," that Wuertz was best with runners on.  He was incredible at getting out of jams.  All his trouble came when he had to start off an inning himself and would seem to create his own trouble to get out of.

But no, assuming I was saying the wrong thing is more fun.

All he had to go on is what you wrote.

I read it the same as Pre.

"I even wanted him gone" is confusing, because it seems to build off of and extend the previous thought.

As in: "I wanted him gone when he shit his pants after coming in with runners on. I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning."

I took me several reads to realize that you probably meant: "I liked him when he stranded inherited runners. But even I wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning."

But, then, I too tend to labor under the assumption that you're generally a jackass.

So pay me no mind.

[Weebs]

You mean any time he actually came in with runners on?  I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning.  How did Lou not see that?

I was curious, do you just regurgitate what other stupid people tell you, or do you look
up the stats and not understand them and make the wrong conclusions?

Wuertz had between an above average and an excellent IS% in his time with the Cubs.
He was good at stranding inherited runners.  He's putting up another excellent year
with the A's doing just that.

Living in a twisted world of your selective memory might help you pass the days feeling
like you're the world's most awesomest at everything, and I'm cool with that.  But
please stop projecting your crazy on our conversations.

I actually was saying, in response to BK's post about "when he was used properly," that Wuertz was best with runners on.  He was incredible at getting out of jams.  All his trouble came when he had to start off an inning himself and would seem to create his own trouble to get out of.

But no, assuming I was saying the wrong thing is more fun.

All he had to go on is what you wrote.

I read it the same as Pre.

"I even wanted him gone" is confusing, because it seems to build off of and extend the previous thought.

As in: "I wanted him gone when he shit his pants after coming in with runners on. I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning."

I took me several reads to realize that you probably meant: "I liked him when he stranded inherited runners. But even I wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning."

But, then, I too tend to labor under the assumption that you're generally a jackass.

So pay me no mind.

It was 1 AM.  At that time, my brain can only process analog sticks, A, B, X and Y.

[Tank]

You mean any time he actually came in with runners on?  I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning.  How did Lou not see that?

I was curious, do you just regurgitate what other stupid people tell you, or do you look
up the stats and not understand them and make the wrong conclusions?

Wuertz had between an above average and an excellent IS% in his time with the Cubs.
He was good at stranding inherited runners.  He's putting up another excellent year
with the A's doing just that.

Living in a twisted world of your selective memory might help you pass the days feeling
like you're the world's most awesomest at everything, and I'm cool with that.  But
please stop projecting your crazy on our conversations.

I actually was saying, in response to BK's post about "when he was used properly," that Wuertz was best with runners on.  He was incredible at getting out of jams.  All his trouble came when he had to start off an inning himself and would seem to create his own trouble to get out of.

But no, assuming I was saying the wrong thing is more fun.

All he had to go on is what you wrote.

I read it the same as Pre.

"I even wanted him gone" is confusing, because it seems to build off of and extend the previous thought.

As in: "I wanted him gone when he shit his pants after coming in with runners on. I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning."

I took me several reads to realize that you probably meant: "I liked him when he stranded inherited runners. But even I wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning."

But, then, I too tend to labor under the assumption that you're generally a jackass.

So pay me no mind.

It was 1 AM.  At that time, my brain can only process analog sticks, A, B, X and Y.

Which of those doesn't get you laid?

[Weebs]

You mean any time he actually came in with runners on?  I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning.  How did Lou not see that?

I was curious, do you just regurgitate what other stupid people tell you, or do you look
up the stats and not understand them and make the wrong conclusions?

Wuertz had between an above average and an excellent IS% in his time with the Cubs.
He was good at stranding inherited runners.  He's putting up another excellent year
with the A's doing just that.

Living in a twisted world of your selective memory might help you pass the days feeling
like you're the world's most awesomest at everything, and I'm cool with that.  But
please stop projecting your crazy on our conversations.

I actually was saying, in response to BK's post about "when he was used properly," that Wuertz was best with runners on.  He was incredible at getting out of jams.  All his trouble came when he had to start off an inning himself and would seem to create his own trouble to get out of.

But no, assuming I was saying the wrong thing is more fun.

All he had to go on is what you wrote.

I read it the same as Pre.

"I even wanted him gone" is confusing, because it seems to build off of and extend the previous thought.

As in: "I wanted him gone when he shit his pants after coming in with runners on. I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning."

I took me several reads to realize that you probably meant: "I liked him when he stranded inherited runners. But even I wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning."

But, then, I too tend to labor under the assumption that you're generally a jackass.

So pay me no mind.

It was 1 AM.  At that time, my brain can only process analog sticks, A, B, X and Y.

Which of those doesn't get you laid?

It's a sad world that we live in when I'm actually getting sex on a regular basis.

[Quality Start Machine]

You mean any time he actually came in with runners on?  I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning.  How did Lou not see that?

I was curious, do you just regurgitate what other stupid people tell you, or do you look
up the stats and not understand them and make the wrong conclusions?

Wuertz had between an above average and an excellent IS% in his time with the Cubs.
He was good at stranding inherited runners.  He's putting up another excellent year
with the A's doing just that.

Living in a twisted world of your selective memory might help you pass the days feeling
like you're the world's most awesomest at everything, and I'm cool with that.  But
please stop projecting your crazy on our conversations.

I actually was saying, in response to BK's post about "when he was used properly," that Wuertz was best with runners on.  He was incredible at getting out of jams.  All his trouble came when he had to start off an inning himself and would seem to create his own trouble to get out of.

But no, assuming I was saying the wrong thing is more fun.

All he had to go on is what you wrote.

I read it the same as Pre.

"I even wanted him gone" is confusing, because it seems to build off of and extend the previous thought.

As in: "I wanted him gone when he shit his pants after coming in with runners on. I even wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning."

I took me several reads to realize that you probably meant: "I liked him when he stranded inherited runners. But even I wanted him gone after he shit his pants anytime he started off an inning."

But, then, I too tend to labor under the assumption that you're generally a jackass.

So pay me no mind.

It was 1 AM.  At that time, my brain can only process analog sticks, A, B, X and Y.

Which of those doesn't get you laid?

It's a sad world that we live in when I'm actually getting sex on a regular basis.

Beatin' it doesn't count.