It was basically a publicly stunt, that's why he wasn't on the 2001 roster. Could you imagine that, when you rank all the dumb things this franchise has pulled off that should be right at the top of the listD-train wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:13 pmHis 1996 season, given his age was one of the best seasons of all time.Vogelbomb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:09 pmSeems like A-Rod is being left out here for no reason.
So Alex, I didn't even know this, played 17 gms in '94 at 18 yo. That year should be tossed. 17 games is a small sample
Then in '95 he plays 48 at age 19, hits 5 bombs in limited PAs (149). Are we going to count that as a season?
then in '96 at 20: 36
97: 23
98: 42
99: 42
5 yr total from age 19-23: 148
Yes if they didn't idiotically start his clock at age 18 for no reason he is on the 2001 team and we likely win the WS. Cursed franchise.
Will Cal be #1?
- Donn Beach
- Posts: 16805
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am
Re: Will Cal be #1?
Re: Will Cal be #1?
We have a definitive answer. Cal will not be #1. Comical oversight by Pharmabro. lolVogelbomb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:09 pmSeems like A-Rod is being left out here for no reason.
So Alex, I didn't even know this, played 17 gms in '94 at 18 yo. That year should be tossed. 17 games is a small sample
Then in '95 he plays 48 at age 19, hits 5 bombs in limited PAs (149). Are we going to count that as a season?
then in '96 at 20: 36
97: 23
98: 42
99: 42
5 yr total from age 19-23: 148
dt
Re: Will Cal be #1?
I remember watching Alex at the plate in '96 and just being sort of amazed at how confident he looked up there. There was no "young player" aspect to him at all. He knew exactly what he was doing.D-train wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:17 pmWe have a definitive answer. Cal will not be #1. Comical oversight by Pharmabro. lolVogelbomb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:09 pmSeems like A-Rod is being left out here for no reason.
So Alex, I didn't even know this, played 17 gms in '94 at 18 yo. That year should be tossed. 17 games is a small sample
Then in '95 he plays 48 at age 19, hits 5 bombs in limited PAs (149). Are we going to count that as a season?
then in '96 at 20: 36
97: 23
98: 42
99: 42
5 yr total from age 19-23: 148
- Sibelius Hindemith
- Posts: 14063
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 3:09 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Will Cal be #1?
Come on, don't you think there'a chance Cal gets 56 blasts this year?D-train wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:17 pmWe have a definitive answer. Cal will not be #1. Comical oversight by Pharmabro. lolVogelbomb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:09 pmSeems like A-Rod is being left out here for no reason.
So Alex, I didn't even know this, played 17 gms in '94 at 18 yo. That year should be tossed. 17 games is a small sample
Then in '95 he plays 48 at age 19, hits 5 bombs in limited PAs (149). Are we going to count that as a season?
then in '96 at 20: 36
97: 23
98: 42
99: 42
5 yr total from age 19-23: 148
- Sibelius Hindemith
- Posts: 14063
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 3:09 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Will Cal be #1?
Was 19 games enough th start his clock?Donn Beach wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:16 pmIt was basically a publicly stunt, that's why he wasn't on the 2001 roster. Could you imagine that, when you rank all the dumb things this franchise has pulled off that should be right at the top of the listD-train wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:13 pmHis 1996 season, given his age was one of the best seasons of all time.Vogelbomb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:09 pmSeems like A-Rod is being left out here for no reason.
So Alex, I didn't even know this, played 17 gms in '94 at 18 yo. That year should be tossed. 17 games is a small sample
Then in '95 he plays 48 at age 19, hits 5 bombs in limited PAs (149). Are we going to count that as a season?
then in '96 at 20: 36
97: 23
98: 42
99: 42
5 yr total from age 19-23: 148
Yes if they didn't idiotically start his clock at age 18 for no reason he is on the 2001 team and we likely win the WS. Cursed franchise.
Re: Will Cal be #1?
1994 and 1995 combined counted as one year because he was only here for 5 more seasons. They didn't need him in 1995 either.Sibelius Hindemith wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 5:19 pmWas 19 games enough th start his clock?Donn Beach wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 4:16 pmIt was basically a publicly stunt, that's why he wasn't on the 2001 roster. Could you imagine that, when you rank all the dumb things this franchise has pulled off that should be right at the top of the list
dt
- Sibelius Hindemith
- Posts: 14063
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 3:09 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Will Cal be #1?
If he had stuck around though they might not have gone after Brett Boone. Given a choice, i'd take Brett over Mr. Phony. However, if they did sign him anyway and put ARod at SS they might have won 120 games and a WS.
Re: Will Cal be #1?
What??? He would have played SS and Guillen would have stayed at 3B. Boone was our 2B.Sibelius Hindemith wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 5:59 pmIf he had stuck around though they might not have gone after Brett Boone. Given a choice, i'd take Brett over Mr. Phony. However, if they did sign him anyway and put ARod at SS they might have won 120 games and a WS.
dt
- Sibelius Hindemith
- Posts: 14063
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 3:09 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Will Cal be #1?
Guillen was the SS. Bell was 3B.