Occasional East Windup scribe (well, twice) David Chalk has a funny new series going at Bugs and Cranks where he previews every MLB team as they compare to his (he calls them “our”) Devil Rays. The series is called “Your Team Ain’t S#!T Compared to the Devil Rays.”
Here’s a highlight from his recent comparison of his Rays and Reds (which I took strong offense to as you’ll find in the comments section).
Argument #1: A Destination Players Want To Come To.
Neither our Devil Rays nor the Reds have had a winning season this millennium.
And yet.
My new favorite Devil Ray, Troy Percival, chose us over the Yankees because we have more talent and more potential.
The Reds may round out their rotation with free agent signees/castoffs from last year’s horrible fluke Rockies Jeremy Affeldt and Josh Fogg. They signed one-year deals for $1 million and $3 million respectively. That sounds like we’ll take whatever we can get money. That sounds like we don’t want to be here, we just ended up here to me.
And then there’s my favorite Red, Bronson Arroyo, singing about how he’d so much rather be back in Boston.
I can’t say I blame him, but I don’t hear Matt Garza singing any I wish I was back in Minnesota ditties.
But really, what does Cincinnati have to offer that would make anyone want to go there?
Besides the joy of having Dick Pole as your pitching coach, obviously.
To get a sense of just how deluded Chalk is about the Rays, don’t miss his recent Win/$ Projections: Devil Rays To Win 118 In 2008, for which he uses a new and unique metric to project that the Rays will set a new regular season record for wins.

2 responses so far ↓
1 Joel // Feb 29, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Personally Im starting to like the Rays a little. I don’t think they can win 118 games but you can tell theyre going to be better. James Shields/Kazmir. Solid lineup with good speed.
Actually, I’d say Percival is theyre biggest ?? I still dont believe in teh guy after the #s he put up last season.
2 ken // Feb 29, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I joined you in the pile-on. What a joke of an article. If you’re going to take the non-analytical and humorous approach, then you actually need to be, you know, funny.
Leave a Comment