Got a question in the ol' email@example.com inbox from Citizen Mark:
Justice's new blog post has a similar feel to your post on McTaggart's "Few Needs" article. Pissed?
There was a flap yesterday over Bill Simmons having the same schtick as a sports blogger (re: Chris Johnson's vanilla name) who had a similar post the previous day.
Simmons denied it, pointing out (rightly so):
Do (you) think after 12 yrs of coming up with my own stuff that a) I need to steal ideas, or b) I'd risk my career like that? Come on.
It's a valid point. Which is why I'm not going to get my hackles up over Justice's post saying that the "Astros Have Few Needs Entering Winter Meetings Headline" was ridiculous. As did Astros County yesterday.
There's not much going on in Astroland, with the Astros being the source of virtually no news, except who's going to take our relievers off our hands, and how bad everyone thinks our farm system is. As pointed out in the Sports by Brooks post, sometimes people have the same ideas. I won't ever read another blogger or journalist's article and pawn it as my own, and I wouldn't expect anybody else to do it either. Oh, I'll use it as material, but I'll always link to the original source.
Justice fleshed his post out better than mine (of course, I have a job, that actually pays money. This...not so much.):
Needs? The Astros might have as many of them as any team in the major leagues. What they don't have is a plan for filling those needs. They'll probably throw some young players onto the big league roster and see what happens. Maybe there'll be some free-agent bargains on the market in late January.
I like the idea of finding out if Chris Johnson and Tommy Manzella can play, but until the starting rotation gets better, the Astros aren't going to come close to contending.
It's not an issue of whether the Astros have needs. It's an issue that they're taking a unique approach to filling those needs. They're not. Glass half full. End of discussion.