watching expired appliances align

Here's the thing. I've spent more time this month creating succinct, friendly emails about fantasy baseball trades than I have blog entries. Because I have an ego the size of the universe, I'm going to share a few of the emails I've written here. I'm doing so because I think it's fun to substitute the term [PLAYER A] for Doug Mientkiewicz .

Here's one from last night. Please note it was written with haste because a friend was on her way over to watch THE OC with me.

[OWNER] -
I know you're reluctant to talk about trading [PLAYER E], but I thought I'd give it a shot. I'm not sure which other two players you're planning on keeping, but I wanted to offer you two very good guys for [NICKNAME FOR PLAYER E].

One of those guys is [PLAYER B]. I know he didn't work out for you last year, but I think he's got his [CITY WHERE PLAYER B PLAYS HOME GAMES] footing this year. His [IMPORTANT BODY PART] is in better shape, so he'll [BASEBALL ACTIVITY] a lot more. And now that we're [USING STAT N], [PLAYER B] becomes even more valuable.

The second guy I'm willing to trade is [PLAYER D]. He can play [POSITION Y] and [POSITION Z], giving you some flexibility. And [FANTASY HOSTING SERVICE OUR LEAGUE USES] projects him as having the [RANK X] best [STAT Q].

So, [PLAYER B] and [PLAYER D] for [PLAYER E] - your thoughts?

-Marc

My friend arrived while I was in the middle of looking up [STAT Q] for [PLAYER D]. I had to finish the email before we pressed play on the DVR. I told her what I was up to (she's read FANTASYLAND so I knew she'd be able to follow along). Upon mentioning the owner I was sending the email to, she laughed at me, suggesting that said owner didn't care so much about stats and that it was probably a bad idea mentioning them in the email.

The owner responded with a terse email this morning, giving word that [PLAYER B] has been banned from his fantasy team.

Because I'm a jerk and can't stop thinking about this kind of stuff (but how good was it to watch the WBC in HD last night?), I sent a response.

I figured that was probably the case.

Because I have trouble taking "no" for an answer, what if I were to offer you both [PLAYER D] and [PLAYER F] for [PLAYER E]?

Both should have high [STAT P], [STAT Q], and [STAT K] numbers, not to mention [STAT I] and [STAT J]. If
you're looking to have a complete group of top tier players, these guys would certainly help. My 2006 Fantasy ProjectOR rates them as the [RANK S] and [RANK T] best hitters worth holding onto. [PLAYER B] actually comes in at [RANK U].

(The 2006 Fantasy ProjectOR is my system of combining projections from multiple sources in order to find the most stable list of projectable keepers. It's either a brilliant project OR a huge waste of my time. Please note that pitchers have not been ranked, but I don't plan on keeping any pitchers.)

[PERSONAL QUESTION ABOUT ACTIVITIES FOR SATURDAY EVENING DELETED]

Marc

So there it is. My friend said don't mention stats and I took the opposite tack, but without getting very specific. Unfortunately, knowing I would turn this morning's response into a blog entry, I felt compelled to mention the 2006 Fantasy ProjectOR. Probably not a good idea because it ups my level of dorkiness to [RANK A].