1.5 for the price of 2?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    1.5 for the price of 2?

    Lessons from Ice Cream Marketing

     

    I hope we aren’t about to be treated to the same end run in marketing as ice cream companies across the country have developed.

     

    For a very long time, one would go to the super market and buy a quantity called a half gallon.  I mean from the time I was as young as five or six years old.  About eight years ago, when I was in my late 40’s, Breyers made a hardly noticeable shift … I was working as a night stocker as a second job to help cover college costs for my older son, so I did notice.  I shop by cost of weight, liquid measurements, and such, not sticker price.  Sneaky little devils started selling 1.75 quarts for the same price as the 2 quarts.  Folks seemed quite ok with it, until I mentioned it to two of my co-workers.  Soon, everyone was up in arms that the store was charging the same price for something that was … though it didn’t look like much less … the packaging was still as tall, still as wide … just a bit slimmer, so few noticed … really quite a bit smaller.


     

    Well, uproar didn’t matter to whomever.  Folks kept buying Breyers.  Soon, all the ice cream companies were selling 1.75 quarts.

     


    So, it sort of eliminated the uproar, because comparisons we less obvious.  Folks just accepted the smaller portions …. At the same or higher prices.

     


    Now, the size has slipped to 1.5 quarts … and few notice.  I do.  I know I am getting less for the apparent same.  The box is still almost as tall, almost was long, just not as wide…a little slipped off again.  Just .25 of a quart.  Or now, .5 of a quart off the old standard.

     


    For those of you that know what a .25 of a quart or a .50 of a quart is … you know that is a significant amount of change.  Sneaky little devils.

    My point?

     


    You’ve just seen the Red Sox pare back. 

    To many, it seems a good thing. 

    Instead of working through problems that adults should be able to work through, fans, players and coaches all failed to accomplish the desired end. 
    So we cut.   Not a little but a lot.  Some think it’s worth it. 

     


    Some have bought into the notion that less is more, instead of more is more, just work it out ….

     


    Now we are saying, well, we know it will take time to rebuild, but we are ready to be patient.

     


    Huh?

     


    We, who were not willing to be patient to see problems solved with highly capable professionals who had an array of issues, one of the most significant was our lack of support in the tough times – no matter what they were.  Some were personal, some were injury related, some were communication issues, but ALL had the capacity to perform if we had all been willing to be patient and wait for – gee – human issues to get better.

     


    Now, we are patient.

     


    Now, we have bitten into the hype of grousers and whiners and the impatient … fans and players alike … and we say, “This tastes better.”

     


    We are sure that the team will rebuild.

     


    Even though we know Henry doesn’t like long term contracts. And likely won't be hoodwinked into any more.

     


    Even though we know there is an insane jealousy by some fans over the uber rich players and will cut them down no matter what.  The toxic atmosphere may be in the clubhouse, but it is clearly in the stands, or on line …


    Even though we will jump on failure … castigate and castrate at the merest twitch or statement from a player who, even though he may be performing at career levels, may say one wrong thing in our wise overview of baseball and its proper forums.

     


    Even though we are ready to flush out our heroes when we begin to think they are going down hill.  The vigor of the anti-Papi forum was ridiculous when he was recovering from injury.  We had I Hate Youk culprits even as he developed into the core player and all star he was.  Others began calling for him being traded because they were tired of his intense displays of anger when he made an out.  Dirt dog?  Nah, whiner.  The whisperings about Pedey now are absurd.

     


    We will get better you say.  Mayhap we will. 

     

    But I wonder if the marketers will say, these dipsticks are so happy with their success at becoming backwater wizards, we may just as well give it to them.  Don’t count on the continued willingness of the ownership group to give us the full 2 quarts … we seem all too happy right now with 1.5 … 

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    If the fans believe they will ever see a 170M team again...they will be sadly mistaken.  The FO has been there, done that, and ain't going there again.  It was fun running with the big dogs for a bit, but it was not the answer. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    Ditto from me, too.  And yes, I have noticed on the ice cream...everyone quickly followed suit, even New England's own Friendly's.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    Both Ice Cream & The Red Sox, if consumed excessivily, will lead to heart damage.  Everything in moderation....that includes payroll and hot fudge sundaes,,,

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    SinceYaz, another outstanding post. You hit this one for a home run   over the left field wall onto Lansdowne Street.
    Posted by 2004Idiots


    Sorry for the late recongition, Idiot ... but thanks.  I wish it wasn't necessary to evn have considered it.

    I am willing to give the new team all the consideration and support it will need.  Or rather, I will support the new team as much and as thoroughly as I have ever supported the Sox.

    Just because the names and faces change, I'm not any less a for my team guy as
    before.  Goes against my nature as a fan.  Though I'll miss Adrian the most, and also miss the Carl that wasn't, I'm still all in the new guys.

    Heck, I was even sorry to see Shoppach go. I didn't even know he'd been dealt until they called his name in a Mets game the next night.

     And just in case someone brings it up, I'm still all in with the fellas left over.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    If the fans believe they will ever see a 170M team again...they will be sadly mistaken.  The FO has been there, done that, and ain't going there again.  It was fun running with the big dogs for a bit, but it was not the answer. 
    Posted by traven


    We may just have to sneak up on a couple others like Papi and Manny.  Of course, we didn't sneak up on Manny ...

       But as Carnie has listed nam  es elsewhere ... I'm excited about some in the farm system.  



       It was fun, though Trav .... it sho' nuff was fun.     A kid's dream come
    true!
        


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    Ditto from me, too.  And yes, I have noticed on the ice cream...everyone quickly followed suit, even New England's own Friendly's.
    Posted by parhunter55


    :o)

    Know what's really bad???  Really, really bad??? 

    I've always liked ice cream ... but I was reasonable about it.

    Now, all of a suddden in the last five or six months, I've become a maniac for it.  I can sit down a slowly eat almost a whole 2 quarts sometimes.

       Uh, I mean a whole 1.5 quarts ...

       Now that I think of it, I guess the good news is I am actually eating less than I would have been ...

      


     



     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    If the fans believe they will ever see a 170M team again...they will be sadly mistaken.  The FO has been there, done that, and ain't going there again.  It was fun running with the big dogs for a bit, but it was not the answer. 
    Posted by traven


    I think they will spend right up to the luxury tax limit. Maybe not in 2013; thats a rebuilding year, not the year to buy anything, just a year to wait for our guys in the minors to get another year under their belts. In 2014 I expect them to spend money to buy bats-not long term idiotic contracts like Epstein perpetrated on the franchise, but sound 3-4 year deals to supplement our home grown products.
    That is, if Cherington is up to the task.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    Both Ice Cream & The Red Sox, if consumed excessivily, will lead to heart damage.  Everything in moderation....that includes payroll and hot fudge sundaes,,,
    Posted by georom4


    Wise man.  You sound like that ancient Greek philosopher  ... no, not Aristotle, but Jimmy.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dustcover. Show dustcover's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    I get your point and it's well stated.

    However, at least on the ice cream price tag, as well as on coffee, potato chips, meat, colas, cereal and most other grocery products, the market where I shop lists 'cost per ounce'. One must simply be observant and exercise 'due diligence' when shopping.

    Perhaps, someone should teach the front-office the concept of 'due diligence' when signing players.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    Pretty long OP.  To what end? 

    If you think the Sox should have been patient with what they had--a rotten rotation that was rotten last year in September and stayed rotten this year--I'm not sure I agree.  Patient with AGon, CC, etc, etc.--I probably agree. 

    But the FO made the bold move to sacrifice AGon and CC and a whole lot of salary to allow Ben C to work seriously on fixing the rotation.  I entirely agree it's a gamble, but I think it's the right one.

    I completely disagree with the 2 vs. 1.5 analogy.  John Henry has consistently spent a lot and flirted with the luxury tax to get the best players.  He's a businessman who knows the Sox are a money-making franchise, but one that needs to be nourished with talented MLB players.  The contracts with AGon, CC, Lackey, Beckett, Drew, Manny, Ortiz, Lowell, et al, demonstrate the Sox will spend to get the talent. 

    Youk didnt't leave because he was griping.  He left because it was Middlebrooks time--he was hitting better and fielding better and was 8 years younger and a whole lot cheaper and under team control for much longer. Plus Youk absolutely did not want to be a backup, and AGon and Ortiz were better at 1B and DH.   Whatever Youk or Bobby V said was irrelevant to those basic facts.  In fact, the Sox did Youk a favor by sending him on to a club that had an opening and was and is in a position to get to the playoffs. My personal animus toward Youk, who I mostly admired for his style of play, is based solely on calling out a teammate for rehabbing out west--where he should have gone--instead of with the team.

    Unfair to Ortiz?  Maybe, but Boston fans and the Boston press were if anything harder on Ted Williams, which is why he stopped waving to fans (this continued to his final dinger in 1960) and talking to the Boston press.  Most of the stuff I read on Ortiz right now is pro and con with respect to bringing him back for the two years he wants.  He was the Sox best hitter this year, but the achilles is ominous, especially given his age. I'm for bringing him back for two years but not for $15M per, but I can understand why the FO might be reluctant. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    I get your point and it's well stated. However, at least on the ice cream price tag, as well as on coffee, potato chips, meat, colas, cereal and most other grocery products, the market where I shop lists 'cost per ounce'. One must simply be observant and exercise 'due diligence' when shopping. Perhaps, someone should teach the front-office the concept of 'due diligence' when signing players.
    Posted by dustcover


    Hey Dusty,
     
       Good to see you, your avatar always make me smile.


      Yep, that's the way I shop; I check the cost per whatever...

      And I agree with your conclusion.

      Frankly, I think that's what LL and Theo did when we signed Crawford, though. The bar that year was set by the Werth deal with the Nats.  7 Years, $127 million ...and most folks thought the Angels had Crawford, at something like 5 or 6 years and $122 million. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2? : I think they will spend right up to the luxury tax limit. Maybe not in 2013; thats a rebuilding year, not the year to buy anything, just a year to wait for our guys in the minors to get another year under their belts. In 2014 I expect them to spend money to buy bats-not long term idiotic contracts like Epstein perpetrated on the franchise, but sound 3-4 year deals to supplement our home grown products. That is, if Cherington is up to the task.
    Posted by pumpsie-green


    Pumpsie,

       My feelings about the deal are fairly well known. 

       But there is the incredible reality that Ben got the deal done with the Sox only having to pay $2 million a year for 6 seasons, starting next season ...
     

       I would never have believed it possible.  Yet, he got it done.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    Lessons from Ice Cream Marketing   I hope we aren’t about to be treated to the same end run in marketing as ice cream companies across the country have developed.   For a very long time, one would go to the super market and buy a quantity called a half gallon.   I mean from the time I was as young as five or six years old.   About eight years ago, when I was in my late 40’s, Breyers made a hardly noticeable shift … I was working as a night stocker as a second job to help cover college costs for my older son, so I did notice.   I shop by cost of weight, liquid measurements, and such, not sticker price.   Sneaky little devils started selling 1.75 quarts for the same price as the 2 quarts.   Folks seemed quite ok with it, until I mentioned it to two of my co-workers.   Soon, everyone was up in arms that the store was charging the same price for something that was … though it didn’t look like much less … the packaging was still as tall, still as wide … just a bit slimmer, so few noticed … really quite a bit smaller.   Well, uproar didn’t matter to whomever.   Folks kept buying Breyers.   Soon, all the ice cream companies were selling 1.75 quarts.   So, it sort of eliminated the uproar, because comparisons we less obvious.   Folks just accepted the smaller portions …. At the same or higher prices.   Now, the size has slipped to 1.5 quarts … and few notice.   I do.   I know I am getting less for the apparent same.   The box is still almost as tall, almost was long, just not as wide…a little slipped off again.   Just .25 of a quart.   Or now, .5 of a quart off the old standard.   For those of you that know what a .25 of a quart or a .50 of a quart is … you know that is a significant amount of change.   Sneaky little devils. My point?   You’ve just seen the Red Sox pare back.   To many, it seems a good thing.   Instead of working through problems that adults should be able to work through, fans, players and coaches all failed to accomplish the desired end.   So we cut.    Not a little but a lot.   Some think it’s worth it.     Some have bought into the notion that less is more, instead of more is more, just work it out ….   Now we are saying, well, we know it will take time to rebuild, but we are ready to be patient.   Huh?   We, who were not willing to be patient to see problems solved with highly capable professionals who had an array of issues, one of the most significant was our lack of support in the tough times – no matter what they were.   Some were personal, some were injury related, some were communication issues, but ALL had the capacity to perform if we had all been willing to be patient and wait for – gee – human issues to get better.   Now, we are patient.   Now, we have bitten into the hype of grousers and whiners and the impatient … fans and players alike … and we say, “This tastes better.”   We are sure that the team will rebuild.   Even though we know Henry doesn’t like long term contracts. And likely won't be hoodwinked into any more.   Even though we know there is an insane jealousy by some fans over the uber rich players and will cut them down no matter what.   The toxic atmosphere may be in the clubhouse, but it is clearly in the stands, or on line … Even though we will jump on failure … castigate and castrate at the merest twitch or statement from a player who, even though he may be performing at career levels, may say one wrong thing in our wise overview of baseball and its proper forums.   Even though we are ready to flush out our heroes when we begin to think they are going down hill.   The vigor of the anti-Papi forum was ridiculous when he was recovering from injury.   We had I Hate Youk culprits even as he developed into the core player and all star he was.   Others began calling for him being traded because they were tired of his intense displays of anger when he made an out.   Dirt dog?   Nah, whiner.   The whisperings about Pedey now are absurd.   We will get better you say.   Mayhap we will.     But I wonder if the marketers will say, these dipsticks are so happy with their success at becoming backwater wizards, we may just as well give it to them.   Don’t count on the continued willingness of the ownership group to give us the full 2 quarts … we seem all too happy right now with 1.5 …  
    Posted by SinceYaz
    Do you have any hard evidence that the clubhouse was/is "toxic"? 
    You're being highly critical of fans. You're a fan. You're being highly critical. What makes your criticism any better than that of the people you criticize?
    You think that fans buy too easily into stuff. You seem to be buying into stuff about the toxic atmosphere. The players say otherwise. 
    You're analogy is sort of clever, but like most extended metaphors collapses of it own weight. In order to work, an extended analogy must be very tight on all points of logic. Yours is not. 
    One of the "logical fallacies" that is treated with care in reasoning texts is "argument by analogy." 

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 6k42lt913c. Show 6k42lt913c's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    John Henry gave the November free agency fans everything that they wanted for several years and when the free agents got injured ( Lackey, Crawford, Jenks, etc.) or underperformed ( Beckett, Lester, Youk) the media, fans, and forums blamed him. I don''t blame him one bit if he sharply curtails spending and relies on the farm system, the draft, and trades. Of course, the talk shows and forums will still be dominated with chronic whiners calling him a cheapskate. New England fans are like that - especially since they became spoiled after 2004 and 2007. John Henry doesn't need or deserve the abuse that he received from Felger and Mazz types. John should give the middle digit to the media and disloyal / impatient fans.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    In Response to 1.5 for the price of 2? : Do you have any hard evidence that the clubhouse was/is "toxic"?  You're being highly critical of fans. You're a fan. You're being highly critical. What makes your criticism any better than that of the people you criticize? You think that fans buy too easily into stuff. You seem to be buying into stuff about the toxic atmosphere. The players say otherwise.  You're analogy is sort of clever, but like most extended metaphors collapses of it own weight. In order to work, an extended analogy must be very tight on all points of logic. Yours is not.  One of the "logical fallacies" that is treated with care in reasoning texts is "argument by analogy." 
    Posted by expitch


    Do you have any hard evidence that the clubhouse was/is "toxic"?

    No, ex, I don’t. I don’t think anyone really does among us … but I could be wrong. I am reacting to the incessant hammering of this issue by so many as if it was gospel. I read it and hear it all over, not just on this forum. Even outside of the Bcoston press - Washington Post, Fox sports, ESPN, Chicago Trib, even every time I watch a game not streaming from NESN.


    You're being highly critical of fans. You're a fan. You're being highly critical. What makes your criticism any better than that of the people you criticize?



    Better? Not better, just my two cents worth. I tire of fans criticizing my team. I used to go after Yanqui interlopers, but find that the fair weather fans of the Red Sox to be more irritating by far. So, I say my piece or peace, pick your choice, by saying it’s more than time to be supportive of your team when things are tough. I also say endlessly that it is far past time for fans to stop making personal statements about someone - they may not have appreciated JD Drew’s quiet way of playing (enter the inevitable comments about his contract being too high {but we make it personal and crass}, he has no passion, is injured too often but almost always a dig beyond fair play …. Or Youk, the ultimate Dirt Dog, with people complaining about his fits of anger when he made an out - excuse me? Are these the same people that wanted passion? Or Adrian, other than homeruns, having a career year and people go ape-snot over his cosmological views - a simple statement that even the Obnoxious Boston Fan made shot after shot … Really? He hits .338, knocks in 117 runs and … what? Come on.



    You think that fans buy too easily into stuff. You seem to be buying into stuff about the toxic atmosphere.



    Nope. It’s just so much a part of what is being played up. I think it’s bull.


    The players say otherwise.


    EXACTLY - AND NO ONE IS LISTENING TO THEM!!!!!


    You're analogy is sort of clever,


    Thank you

    but like most extended metaphors collapses of it own weight.

    Won’t argue with you there. I was merely trying to say it in a different way.


    In order to work, an extended analogy must be very tight on all points of logic. Yours is not.


    Hehe, I’ll try not to get into higher criticism of philosophy, arguing from silence, and other such points.


    One of the "logical fallacies" that is treated with care in reasoning texts is "argument by analogy."


    Not only that but it melts faster than the time it took to type it … it is ice cream, after all.


    Here‘s to great flavors ahead, ex!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    Pretty long OP.  To what end?  If you think the Sox should have been patient with what they had--a rotten rotation that was rotten last year in September and stayed rotten this year--I'm not sure I agree.  Patient with AGon, CC, etc, etc.--I probably agree.  But the FO made the bold move to sacrifice AGon and CC and a whole lot of salary to allow Ben C to work seriously on fixing the rotation.  I entirely agree it's a gamble, but I think it's the right one. I completely disagree with the 2 vs. 1.5 analogy.  John Henry has consistently spent a lot and flirted with the luxury tax to get the best players.  He's a businessman who knows the Sox are a money-making franchise, but one that needs to be nourished with talented MLB players.  The contracts with AGon, CC, Lackey, Beckett, Drew, Manny, Ortiz, Lowell, et al, demonstrate the Sox will spend to get the talent.  Youk didnt't leave because he was griping.  He left because it was Middlebrooks time--he was hitting better and fielding better and was 8 years younger and a whole lot cheaper and under team control for much longer. Plus Youk absolutely did not want to be a backup, and AGon and Ortiz were better at 1B and DH.   Whatever Youk or Bobby V said was irrelevant to those basic facts.  In fact, the Sox did Youk a favor by sending him on to a club that had an opening and was and is in a position to get to the playoffs. My personal animus toward Youk, who I mostly admired for his style of play, is based solely on calling out a teammate for rehabbing out west--where he should have gone--instead of with the team. Unfair to Ortiz?  Maybe, but Boston fans and the Boston press were if anything harder on Ted Williams, which is why he stopped waving to fans (this continued to his final dinger in 1960) and talking to the Boston press.  Most of the stuff I read on Ortiz right now is pro and con with respect to bringing him back for the two years he wants.  He was the Sox best hitter this year, but the achilles is ominous, especially given his age. I'm for bringing him back for two years but not for $15M per, but I can understand why the FO might be reluctant. 
    Posted by maxbialystock




    Pretty long OP. 


    Yep, I don’t try to trim stuff down. Heck, I can’t even tell a short joke.


    Too what end?


    To win a Pulitzer…obviously :o)



    If you think the Sox should have been patient with what they had--a rotten rotation that was rotten last year in September and stayed rotten this year--I'm not sure I agree.



    Confounding I know … had me pulling out hair. I’m just glad my cat had plenty. I don’t know what to say, but if they can turn that bad that fast … there’s something in me that says they can be brought back. I still feel that way about Lester -



    Patient with AGon, CC, etc, etc.--I probably agree.



    A-Gon proved himself last year and proved he was out of that early slow start… CC, I wish we had more time, but I think he’d always feel beholding to the Sox fans in a way that maybe he’d never get his head right.



    But the FO made the bold move to sacrifice AGon and CC and a whole lot of salary to allow Ben C to work seriously on fixing the rotation. I entirely agree it's a gamble, but I think it's the right one.



    The best thing I felt about it at first was the obvious relief Ben showed. I’m gonna let you in on a secret. I’m a sucker for whatever the FO tells us … and these two top of the line arms we are getting as prospects made/make me feel somewhat beter. And maybe Loney will live up to his potential.



    I completely disagree with the 2 vs. 1.5 analogy. John Henry has consistently spent a lot and flirted with the luxury tax to get the best players.



    Yes, but also historically has only been willing to go so far. He choked on A-Rod (thankfully) over “only” $4 mill more a year. He put his foot down on the extra year Teixiera got with NY. And now, snake-bitten by CC and not seeing Adrian as the super player that changed all futures … I think he will be very, very careful.



    He's a businessman who knows the Sox are a money-making franchise, but one that needs to be nourished with talented MLB players. The contracts with AGon, CC, Lackey, Beckett, Drew, Manny, Ortiz, Lowell, et al, demonstrate the Sox will spend to get the talent.

    Did, but maybe not will … I am hoping, of course, you are right and I am wrong.


    Youk didnt't leave because he was griping. He left because it was Middlebrooks time--he was hitting better and fielding better and was 8 years younger and a whole lot cheaper and under team control for much longer. Plus Youk absolutely did not want to be a backup, and AGon and Ortiz were better at 1B and DH. Whatever Youk or Bobby V said was irrelevant to those basic facts. In fact, the Sox did Youk a favor by sending him on to a club that had an opening and was and is in a position to get to the playoffs. My personal animus toward Youk, who I mostly admired for his style of play, is based solely on calling out a teammate for rehabbing out west--where he should have gone--instead of with the team.

    Unfair to Ortiz? Maybe, but Boston fans and the Boston press were if anything harder on Ted Williams, which is why he stopped waving to fans (this continued to his final dinger in 1960) and talking to the Boston press.



    Before my time, but the press was not nice with Yaz and Rice … so I know that history continues in one fashion or another. I used to read Mazz as a reasonable alternative to the CHB … but have tired of his negativity.



    Most of the stuff I read on Ortiz right now is pro


    Now, my friend, now. But there was a lot of unrelenting stuff about him during the seasons he was coming back from that wrist injury. Instead of supporting him - and I know many did - there were those who were ready to drop him like a used hankie.


    and con with respect to bringing him back for the two years he wants. He was the Sox best hitter this year, but the achilles is ominous, especially given his age.


    Yes, and he has been treated better, but there is still a core of strident “get rid of him, he’s a bum” group


    I'm for bringing him back for two years but not for $15M per, but I can understand why the FO might be reluctant.


    I’m even reluctant to offer a straight 2 year - because of his leg and feet issues. 1 plus mutual option???


    Max, I respect your opinion. And I find that I am the one coming across on the negative side, but going forward, things will be better … maybe even sooner than I’ve considered.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    In Response to Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?:
    Wow, that was verbose and sappy.

    Thank you

    Do you have the cliff notes?

    Nope, what you see is what you get. 



    Now, the size has slipped to 1.5 quarts … and few notice.   I do.   I know I am getting less for the apparent same.  


    It's called "inflation",


    True

    due to the policies of the Obama administratoin. The price of fuel and unemployment insurance and the EPA and OSHA regulations is why the company had to cut back on the portions.

    Sorry, can't blame Obama for that:

      1)  The time reference mentioned was during the 2nd Bush in the White House.

       2)  In the same time period mentioned, as well as a few years earlier, China and India began purchasing increasing amounts of petrol.  China became the highest driving force of the cost of gas, as its economy shuddered into the modern age.  The amount of the increase of gas sold to those two population giants forced the cost to jump higher and higher.

      3)  The War against Iraq and Afghanistan caused even more unrest ... added the fears that terrorists helped create in the first place ...


      I'm not giving Obama a clean slate, but please try to get your facts straight.  It helps.  At least to those of us who try to be "fair and honest."

     


    To help make those portion from going even smaller, the company ordered slight fine tuning changes to the mass production machinery to keep from having to completely retool. 

    Be thankful that the Red Sox aren't asking for a UAW style Chicago crony Big Labor bailout, straight from the little non-labor men and the "fat cats" who pay almost all of the taxes.  And be thankful that the Obama administration hasn't instructed the FDA to ban ice cream because of it's violation of federal class identity and obesity and lactose health problem violations.
    Posted by TrotterNixon
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from charliedarling. Show charliedarling's posts

    Re: 1.5 for the price of 2?

    6k4,

    i have no problem with mr. henry cutting back on the big spending on middle age free agents.  he is a smart business man and has seen that such a practice has, for the most part, not worked very well.

    i do have a problem if he raises ticket prices or concessions prices every year once he does decide not to continue to spend big money on free agents even though i can understand that he owns the red sox as a business and should try to make as much money from his business as possible.

    i also have a big problem when he cannot admit a mistake and then make a correction.  i am very upset that he could not come out and admit that valentine was a mistake in the middle of the season when the season may have been saved.  i understand that a new manager on july 1st would not have guaranteed anything, but not having a new manager on july 1st seemed to say that it didn't matter if the season was to be saved.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share