2013 Red Sox: "Significantly Improved Team" - Hunter Golden, Fire Brand of the Americal League

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

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I count at least two people who don't understand what plagiarism encompasses. Here is a link to a simple tutorial:

    http://plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism/

    [/QUOTE]


    Technically you are correct, but this sort of thing happens all the time on every forum I have ever been on. I seriously doubt anyone has ever sued a fan for posting his article on a baseball forum. And like Baldy, I appreciate being able to read it without having to use a link.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I count at least two people who don't understand what plagiarism encompasses. Here is a link to a simple tutorial:

    http://plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism/

    [/QUOTE]

    I'de  click on it, but I'm too lazy, and fear malware.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to bald-predictions' comment:

    I'de  click on it, but I'm too lazy, and fear malware.


    The "fair use" rules permit me to excerpt this blurb on an example of plagiarism: "copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not."

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bald-predictions' comment:

    I'de  click on it, but I'm too lazy, and fear malware.



    The "fair use" rules permit me to excerpt this blurb on an example of plagiarism: "copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not."

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


      Are you accusing Hunter Golden of plagiarism?

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to vtfanofcs' comment:

    Are you accusing Hunter Golden of plagiarism?


    Of course not.

    I accuse anyone who copies six lengthy paragraphs verbatim, even with attribution.

    If EdithBRTN is Hunter Golden, then I'm cool with it. I've been accused of plagiarism for copying my work under one name on one forum to another forum under a different name.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Did you somehow overlook Babe's post?


    In my post that raised the plagiarism issue, I linked the original plagiarized by helloitsmeagain.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to parhunter55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    moon, are you reading?  This says what I have been trying to convey in the "rethinking 2013" thread.

    [/QUOTE]

    Where is the priority to improve our biggest 2 weaknesses?

    Slot 1/2 starting pitcher

    Solid 3/4 slot hitter

     

    Or, the priority to add a single player that rates to significantly help us in 2014 or 2015.

     

    It's shocking to me that these were not even listed as priorities, or they were intentionally left off the list to make it appear as if Ben has met all or most of the priorities and guidlines to his winter plan.

    [/QUOTE]


    Moon, Not sure if you even read what his comments were.

    1. Don't give up draft picks

    2. Retain Priority Prospects

    3. Maintain payroll flexibility

    4. Be able to pivot if prospect doesn't pan out.

    IMO Edith hit the nail right on the head and pointed the direction that Ben C has decided to move the RS. While it is your idea that the RS should have made a move to get a #1 or 2 starter, the only 2 imo that moved were Greinke and Dickey which would have shot holes in the above statement about draft picks/priority prospects/payroll flexibility. While I agree w/ everything Edith mentioned, I also agree that RS need a No.1 or 2 starter to be considered a WS contender. But I would never would have given it up for a 38 yr old or a guy who doesn't like pressure pitching in the Boston. Unfortunately there were no Hamels or Matt Cain in this yr's FA. Listening to your statement I would assume you wanted RS to sign both Greinke & Hamilton because they were both there and fit your criteria. With what was available [no ones trading a #1 or 2 unless emptying the farm], Ben did what was best for the long term best interest of the RS, kept his draft picks and retained his top prospects. Which hopefully will provide team with the pieces it needs to win a WS down the road, and maybe next year or yr after when say a David Price hits FA, the RS will also have payroll flexibility to make a move and sign + top prospects + draft picks. For me this is the right direction given the what was available.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    moon, are you reading?  This says what I have been trying to convey in the "rethinking 2013" thread.

    [/QUOTE]

    Where is the priority to improve our biggest 2 weaknesses?

    Slot 1/2 starting pitcher

    Solid 3/4 slot hitter

     

    Or, the priority to add a single player that rates to significantly help us in 2014 or 2015.

     

    It's shocking to me that these were not even listed as priorities, or they were intentionally left off the list to make it appear as if Ben has met all or most of the priorities and guidlines to his winter plan.

    [/QUOTE]


    Moon, Not sure if you even read what his comments were.

    1. Don't give up draft picks

    2. Retain Priority Prospects

    3. Maintain payroll flexibility

    4. Be able to pivot if prospect doesn't pan out.

    Yes, I read the comments, and I disagree with the list of this winter's priorities. It's easy to formulate a list of priorities missing the top 2 and then claiming success by showing Ben met all the top priorities.

    It would have been nearly impossible to not improve this team over 2012, especially spending the millions and millions that were spent.

    To claim that ebcause we have no 4+ year deals, somehow that magically makes us better for that specific reason is not the truth. Maybe we can argue semantic on what is a true 1/2 slot SP, but to me a top 30-45 starter in MLB is certainly a 2 slot starter. There were some that could have been traded for, and some that have potential to be a top 45-60 starter in 2013. Dempster may end up being 45-60th, but is not the difference maker we needed. He certainly is not going to help us much in 2014 and will be gone by 2015. We have not addressed our longterm SP need this winter. We just pushed along the problem to another time.

    No way is Naps going to replace AGon's bat in a line-up that was already in need of a big RH'd bat. We failed miserably to fill the middle of the line-up need both for 2013, but more importantly for 2014 and beyond.

    We didn't need to fill both of our biggest needs this winter. We could have done the other next year, but we did nothing to fill our biggest 2 needs, and so many here seem so giddy about it.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    IMO Edith hit the nail right on the head and pointed the direction that Ben C has decided to move the RS. While it is your idea that the RS should have made a move to get a #1 or 2 starter, the only 2 imo that moved were Greinke and Dickey which would have shot holes in the above statement about draft picks/priority prospects/payroll flexibility. While I agree w/ everything Edith mentioned, I also agree that RS need a No.1 or 2 starter to be considered a WS contender. But I would never would have given it up for a 38 yr old or a guy who doesn't like pressure pitching in the Boston. Unfortunately there were no Hamels or Matt Cain in this yr's FA. Listening to your statement I would assume you wanted RS to sign both Greinke & Hamilton because they were both there and fit your criteria. With what was available [no ones trading a #1 or 2 unless emptying the farm], Ben did what was best for the long term best interest of the RS, kept his draft picks and retained his top prospects. Which hopefully will provide team with the pieces it needs to win a WS down the road, and maybe next year or yr after when say a David Price hits FA, the RS will also have payroll flexibility to make a move and sign + top prospects + draft picks. For me this is the right direction given the what was available.

    A Sanchez is a legitimate #2 starter...more so than Dickey IMO.

    Trading for a starter could have been done, and we could have replaced (to some extent) some of the prospects needed to get that SP by trading away all our 2014 FAs to be and maybe Bailey and Miller as well.

    We'd be better in 2013, and we'd be much better in 2014 and beyond, something we are not with this winter's moves.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO Edith hit the nail right on the head and pointed the direction that Ben C has decided to move the RS. While it is your idea that the RS should have made a move to get a #1 or 2 starter, the only 2 imo that moved were Greinke and Dickey which would have shot holes in the above statement about draft picks/priority prospects/payroll flexibility. While I agree w/ everything Edith mentioned, I also agree that RS need a No.1 or 2 starter to be considered a WS contender. But I would never would have given it up for a 38 yr old or a guy who doesn't like pressure pitching in the Boston. Unfortunately there were no Hamels or Matt Cain in this yr's FA. Listening to your statement I would assume you wanted RS to sign both Greinke & Hamilton because they were both there and fit your criteria. With what was available [no ones trading a #1 or 2 unless emptying the farm], Ben did what was best for the long term best interest of the RS, kept his draft picks and retained his top prospects. Which hopefully will provide team with the pieces it needs to win a WS down the road, and maybe next year or yr after when say a David Price hits FA, the RS will also have payroll flexibility to make a move and sign + top prospects + draft picks. For me this is the right direction given the what was available.

    A Sanchez is a legitimate #2 starter...more so than Dickey IMO.

    Trading for a starter could have been done, and we could have replaced (to some extent) some of the prospects needed to get that SP by trading away all our 2014 FAs to be and maybe Bailey and Miller as well.

    We'd be better in 2013, and we'd be much better in 2014 and beyond, something we are not with this winter's moves.

    [/QUOTE]

    Since Sanchez got 5/80 and turned down more money from at least one other team to stay where he was comfortable, how much would it have taken for him to consider Boston?  6/100 at least?  Since the Sox had 4 starters under team control through at least 2014 before the Dempster signing, maybe they didnt think locking up another guy long term was a wise move, especially when they'll have to look at extending Lester and the hope that at least one of De La Rosa, Barnes, Webster, Wright, etc. will be able to join the rotation in the next year or so.  Since they have made it clear that they are going to avoid 100 plus million dollar deals for the time being at least, I dont see how Sanchez was ever a realistic possibility at all.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO Edith hit the nail right on the head and pointed the direction that Ben C has decided to move the RS. While it is your idea that the RS should have made a move to get a #1 or 2 starter, the only 2 imo that moved were Greinke and Dickey which would have shot holes in the above statement about draft picks/priority prospects/payroll flexibility. While I agree w/ everything Edith mentioned, I also agree that RS need a No.1 or 2 starter to be considered a WS contender. But I would never would have given it up for a 38 yr old or a guy who doesn't like pressure pitching in the Boston. Unfortunately there were no Hamels or Matt Cain in this yr's FA. Listening to your statement I would assume you wanted RS to sign both Greinke & Hamilton because they were both there and fit your criteria. With what was available [no ones trading a #1 or 2 unless emptying the farm], Ben did what was best for the long term best interest of the RS, kept his draft picks and retained his top prospects. Which hopefully will provide team with the pieces it needs to win a WS down the road, and maybe next year or yr after when say a David Price hits FA, the RS will also have payroll flexibility to make a move and sign + top prospects + draft picks. For me this is the right direction given the what was available.

    A Sanchez is a legitimate #2 starter...more so than Dickey IMO.

    Trading for a starter could have been done, and we could have replaced (to some extent) some of the prospects needed to get that SP by trading away all our 2014 FAs to be and maybe Bailey and Miller as well.

    We'd be better in 2013, and we'd be much better in 2014 and beyond, something we are not with this winter's moves.

    [/QUOTE]

    Since Sanchez got 5/80 and turned down more money from at least one other team to stay where he was comfortable, how much would it have taken for him to consider Boston?  6/100 at least?  Since the Sox had 4 starters under team control through at least 2014 before the Dempster signing, maybe they didnt think locking up another guy long term was a wise move, especially when they'll have to look at extending Lester and the hope that at least one of De La Rosa, Barnes, Webster, Wright, etc. will be able to join the rotation in the next year or so.  Since they have made it clear that they are going to avoid 100 plus million dollar deals for the time being at least, I dont see how Sanchez was ever a realistic possibility at all.

    [/QUOTE]

    1) Maybe $85M/5 would have gotten him.

    2) Maybe the self-imposed $100M limit is avoidable.

    3) Sanchez was not the only top 45 SP available in MLB.

     

    I don't care if we had 8 SPs under team control to 2014, if SP'ing is our biggest weakness, not addressing it solves nothing.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO Edith hit the nail right on the head and pointed the direction that Ben C has decided to move the RS. While it is your idea that the RS should have made a move to get a #1 or 2 starter, the only 2 imo that moved were Greinke and Dickey which would have shot holes in the above statement about draft picks/priority prospects/payroll flexibility. While I agree w/ everything Edith mentioned, I also agree that RS need a No.1 or 2 starter to be considered a WS contender. But I would never would have given it up for a 38 yr old or a guy who doesn't like pressure pitching in the Boston. Unfortunately there were no Hamels or Matt Cain in this yr's FA. Listening to your statement I would assume you wanted RS to sign both Greinke & Hamilton because they were both there and fit your criteria. With what was available [no ones trading a #1 or 2 unless emptying the farm], Ben did what was best for the long term best interest of the RS, kept his draft picks and retained his top prospects. Which hopefully will provide team with the pieces it needs to win a WS down the road, and maybe next year or yr after when say a David Price hits FA, the RS will also have payroll flexibility to make a move and sign + top prospects + draft picks. For me this is the right direction given the what was available.

    A Sanchez is a legitimate #2 starter...more so than Dickey IMO.

    Trading for a starter could have been done, and we could have replaced (to some extent) some of the prospects needed to get that SP by trading away all our 2014 FAs to be and maybe Bailey and Miller as well.

    We'd be better in 2013, and we'd be much better in 2014 and beyond, something we are not with this winter's moves.

    [/QUOTE]

    Since Sanchez got 5/80 and turned down more money from at least one other team to stay where he was comfortable, how much would it have taken for him to consider Boston?  6/100 at least?  Since the Sox had 4 starters under team control through at least 2014 before the Dempster signing, maybe they didnt think locking up another guy long term was a wise move, especially when they'll have to look at extending Lester and the hope that at least one of De La Rosa, Barnes, Webster, Wright, etc. will be able to join the rotation in the next year or so.  Since they have made it clear that they are going to avoid 100 plus million dollar deals for the time being at least, I dont see how Sanchez was ever a realistic possibility at all.

    [/QUOTE]

    1) Maybe $85M/5 would have gotten him. - Good one. 

    2) Maybe the self-imposed $100M limit is avoidable. - For the right player, not Sanchez.

    3) Sanchez was not the only top 45 SP available in MLB. - Correct, but Brett Anderson was clearly not one of them.  Who should they have signed?  Please do not say Brandon McCarthy again as there was zero interest on a mutual level, and you don't seem to get this at all. 

     

    I don't care if we had 8 SPs under team control to 2014, if SP'ing is our biggest weakness, not addressing it solves nothing. - The Sox may feel that having a healthy Lackey returning, signing a healthy Dempster who should be able to give them significant innings and having their two top starters being reunited with a pitching coach they both had success with, should certainly upgrade their rotation.  Just because they didn't sign or trade for the guys that you wanted them to, it doesn't mean they didn't upgrade the rotation. 

    [/QUOTE]


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    1) Maybe $85M/5 would have gotten him. - Good one. 

    2) Maybe the self-imposed $100M limit is avoidable. - For the right player, not Sanchez.

       Agreed. I would not give him $100M/6, but I still think even that is better than $104.5M for Naps, Vict & Demp, and we'd still have someone after 2015 who is still in his prime.

    3) Sanchez was not the only top 45 SP available in MLB. - Correct, but Brett Anderson was clearly not one of them.  

    Every player is available at a certain cost.

    Who should they have signed?  Please do not say Brandon McCarthy again as there was zero interest on a mutual level, and you don't seem to get this at all.

    It's not clear that BM was not intereasted in Boston at all, and just because the Sox did not publically show interest does not make it a right call. I don't recall any public talk of Gio Gonzalez last winter either. I do agree that BM is not a top 45 SP, but could easily be a 45-60 one, and maybe better by 2014 and 2015.

     

    I don't care if we had 8 SPs under team control to 2014, if SP'ing is our biggest weakness, not addressing it solves nothing. - The Sox may feel that having a healthy Lackey returning, signing a healthy Dempster who should be able to give them significant innings and having their two top starters being reunited with a pitching coach they both had success with, should certainly upgrade their rotation.  Just because they didn't sign or trade for the guys that you wanted them to, it doesn't mean they didn't upgrade the rotation. 

    I may be wrong, but I'll take an odd year of Beckett over Dempster and a returning Lackey combined. The loss of Dice-K and Cook may even that up, so I'd say our rotation is about the same as last year at this time. I am pretty sure Ben thinks it is improved.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    1) Maybe $85M/5 would have gotten him. - Good one. 

    2) Maybe the self-imposed $100M limit is avoidable. - For the right player, not Sanchez.

       Agreed. I would not give him $100M/6, but I still think even that is better than $104.5M for Naps, Vict & Demp, and we'd still have someone after 2015 who is still in his prime.

    OK, fair enough, but this is your "opinion" and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many who would agree with you.  Keep in mind that you'd still have the cost of another 1st baseman and a rightfielder. 

    3) Sanchez was not the only top 45 SP available in MLB. - Correct, but Brett Anderson was clearly not one of them.  

    Every player is available at a certain cost. - So you think it is a good idea to overpay for a player that a team has no intention of trading?! That makes no sense at all. 

    Who should they have signed?  Please do not say Brandon McCarthy again as there was zero interest on a mutual level, and you don't seem to get this at all.

    It's not clear that BM was not intereasted in Boston at all, and just because the Sox did not publically show interest does not make it a right call. I don't recall any public talk of Gio Gonzalez last winter either. I do agree that BM is not a top 45 SP, but could easily be a 45-60 one, and maybe better by 2014 and 2015. - Actually it was crystal clear from the conversations I had.  He's a west coast guy through and through.  He specifically told his agent that he wanted to remain on the west coast.  Unless some team offered him a deal that the union would pressure him into signing (no one would, too many red flags), he wasn't signing with an east coast team.

    From the Sox standpoint, McCarthy made no sense at all.  They have one guy coming off TJ surgery (Lackey), another guy coming off a significant innings increase (Doubront) and another guy (Buchholz) with questionable durability.  The last thing they needed was a guy who has well documented shoulder issues, a guy who has never come close to 200 innings and a guy who hasn't pitched since he got hit the face with a line drive. They needed someone who has a history of durability, and that's definitely not McCarthy.  This I heard from more than one reliable source, and it certainly makes a ton of sense. 

     

    I don't care if we had 8 SPs under team control to 2014, if SP'ing is our biggest weakness, not addressing it solves nothing. - The Sox may feel that having a healthy Lackey returning, signing a healthy Dempster who should be able to give them significant innings and having their two top starters being reunited with a pitching coach they both had success with, should certainly upgrade their rotation.  Just because they didn't sign or trade for the guys that you wanted them to, it doesn't mean they didn't upgrade the rotation. 

    I may be wrong, but I'll take an odd year of Beckett over Dempster and a returning Lackey combined. The loss of Dice-K and Cook may even that up, so I'd say our rotation is about the same as last year at this time. I am pretty sure Ben thinks it is improved.

    Beckett was horrible last year.  It won't take much for Dempster to improve on that.  Beckett wasn't coming back here, period.  If the Dodgers didn't give them that gift of a trade, he was gone this winter anyway, so the "odd year" of Beckett wasn't an option. A lot of people think Lackey is going to have a good year this year, and it's the first time he'll pitch healthy since he was with the Angels, so he just might. It's not a stretch at all to think that this rotation could be significantly better than last year. 

    [/QUOTE]


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    1) Maybe $85M/5 would have gotten him. - Good one. 

    2) Maybe the self-imposed $100M limit is avoidable. - For the right player, not Sanchez.

       Agreed. I would not give him $100M/6, but I still think even that is better than $104.5M for Naps, Vict & Demp, and we'd still have someone after 2015 who is still in his prime.

    OK, fair enough, but this is your "opinion" and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many who would agree with you.  Keep in mind that you'd still have the cost of another 1st baseman and a rightfielder. 

    Well, I compared total cost of the deals combined- not per year cost, so there would be money left over to spend in thos areas, but I'd still rather have A Sanchez for 5 years (remember, he was not part of my top plan for this winter, but only a "signing him was better than what we got" position) and Mauro G at 1B and Kalish in RF than Dempster, Naps and Shane for 2-3 years each.

     

     

     

    3) Sanchez was not the only top 45 SP available in MLB. - Correct, but Brett Anderson was clearly not one of them.  

    Every player is available at a certain cost. - So you think it is a good idea to overpay for a player that a team has no intention of trading?! That makes no sense at all. 

    You are assuming Oakland has no intention of trading B Anderson, or that it would take a massive overpay to pry him from the A's. Maybe-maybe not, but I think this kid is worth an overpay-yes.

    Who should they have signed?  Please do not say Brandon McCarthy again as there was zero interest on a mutual level, and you don't seem to get this at all.

     

     

    It's not clear that BM was not intereasted in Boston at all, and just because the Sox did not publically show interest does not make it a right call. I don't recall any public talk of Gio Gonzalez last winter either. I do agree that BM is not a top 45 SP, but could easily be a 45-60 one, and maybe better by 2014 and 2015. - Actually it was crystal clear from the conversations I had.  He's a west coast guy through and through.  He specifically told his agent that he wanted to remain on the west coast.  Unless some team offered him a deal that the union would pressure him into signing (no one would, too many red flags), he wasn't signing with an east coast team.

    I maintain that my offer of $15M/3 would have landed him in Boston, but I could be wrong. We also don't know what other SPs might have been available via trade.

    From the Sox standpoint, McCarthy made no sense at all.  They have one guy coming off TJ surgery (Lackey), another guy coming off a significant innings increase (Doubront) and another guy (Buchholz) with questionable durability.  The last thing they needed was a guy who has well documented shoulder issues, a guy who has never come close to 200 innings and a guy who hasn't pitched since he got hit the face with a line drive. They needed someone who has a history of durability, and that's definitely not McCarthy.  This I heard from more than one reliable source, and it certainly makes a ton of sense. 

    Respectfully, I want to say that you seemingly keep acting like I don't understand why they signed a consistent 200 IP guy in Dempster and not BM. I know why: I just disagree. IMO, our biggest need was to get a SP who rates to be helpful in 2014 and 2015, and anything they give us in 2013 is a bonus. We can agree to disagree on my priority being ranked appropriately, but to me, even signing a risky BM addresses what I think was our biggest need more than spending $26.5M on an aging SP that will be gone by 2015. Even if BM pitches 0 innings in 2015, we're even with Dempster.

     

    I don't care if we had 8 SPs under team control to 2014, if SP'ing is our biggest weakness, not addressing it solves nothing. - The Sox may feel that having a healthy Lackey returning, signing a healthy Dempster who should be able to give them significant innings and having their two top starters being reunited with a pitching coach they both had success with, should certainly upgrade their rotation.  Just because they didn't sign or trade for the guys that you wanted them to, it doesn't mean they didn't upgrade the rotation. 

    I may be wrong, but I'll take an odd year of Beckett over Dempster and a returning Lackey combined. The loss of Dice-K and Cook may even that up, so I'd say our rotation is about the same as last year at this time. I am pretty sure Ben thinks it is improved.

    Beckett was horrible last year.  It won't take much for Dempster to improve on that.  Beckett wasn't coming back here, period.  If the Dodgers didn't give them that gift of a trade, he was gone this winter anyway, so the "odd year" of Beckett wasn't an option. A lot of people think Lackey is going to have a good year this year, and it's the first time he'll pitch healthy since he was with the Angels, so he just might. It's not a stretch at all to think that this rotation could be significantly better than last year. 

    I know Beckett was horrible last year, but going by his history, he's due for a great year in 2013. Dempster in the AL and a returning Lackey are just as much coin flips as Beckett. That's why I called our staff about even to last year's staff on paper at this time last year.

    Of course this rotation should do better than what our rotation ended up doing in 2012, but my point is that, on paper, our starting rotation is no better off on January 7th of 2013 than it was on January 7th of 2012. I know a lot went wrong last year, and maybe the chances are better this year that we will not have so much go wrong again, but I look at it this way:

    1) I feel worse about Lester now than january of last year.

    2) I feel about the same about Buchholtz now than last winter.

    3) I felt better about Beckett last winter-thinking he had "something to prove" after '11 than I do about Dempster now.

    4) I don't know what to feel about Lackey, which was about how I felt about Bard/Dice-K last winter.

    5) I feel better about Doubront this year than last, but I do not view 2012 as a good year with his WHIP at 1.410. He has nice stuff, and I am hoping he improves, but have no evidence to assume he will.

    Overall: I feel about even to last winter's feelings at this time. And, last year I was ranting on and on about needing a quality SP all winter and into the 2012 season. That hasn't changed. I know I might be in the minority, but even if everything works out with our rotation, had we added another solid starter, it couldn't hurt. We could easily trade one for a massive overpay at the deadline.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]


     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pinstripezac's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garyhow's comment:

    IMO Edith hit the nail right on the head .




    which was exactly hills point

    pike didn't get anything right not even the C & P

    [/QUOTE]

    The author of the OP was named in the thread title.
    Garyhow was referring to the opinions / synopsis of that author and not to Pike.

    Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

    You definitely are a conflict seeker. I merely started a thread about someone with a more optimistic view of the 2013 Red Sox and that seems to bug the heck out of you who is a Yankee troll. You are a problem here. Kim is right. What is wrong with Sox fans being exposed to optimism, you just did the same charade on the Tazawa thread.

    [/QUOTE]

    You complained about some of us discussing baseball on a thread started by someone you do not approve of, but how is that any worse than you turning this thread away from a nice discussion on baseball and towards the politics of BDC poster dynamics?

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: 2013 Red Sox:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I was fine with this thread and I started it to inject some optimism into the forum. The forum needed a sliver of optimism.

    Several posters came in and agreed with the referenced author of the article.

    The first hijacking of this baseball discussion was Hill who was suddenly  obsessed about plagarism and accused Babe and / or myself of it. Why he chose this thread is strange?

    The next hijacking was the post by Zac of 8:35 am today where he attacked me for plagarism. ( see above) 

    I defended myself against plagarism in stating that the author of the aricle was credited on the thread title.

    Then you came in to support Zac's false claims.

    I have the right to defend myself against false accusations.

    Most threads on the forum get hijacked and steered off onto a tangent and you remain silent, perhaps you avoid those threads. It happens most of the time - even trivia threads.

    This thread was great until Hill and Zac interceded. I was not a part of it except for defending myself. The aatacks came because it was an optimistic thread.

    The forum needs more baseball threads and this one was doing well until Hill and Zac interceded. How can you in all honesty and sincerity blame it on me?

    I did not divert the discussion from baseball talk, go back and read the thread. You are an intelligent person and I voted you as poster of the year. I am disappointed in you.

    [/QUOTE]

    You are still talking about nonbaseball issues-- like 90% of your posts that are not cut & pastes or links to articles.

     

Share