A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Tito/Theo won't pigeon-hole Beckett. Not for long. He/they didn't learn their '09 lesson. And the same mentality that went with VMART as a full-time receiver in 2010 has put Salty in the same position for 2011.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

     I said this months ago; SALTY may be gone/benched by the summer; both ways, he may not be a starting Big League receiver. One thing you can say about Kevin Cash; at least he was a "catch and throw" (OK, maybe just catch) guy.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    What a game for Beckett...and Pedey and Pap!  What a travesty for Dice-K...I think I want to send Dice-K to Salem and make someone else a fifth starter.  I think there are several candidates all of whom would outperform him.  I hope something good comes of this start; I want to believe the "tested by fire" thing and follow the tenets of my Puritan forbears but it seems like the hole is getting pretty deep.  As for "GM" I have chosen this path: I don't read his posts and thus I can not and will not respond to them.  Not that he would care much, but his invective made it so unpleasant here last year that sometimes I just didn't enjoy it anymore.  Furthermore, he is unreasonably biased against some players.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Crit, your philosophy is probably better than mine regarding softy/GM.

    Yes, the whole is getting deeper, but I still have faith. This team has weaknesses, but others have more, and theirs will be xposed at some point this year as well.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : Here's a better version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bxPSlELxtQ
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    Funny.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : Salty didn't cost us much. It was probably a good trade. I just didn't want to have to rely on him all year. We will hope for the best.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    His "cost" might be greater than you could imagine.



    Moon: I doubt Tek could handle that many starts. Not w/o going down or playing with broken bones...yet again.
    45% is pushing it.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I can't blame Saltalamachia for Dice-k's outing last night.  Dice-k earned that loss all by himself.  Throwing 78mph, no movement, lollipop, garbage you wouldn't see in a batting cage.  One more outing like that and the answer to him is the DL for some mysterious "injury".  Maybe his head really isn't in the game? Japan's earthquake-tsunami-nuclear meltdown-repeated aftershock-more nuclear meltdown situation is astronomically devastating.  If that happened in the U.S., baseball would be the last thing on my mind.  Well, it definitely wouldn't be first.  This team is taking some hard knocks, maybe it's needed?  I want to see what this team is made of after getting their collective buts kicked again and again.  I'll look at it as "Character building".  Hope Lester watches the tapes from Sunday and Monday. Make it a training video: Sunday video: Correct. Monday video: Incorrect. Yeah, Salti can watch too for the hell of it.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'm not sure about the Oprah part but the rest is probably accurate!

    Yeah... all good until Oprah.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : A.L. SS top 5 in BA, OBP, and OPS  .417 .500 .417 .917 Teix is off to another slow start except the homers, I still lean towards thinking he is in decline, not just an off year.  He has time to prove me wrong. BB GM you don't know Softie!  Being a newbie here I will fill you in.  Softie is the kinda guy who... -wears jean shorts -thinks repeating things makes them true -talks louder at the bank if he is taking out a big sum -wishes he was the love child of Goldwater and Thatcher -never used the surf board he only bought b/c of the Beach Boys -thinks calling him Bobby Zimmerman is clever -writes 4 paragraphs when one will do -posts under 2 names and worst of all he likes Oprah.  
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure about the Oprah part but the rest is probably accurate!

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon: I doubt Tek could handle that many starts. Not w/o going down or playing with broken bones...yet again.
    45% is pushing it.

    Sounds about right, but you know, he hasn't caught much the last 2 years and is in great shape. I'm thinking he could probably do 60%.

    2 game-1 off-1game-1off... (plus regular team days off) probably makes it about 55% of all days, he could catch.

    In blowouts, they could bring in Salty mid games.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Tito/Theo won't pigeon-hole Beckett. Not for long. He/they didn't learn their '09 lesson. And the same mentality that went with VMART as a full-time receiver in 2010 has put Salty in the same position for 2011.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Que CERA CERA.



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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : Que CERA CERA. http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/doris-day-que-sera-sera-with-lyrics/a50a4fa028500db6bb8ba50a4fa028500db6bb8b-501532066168?q=doris+day+que+sera+sera+you+tube&FORM=VIRE1
    Posted by nhsteven[/QUOTE]Here's a better version
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bxPSlELxtQ
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Can VTek handle 60-75% starts if he had to?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Moon : I doubt Tek could handle that many starts. Not w/o going down or playing with broken bones...yet again. 45% is pushing it. Sounds about right, but you know, he hasn't caught much the last 2 years and is in great shape. I'm thinking he could probably do 60%. 2 game-1 off-1game-1off... (plus regular team days off) probably makes it about 55% of all days, he could catch. In blowouts, they could bring in Salty mid games.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I'm surprised they didn't rest the regulars, especially those that were hurt last year, by the time it was 12-2 yesterday.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from .....BABE...... Show .....BABE.....'s posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    How do you guys blame salty for dice k's horrible outing last night but when dice k got bombed in cleveland it wasn't tek's fault?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]I can't blame Saltalamachia for Dice-k's outing last night.  Dice-k earned that loss all by himself.  Throwing 78mph, no movement, lollipop, garbage you wouldn't see in a batting cage.  One more outing like that and the answer to him is the DL for some mysterious "injury".  Maybe his head really isn't in the game? Japan's earthquake-tsunami-nuclear meltdown-repeated aftershock-more nuclear meltdown situation is astronomically devastating.  If that happened in the U.S., baseball would be the last thing on my mind.  Well, it definitely wouldn't be first.  This team is taking some hard knocks, maybe it's needed?  I want to see what this team is made of after getting their collective buts kicked again and again.  I'll look at it as "Character building".  Hope Lester watches the tapes from Sunday and Monday. Make it a training video: Sunday video: Correct. Monday video: Incorrect. Yeah, Salti can watch too for the hell of it.
    Posted by emp9[/QUOTE]

    That's a great point. He looked prime for the season until that Quake.
    I'm sure he's got friends/family in dire need.
    Maybe a leave of absence is necessitated.

    Nobody here is blaming Salty for the Dice melt-down.
    The Salty experiment is testing RedSox Nation. Boston is not in a position to be very patient. And Salty's progression may be painstakingly slow. Especially involving the pitching staff.

    I will not blame him even if it derails this season.
    He was put in this position by an organization that underestimates the scope of what the catcher position entails.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    It was a seminar on the true art of pitching.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Texas, the last undefeated team in baseball, is at Baltimore in an interesting series. The Rangers are being blanked 5-0 in game one: 8th frame.
    First of a DH.

    EDIT: O's now are tied for the best record in all of baseball with a 5-0 shutout in game one.
    Palmer commented on how well prepared they are - and it started in ST.
    The O's are the 2011 antithesis of the RedSox.

    I doubt they'll sweep Texas in the DH, but it wouldn't surprise me.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I wish I was softlaw...

    Your wish is your command.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    The jig is up, dude? You really need to get out more, you are paranoid and have some issues.

    I "get out" plenty. I've seen more of the world than you've seen Wake pitch poorly.


    It is Tito who has chosen only to use Wake when we are behind or in a mop up role, but it is obvious having a guy that can go 3-8 innings can comein handy.

    Wakefield's only been used in mop-up outings. You are dreaming if you think he comes in when "we are behind", which would include today's game and Lackey imploding early.

    Ummm, almost all he has done recently is come in when we are behind. It is you who is "dreaming". I never denied he has been used as mop up. You are arguing over something we both agree on. Who's the "paranoid one here?

    Nothing about Wakefield "comes in handy". Any pitcher can go "3-8" innings, but Wakefield certainly can't go 3-8 quality innings or he would have been used today.

    Inever said Tito has the confidence yet to use him in another role. My point is that by keeping him we have one more guy that may or may not pitch well enough overtime to grow into a more meaningful role. I never said he would or that I have high confidence he will do just that.

    Wakefield has earned his zero confidence reputation, the Red Sox simply haven't taken the step of getting him off the active roster. As with Lowell, they seem to think that a 25 man roster can be used for a injured reserve retread to sit around and mop up. Every roster spot is vital and should be used as such. I'd rather see Wally take the roster spot, as that would be more amusing than Wakefield. The team could have used Aceves in a few spots in one or two of those first 6 games, but the resident squater was taking up a spot.

    Again, you are arguing over something I have said isprobably true: Aceves is very likely better than Wake. As the old fauxlaw used to say: "please, try to follow long..."

    My point has always been tha Wake is ot preventing Aceves or anyoneelse from getting a chance to prove they can have a meaningful role on this team. Even with all the marginal pitches we have trying to fill the last 2-3 slots on the staff, it is likely we even will need to go beyond them this season and bring up a kid too early or trade for anothe pitcher by July. My point is to keep as many  options as possible until it all shakes out. We already cut one guy who was "good enough" to be here instead of Wake by your reasoning. Aceves has injury and motivational issues an the others all have recent histories that are worse than Wake's history and certainly worse than Wake pre July 2009.

    As for Wakefield returning to "pre-July, 2009" form, you need to point out all the many lousy years Wakefield had over his baseball career.

    I have often pointed out the good with the bad of Wake's career, but I do not compare him to other team's aces (although he has pitched better than many over many years). I look at his 19 year career and see maybe 4-5 "bad seasons", but even in those years he was better than many other team's 4/5th starters. He has been a very servicable 4/5th starter at a comparatively very low cost. Something you "need to point out".

    Wakefield isn't going to return to anything but an old mop,

    If this turns out to be true, then your point is well taken. I have never said he will grow into a more meaningful role, I just said he might and I'd rather have 6 "mights" than 5 "mights".

    and his earlier comment that he was going to retire at year end is his own admission that he's washed up. The fact that he later equivocated means nothing, other than the Red Sox should not enable him by offering another contract. He needs a lecture that he is taking advantage of the ownership's good will and needs to retire.

    You truely are grasping at straws. Wake signed a contract for very low comparable money that was year to year at the owner's descretion. You couldn't have had a more owner-friendly contract than that. Then he agreed to less money for this year when he re-signed 2 years ago. By your reasoning, every player that has a poor stretch is "taking advantage of ownership". Vintage "softy" here.

    If that brings his anger, they need to trade him or release him, something they would not follow through with on Lowell. A bottom dweller budget NL team might have a gig for him, in which case they should trade him. 

    I have said more than once that if they envision nothing more than mop-up rols and jerkin him around, then by all means trade him. Again, you have missed the forest for the trees. I know what we get in return for him will certainly help us win a ring. It's horrible Theo can't see this simple fact.

    The Red Sox have been way to generous and patient with Wakefield. It's a fiasco that sticks out like a stop sign. Most Red Sox fans are tired of it, though some are scared to admit it. When a near majority of Red Sox fans is openly protesting Wakefield on the active roster, the realy number is much larger than that. As far as the AL East, Wakefield is simply a softball pitcher.

    And, your simple a softball poster.

    Take a look at what Wake did from 2007 to July 2009.
    2007: 17-12
    2008: 1.82 WHIP (5th in the AL and better than any Sox starter)
    2009: team was 13-3 when he got hurt (2nd best ERA at tha time)

    Quite simply, this is why Theo chose to offer the contract to Wake. Yes, he had a serious injury that many GMs wouldhave determined it was better to cut ties with Wake. 2010 shows those GMs might hae been right, but the guy is signed for this year and Theo will pay him even if he cuts him. Unil Theo knows what he has for the last slots, he is wise to keep as many options aspossible: he likely will need and use them all (and more). 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    That's the sad part.

    Law vanished when Buck proved him wrong. He is a coward.

    Softlaw uses a ridiculously transparent mask - to mask how wrong he was at so many levels last year. His GM projections never transpired, so he attacks Theo instead of admitting the obvious.

    When SD took almost the exact off I said they' take (I said Casey, Rizzo, and Bowden), and softy was so wrong it was pathtic, he attacked SD'sGM as being idiotic and then claimed he never said it was a 50-50 chance he'd be dealt. He said he said it was 100%. Outlandish lies and swollen ego.

    He took the position that CERA was voodoo because it's not widely accepted by GM's.
    Now that VMART is no longer a FT catcher - that no GM wanted him in that capacity - he won't even debate the issue with me. Instead he wears the mask of a liar.

    The worst part was, he actually defended the money for VMart as a firstbaseman, calling him better than Morneau, K Morales and others by saying he would be a top 8 1Bman in MLB even 4 years from now!

    Softlaw is a born liar.

    He's worse than a liar. He spews hatred and vile.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonBobBlowhard. Show BostonBobBlowhard's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Fifth starter debate? What about all starters debate?

    Catcher throwing? Our catchers toss, don't throw. At least they block the plate when stealing home, so the other team's walks only end up as doubles or triples.

    Francona's "decision making"? Does his coin still have two different sides when he flips it?

    And Mr. Epstein, while you are going to going gung-ho in free agency, I hear that Tony Gwynn is available for maybe $8 million a year, and we can prop up the pitching staff with return of Roger Clemons.  

    And last, why is JD Drew still in the league?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Yeah. I'm in it, Boom . You probably missed my posts. But it's got too many software issues for me right now. Let 'em work the bugs out. Josh owned the Big Apple tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Agreed; classic pitching; games like this I don't mind losing, 'cause my team had no business winning it. Also, it could have easily been 10-0. Here's guessing Varitek catches more games than planned.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    He looks fat, old and bad. He his fat, old and bad. When he comes in, it does make me laugh. I'm sure it makes the other team smile and salavate.

    I'm sure the opponents trmble in fear of every team's 10-12th pitchers on their staff, except ours.

    Man, that Albers & Reyes sure had 'em all scared.

    They must be shaking at the thought of Atchison coming in instead of Wake.

    It is Tito who has hosen only to use Wake when we are behind or in a mop up role, but it is obvious having a guy that can go 3-8 innings can comein handy. Yes, I know Douby and Aceves can do that also, but you just don't get th fact that teams often use 14-18 pitchers a year for a significant amount of innings. Are you so sure our #13-18 guys are better than Wake? We already saw what 2 of them have done in a short time: DFA'd and DL'd. rust me, every one of these guys will get ample opportunity to prove they deserve to stay on the 25 man roster and even move into very meaningful roles in the pen or starting rotation as the situation dictates. Throwing away one viable option for next to nothing in return is just not logical. I am also pretty sure that Wake will take a turn on the "fantom" DL if asked to at some point.

    Time will tell. Our pitching options are not unlimited.

    This is not an argument over the fact that some of us are certain Wake can return to a pre-July 2009 level, it is about the fact that even if he only has a 5% chance of returning to that level and others have a 10-20% chance of doing that well, it is still worth keeping him around.

    Hypothetical:
    I'd rather have these chances:
    Aceves 20%, Albers 15%, Atchison 15%, Douby 15% & Wake 5%

    than these chances:
    Aceves 20%, Albers 15%, Atchison 15%, Douby 15% & no Wake.

    What Theo ishoping for is that out of the long list of guys beyond the top 9-10 pitchers, just one will come through and help. I seriously doubt we will ever have 12 high confidence pitchrs at any given time on the staff. For this reason all options should be retained to maximize the probability that 1 will stick.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Check out Pawtucket's result from tonight. Life is Good!:

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Harness, I have to admit that although I'm a Salty supporter, I'm starting to waver.  I do hope that he blossoms into someone decent, but I'm really starting to sense the uncomfortableness the pitchers have when he's behind the plate. And, I just don't mean pitch calling..hell, Beckett called off Tek quite a few times the other night.  Defensively, he's OK.  It's something else.  Was DiceK terrible tonight because he just didn't have it?  Or, was it because of some intangible negative psychological effect potentiated when he catches? I hope I'm wrong here...we'll eventually see. 
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    Salty didn't cost us much. It was probably a good trade. I just didn't want to have to rely on him all year. We will hope for the best.

     

Share