A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Burrito's attraction to Softy reminds me of when I see a bunch of flies hovering over a fresh dump.

    "Softy" may be a bad guy, your obscession not withstanding, but you have serious issues.

    Since you seem to be so sure of yourself, what were the "wrong" GM projections that "Softy" made? Epstein isn't the roundest tire, so it would help to compare those projections with what Epstein has actually done. 

    I'll assume Crawford had to be one of them, since he was one of the biggest. If Softlaw was opposed to that, or projected that as something that only a reacting GM would make, it's too soon to say but Crawford wasn't a solid young RH OF'er that the Red Sox have a future need for, nor was his contract cost plausible on the value scale.

    I'll assume the other one was AGon. If he was against that, he's dead wrong. The Red Sox had a need for a young slugging superstar, and AGon is exactly that. Assuming the negotiations finally end in a contract that, over this year and 6 or 7 more, is around what Miguel Cabrera is making with the Tigers, it will be a steal. The unproven prospects the Red Sox gave up will not be superstars, nor are they likely to be more than average in quality ML careers.

    I'll assume Jenks is another one. Too early to tell, but a 2 year deal on Jenks was a good calculated risk to improve the weak pen depth of 2010.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Why on earth would you possibly concern yourself with the poor projections of another poster?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    You have concerned yourself with them. I have learned that you don't know what you are talking about, so I think you should provide the details of what you claim was wrong about these projections. I'll expect something on the intellectual level of gving a catcher an ERA;)

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I know I  have concerned myself with "them". But why would you? After all, I'm the one who has dealt with "them". Not You.

    You said you have learned that "I don't know what I'm talking about". Why then would you care what I have to say?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Good point, carry on and continue to reveal that you don't  know what you are talking about.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    BaseballGM is so full of it he's up to his nose in deceit. He is Softy. We all know it. He had so many softlaw iterations that he ran out of version numbers. Softlaw1A, Softlaw1AA ...etc. He's just a pest. We'd be better off just ignoring him. Same old, Same old. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    He didn't adopt this different handle because he ran out of version numbers.
    It's a good way of staying clear of the mods. That's why he's now claiming that he's the one being bullied.

    It also gave him access to this thread w/o losing face...which is happening anyway. The truth bleeds through more and more with each passing post.
    It's almost comical to witness: It's his best act yet.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Slavery should have been llowed to continue until the states decided it was wrong.
    Obama is a liar. It's his, the president's, fault the deficit is rising.

    I can't speak for an old poster you are obscessed with, but I'd like to see what's in that hollow ringing space between your ears.

    Did the States thinking slavery was wrong have anyting to do with it's abolition?

    If so, what was the political benefit for "emancipation"?

    Did Lincoln believe in segragation?

    Do believe that Obama is not a liar?

    Do you believe that Obama is not responsbile for the budget deficits under the Democratic Party's majority in Congress? (Congress means the House and the Senate, not just the House) If so, why do you believe that?

    See, you passed the softy litmus test. You are softy though and through.

    Yes, I think Obama is largely responsble for the deficit as was Reagan. The both have/had veto power.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'm not "softy", but he had to know more than you do because you whine like a woman. You didn't answer the slavery issue questions, and you fail to include the fact that Tip O'Crook ran the House and Reagan would have had to shut down the government and slaughter all the poor and seniors and depirve women of essential women's health care reproductive needs if he tried to keep a steady veto going.

    Now, contrast the size of the deficit and debt increase under Obama, Pelosi and Ried? Was this the hope and change you voted for?

    Should Reagan have shut the government down when the Democrat House included in every bill a giant deficit? What are your thoughts on that? Is that any different than what Obama's veto would have been? If Obama used his veto, wouldn't he veto his own party special interests? What did he say he disagreed with in the Pelosi and Reid budget, but had no choice but to agree?

    Have the Red Sox spent wisely on Crawford? Lackey? AGon?

    Should Lowrie play the majority of starts at SS? If so, why? If not, why not?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth political debate here, so I'm going to post this and be done. Let's be real. Congress (both parties) is largely to blame for the deficits. Yes, the President can veto, but he doesn't have line-item veto. Presidents can only do so much to slow down out-of-control spending by Congress.

    Reagan tried to send budgets to Congress that had smaller deficits, and what did you read about them before Congress even got the budgets. That they were DOA -- dead on arrival -- and weren't even going to get a serious look.

    The Democrats always had a comfortable majority in the House during the Reagan Administration. So no matter what the Senate wanted to do or Reagan wanted to do, the budgets had to get through the House, where Constitutionally, spending bills are supposed to begin. And the Dems were entrenched back then. The only alternative would have been to shut down gov't, and that would have been even more irresponsible.

    The Democrats had strong control of in both the House and Senate in his first two years. If you want to use the economy as an excuse, fine. But Reagan took over in just as bad economic conditions and in someways worse. Obama has had to deal with a declining economy and high unemployment. Reagan had to deal with a bad economy, plus high unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates -- the first time that has happened. Economists will tell you that you're not supposed to have all three high at the same time.

    OK, I'm off my soapbox. Anyone can feel free to respond, but I'm done.

    Thank you for your time.


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Mr. Moon

    Softie has gone not so incognito before. 
    billbyboy
    Posts: 42
    First: 11/28/2009
    Last: 12/7/2010

    Slomag, you are correct that Jake was one the MLB ready player that Cafardo first reported. Once the extension fell through, it became a PTBNL. On MLBTR, a beat reporter that the FO leaks to said the Padres had interest. He then opined that Jake's name was pulled off the table because the Padres were scared away by the 3 years of arbitration raises. Of course, this is false. Jake's name came off the table when the extension deal talks fell apart until Theo decided to take the parameters and take a chance that an extension gets done and go forward on an expensive rental pacakge but a highway robbery extension trade package. It's likely that Theo knows that Miggy is the comparative and that AGon will agree to that base and lumping in the cheap 2011 year will make the deal one year more than the Red Sox final offer which made the extension deal breakdown. It's likely that both parties know that a deal is going to be struck as follows:

    2011 6 M (No base raise until next year)
    2012 22 M
    2013 22 M
    2014 22 M
    2015 22 M
    2016 22 M
    2017 22 M
    2018 22 M

    The de facto base is 20 over the 8 year term of service. Miggy's base was 19.04 X 8 years. The two deals will be almost identical in base and term. Softlaw said that Miggy was the comparative, not Howard's base or Tex's term. He was right. Because of the first year of service at 6M, it's not Tex's term or base.

    It should also be noted that the Red Sox are in fact waiting to see how the shoulder does during spring training, as that gives them more leverage. I'm sure they know that the MIggy parameter will get the deal done, but they have the freedom to wait and drop the deal down if AGon struggles out of the gate.

    Softlaw also said, when it was announced that AGon wouldn't be able to swing a bat for a while, that the injury should make the deal more likely to go through. This board clamied that the injury meant that the deal wouldn't happen until at least the summer or FA. Softlaw was right, as usual.

    The below thread that Softlaw started, back in early October, is the work of a genius. There was no one else, at all, at that time, that was calling for a winter deal for AGon.

    Youk doesn't have an axe to grind, so he was the only poster who noted that Softlaw was in a league of his own on "the hot stove". Of course, Youk was right.  Softlaw also said that no AGon deal should or would happen, last winter. He also said that there was no way that Beltre would be resigned. He also lead the way on Beltre at base 9 or 10 and one year, to keep the door open for AGon, at a time when the focus was on Bay and Holliday. One of the most retarded posters was talking about Atkins, a year ago, and would later invoke the name of other "no chance" 3rd base slugs. Of course, Beltre had a career season, kept the door open for AGon, and netted the picks on a near career year that the soon to be 32 year old will not repeat the rest of his career.

    You'll notice that the ne'er do wells drive-by the day the deals get leaked out, and then pretend they got this or that right and saw it coming. The reality is that these people can't produce the goods, long before the fact of the deal coming down.

    So, take a long look at these comments, from early October, and understand who rules when it comes to seeing roster construction and player movement, long in advance.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth political debate here, so I'm going to post this and be done. Let's be real. Congress (both parties) is largely to blame for the deficits. Yes, the President can veto, but he doesn't have line-item veto. Presidents can only do so much to slow down out-of-control spending by Congress.

    Reagan tried to send budgets to Congress that had smaller deficits, and what did you read about them before Congress even got the budgets. That they were DOA -- dead on arrival -- and weren't even going to get a serious look.

    Complete nonsense. Reagn initiated many hgh spndng programs, including "Starwars". You don't need a line itm veo if yu ar serious abou balancing a budget. You just tell Congress you won't sign an unbalnced budget, and I would take a 2/3rds majority to oveide it. Reagannd Obama were never serious about that.

    The Democrats always had a comfortable majority in the House during the Reagan Administration.

    Not 2/3rds.
    What about Bush and the republican Congress?
    Face it, the are both the same. It's all about bringing money hom to your state.

    So no matter what the Senate wanted to do or Reagan wanted to do, the budgets had to get through the House, where Constitutionally, spending bills are supposed to begin. And the Dems were entrenched back then. The only alternative would have been to shut down gov't, and that would have been even more irresponsible.

    Not really.

    The Democrats had strong control of in both the House and Senate in his first two years. If you want to use the economy as an excuse, fine. But Reagan took over in just as bad economic conditions and in someways worse.

    not in terms of a defiit and th trend of spending vs taxing. You are oolin yourself if you believe otherwise. Thdebt as a percent of GDP had been going downlost continually from thelt 40's to 1980. Then, it eersed dramatically.
    Carter came into offie at 35.8% andleft at 32.5%.
    Reagan came in at 32.5% and after 4 years was at 43.8%.
    His second term went from 43.8% to 53.1%
    1st Bush went from 53.1% to 66.1%.
    Clinton went from 66.1% to 56.4%
    2nd Bush from 56.4% to 83.4%

    My point was not abou who is to blame. Th prez & Congress are both to blame. Why brought I up is that GM/softy wat to blame Obama, but thensay it's th Congress wheReaa ad Bush were the President. He wants to move goalposts, much in the sam way he does on his baseball position.

    Obama has had to deal with a declining economy and high unemployment. Reagan had to deal with a bad economy, plus high unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates -- the first time that has happened. Economists will tell you that you're not supposed to have all three high at the same time.

    Economists will tell you the sitution was 10 times worse in 2008 than 1980 or 2000. We almost ha  full blown depression on our hands.

    OK, I'm off my soapbox. Anyone can feel free to respond, but I'm done.

    Thank you for your time.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Reddick got 3 hits tonight with 2 walks. Great start so far.

    Personally, every game I watch, I'm less impressed with Crawford's defense. So far it's been a liability. He's not digging the wall at all. Offensively, he's been nothing short of horrible. And then he gets up in the ninth and get's a horrible strike 2 call against him. It's like every ump in the league is after him. At this point, I think he's the guy who should be batting 9th, or subbed by Cameron or McDonald against LH starters. Eventually he will hit. I'm not so sure he ever will be a gold glove fielder for us.

    All these teams lining up LH starters against us. Do you think that just maybe they are on to something? We need another RH bat. And a new catcher. It seems like that should be a twofer.

    AND WHY WASN'T TEK IN THE LINEUP TONIGHT! AND LOWRIE FOR THAT MATTER?

    In 7 years of watching him, the thought of firing Francona came into my mind for the first time tonight.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Reddick got 3 hits tonight with 2 walks. Great start so far. Personally, every game I watch, I'm less impressed with Crawford's defense. So far it's been a liability. He's not digging the wall at all. Offensively, he's been nothing short of horrible. And then he gets up in the ninth and get's a horrible strike 2 call against him. It's like every ump in the league is after him. At this point, I think he's the guy who should be batting 9th, or subbed by Cameron or McDonald against LH starters. Eventually he will hit. I'm not so sure he ever will be a gold glove fielder for us. All these teams lining up LH starters against us. Do you think that just maybe they are on to something? We need another RH bat. And a new catcher. It seems like that should be a twofer. AND WHY WASN'T TEK IN THE LINEUP TONIGHT! AND LOWRIE FOR THAT MATTER? In 7 years of watching him, the thought of firing Francona came into my mind for the first time tonight.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Scutaro came into the game 5 for 8 against Cecil and Lowrie was 1 for 6 against him.  I can't fault that call.  Lowrie will probably get 2 starts in the series.  Tek should start tomorrow.  Tito's trying stuff; nothing's working.  But Salty is looking like a disaster.  
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    At this point, I think he's the guy who should be batting 9th, or subbed by Cameron or McDonald against LH starters...

    I was laughed at (not by you) for saying this the day we signed Crawford for over $50M ore than he was worth.

    The guy never has hit lefties.

    The upgrade from Cam/Kalish/DMac/Linares was not even close to being worth $20M x 7.

    He's basically Ellsbury with 5-10 more HRS.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I was astonished when they announced the Crawford signing. I had made fun of Peter Gammons for predicting it a month earlier. I thought, no way they sign Crawford. Then I see the signing numbers and I could only shake my head. One of the biggest contracts in baseball history. How many times do such contracts not only fail but fail miserably? He was not worth that level of cash. As was mentioned above by Moon, he was basically a slight upgrade from Ellsbury, and most of the people on this forum have been calling for trading Ellsbury for a Matsuzaka level starter. Softy would ship him for a soggy set of baseballs. Go figure. We go on to sign Crawford for $142 mil?

    I know Crawford has put up some great offensive and defensive metrics but no way he's worth $142 mil. No way.

    We need to get some confidence. At this point, the guys who have some confidence should be playing. If someone is excessively negative in the clubhouse get rid of him. The season is tanking right before our eyes. Thank God no one is running away with our division.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Scutaro with his second game of getting the big RBI hit. Tito was too slow getting Jenks out of there, and pulling Aceves out too soon. He doesn't seem to have a clue about watching fires burn or someone who is getting people out.

    Mills and Farrell are gone. Long season, but one has to question Tito at this point. This is a team that has veterans on it who are going through the motions. Talk is cheap. There are players with contracts and players who are playing for contracts. This team has yet to show any kind of intesity on the playing field. Pedroia has it, and Youk, despite poor early slugging, is still getting on base at a high rate. Ortiz is Ortiz, never a problem in the intensity department. Agon finally has his extension, so he should stop the ginger swing motions and watching balls go by him without ever diving to stop them. Crawford won't stay at these depths, nor will he return to his career high. For 2011, he wasn't what this team needed and it was a pipe dream to pretend that he would boost ratings. Winning Championships is what does that.

    Even if this team rights itself and moves to the top, they are still going to need to shake it up and improve the weaknesses that Epstein failed to address.

    The silver lining is that Lester looks solid, Beckett looks solid early, and Buch looks to be turning the corner. Starting pitching performance will decide this team's end result.

    Does anyone know what the deficits and debt were under Bushleague 2 and the elephant Congress, and Barry Obamanation and Pelosi and Ried? Providing the numbers is the only way to evaluate the relative destructive force of crooks. All Obama has done has made a bunch of voters pretend to feel better about voting in someone other than a white male. How one lives their intimate life is the essense of how one feels about the issue of race and ethnicity. It's history is simply as a way to try and get votes to obtain political power.  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    That's a good point Boom.
    There's enough parity now in the A.L. East for Boston to overcome this. They are playing afraid to lose. To win - you have to play to win. There were some bright spots today. But 2-20 in their last 22 (incl ST) is unbelievable.

    One last thing: I wouldn't be so fast to draw conclusions about CC based on what we've seen in 12 games. When things begin to jive with this team - and they will - CC's value will be readily apparent.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    If we were 30-25 in mif-June, but only 5 games behind 1st, would everyone be panicking?

    I'd rather be 5 behind with 150 to go, than 5 behind with 105 to go.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'm not saying Crawford isn't a good player. I'm sure he will prove to be a great player. He's just not as advertised defensively and he's not worth $142 mil. He's maybe worth $100 mil over the same time frame, which is a lot, and that might be optimistic. He's one of the most overrated defensive players in baseball. And the fit in Fenway is about as bad as it gets defensively. We should have spent the money elsewhere.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Beckett's last 2 games are extremely encouraging. If he, Lester and Buchholz can give us outstanding starts, we can live with 500 ball from Matsuzaka and Lackey. Beckett looks like a potential 20 game winner this year.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]That's a good point Boom . There's enough parity now in the A.L. East for Boston to overcome this.They are playing afraid to lose. To win - you have to play to win . There were some bright spots today. But 2-20 in their last 22 (incl ST) is unbelievable. One last thing: I wouldn't be so fast to draw conclusions about CC based on what we've seen in 12 games. When things begin to jive with this team - and they will - CC's value will be readily apparent.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    harness, this is one of our areas of total agreement. I just don't see any one team running away with the division. Looks like a dog fight to me. I see parity as the Red Sox best hope of making the playoffs.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Lowrie beat out an infield hit late in the game, as a Right handed hitter with little speed, faster than Ellsbury did earlier as a LH batter with great speed. Ellsbury needs to learn to stop looking at plays in action and just run to first. Same thing when he steals second. He watches the catcher half way to 2nd. He would get 5 more hits a year and a couple more SB if he would just focus on the job at hand instead of being so worried about how it is going in progress.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I agree boom. I have noticed that too. Guys like Drew an Scutaro run the bases maybe slower but smarter.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Do you think Lowrie is for real? Is he like Youk, a guy who took a while to emerge but is a potential all star? He's playing smart baseball and driving the ball hard all over the place. Even his out today was a line drive. I've always had faith in him since his AA season but I'm starting to think he should definitely start somewhere. He makes a lot of contact and drives the ball deep into the OF for a lot of doubles, triples and HR. He's worth a lot right now. I'd have no problem with him at 3rd base all season.
     

Share