A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Ellsbury has completely outplayed Crawford this year and would in fact be a better leftfielder if Francona put Cameron in CF, which he wouldn't because Cameron's hitting is so weak. 

    I do see the logic of trading Ellsbury when he is eligible for a lot more money because of the pressure from Crawford's salary and the fact that Kalish and Reddick are chomping at the bit in the Sox farm system. 

    But in fact Ellsbury is the only good basestealer the Sox have.  Plus more and more he looks like a .300 hitter which Kalish and Reddick have never been close to. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    The whole issue with Crawford batting 3rd just corroborates the idea that he was not an ideal fit:

    1) No clear logical spot in the order ( I consider this a small issue )

    2) His bat actually is not currently optimized for Fenway. Some guys come in and are benefited by Fenway immediately ( Lowell, Gonzalez...etc.) but others are hurt by it. He is in transition mode right now. He will eventually hit more to LF and to CF and maybe benefit from the park but he is a work in progress in that regard. It's hard to hit it out in RF and he is going to continue to degrade if he focuses on pulling the ball. The recent changes are encouraging though. He is making some progress.

    3) His defensive abilities are hurt in Fenway's LF. It doesn't utilize his speed well and he is a cautious guy who appears slow in terms of making split second decisions. Put Pedroia's brain in his head and he would be great in LF. This is not to insult his intelligence. A lot of people are extremely bright, thoughtful people but not capable of being instantaneously decisive. We all have different brain aptitudes. Of course I'm just speculating here but he seems indecisive quite often on balls hit in Fenway. Ellsbury does as well to me.

    Experience helps a lot in Fenway's LF. Why did it seem like this was not an issue to Yaz? Maybe it was mainly experience. Even Manny seemed to make quicker, better decisions in Fenway and that is obviously saying a lot. I'm not impressed with Crawford defensively in Fenway. The sample size has been significant over the years.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I know you guys are going to dump on this but if we really look at Ellsbury's game, and the OF dimensions in Fenway I think Ellsbury still would be a solid fit in RF for us. Next year. His arm is not that bad. He just is so cautious that he takes forever to get the throw off. The guy makes virtually no errors though. Maybe 2 in several years now. He is just so cautious a defender. His arm is close to average for an OF to me. He just is too cautious with it.
     
    On the other hand he has tremendous speed to cover an expansive area. He has put up great UZR numbers in the little time he has played RF ( near league leading numbers in RF ). We could maybe get a better CF defensively with another option. I think he would be a solid fit in RF.

    Have at me if you want but I'll go out on the limb on this one. I hope he's our RF next year.

    Unfortunately we probably can't slot Crawford in CF but if we get a bopper for LF I could live with a little less defense in CF.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Here is something positive about Salty. I like his RH swing better than his supposedly dominant LH swing. He is supposed to be a better hitter LH. The recent past indicates that this might be changing. If he could reduce the upper cut a little on LH swings it would help him a lot. And he clearly has pop in his bat when he does connect, particularly RH.

    Let's go Salty! Make me look as dumb as Softy. If so, at least I'll admit it!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    For this contract to work Carl Crawford not only needs to play like he did in 2010, he needs to improve upon it.

    I agree with your assessment and especially the sentence in bold type. We need to realize that Crawford's production thus far couldn't have been predicted. The player was signed based on his career numbers and if the player had gotten off to a better start, similar to career averages, then this discussion wouldn't be happening and few would really care about the salary amount.

    I totally disagree here. Several of us said right at the time of the signing or before the season started that even if he put up 2010 numbers for most of the length of the deal, it wasn't worth it. I still feel that way, even though WAR dollar values show otherwise. $142M is somthing to "care" about and this will be discussed for at least 7 years. Even if he does better than 2010, there will still be discussion everytime there is talk of signing a future FA and how close we are to the salary cap.
     
    The slow start by the team ran parallel with Crawford's sub par "out of the gate" performance, both offense and defensively, hence, the player's performance has been under more of a microscope as a result.

    I guess it is a matter of perspective. I see it like others are finally starting to see that he will never be a true #3 hitter. He may never oust Ellsbury from the leadoff slot. Pedey is entrenched at the 2 slot. His issues against lefties will prevent him from batting 6th behind Papi (see katz's earlier post). We could b looking at a regular 7th slot hitter vs RHPs and 8th/9th (or on the bench) vs LHPs.

    There is no debating that the signing will remain a controversial topic for years to come but I can't comfortably label the signing as brilliant, overpaid or a bust this early into the deal.

    I agree, but to me, he'll have to improve significantly on his 2010 numbers to be worth it. He'll have to do it for 3-4 years as well. That may be impossible if he bats 8th for a long time wth our catcher "protecting" him up 9th.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Is it not safe to say that the people who wanted to put Youk outside of the 3 or 4 spot really don't know anything at all?  I think that topic fired me up over the winter/spring more than any other.

    Don't take this the wrong way, but you make a lot more sense when your sidekick isn't around.

    That topic drove me nutty as well. Youk is so far and away the better 3 hole hitter than CC it's not even funny. Forget this year. Forget CC's speed. Youk and his super high consistently high OBP vs LHP/RHP makes it a no brainer. AGon has had issue vs LHPs as well, but has always been better than CC as a 3/4 hitter. Papi would even be a better 3/4 hitter than CC. One could argu Drew vs RHPs and Cam and Jed vs LHPs are better choices. Pedey as well. This has nothing to do with the 2011 numbers. Look at CC's best season (2010) and compare those to our other players. Many of us did this in February and March.

    Then of course there was the "Youk is average at best as a third baseman," which was always bologna.

    I wanted Youk at 1B because I thought it might extend his career, lessen the chance of injury, and perhaps increase his offensive production. I also thought he was a very good 3Bman. I'm glad we have Gonzo, but I also would have been happy with Beltre and Youk.

    Out of curiosity, Burrito, who do you think is a better fielding corner combo?

    Youk/AGon
         or
    Beltre/Youk?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think a lot of the lineup issues in regard to Crawford will be resolved in the offseason when Elsbury leaves...still cant believe how much they paid for him though

    1) Ellsbury has 2 more years of arb after this year. Even if he has a great year, he will be a relatively low cost the next 2 years.

    2) Drew and Cam are walking. No way do we dump our 3rd OF'er this winter.

    3) Ellsbury hits lefties about as well as righties. Our biggest offesnive weakness is not our poor hitting catchers or our SS position, but rather a team issue ofpoor hitting vs LHPs. Even one of our best RH'd hitters, Pedey, has had better numbers vs RHPs.

    Unless we lose Papi this winter, I don't see CC cracking the top 5 in next year's line-up. There's a chance Jacoby could slump and CC take over that slot, but I doubt it.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxPatsCelts1988. Show SoxPatsCelts1988's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    [QUOTE]Is it not safe to say that the people who wanted to put Youk outside of the 3 or 4 spot really don't know anything at all?  I think that topic fired me up over the winter/spring more than any other. Don't take this the wrong way, but you make a lot more sense when your sidekick isn't around. That topic drove me nutty as well. Youk is so far and away the better 3 hole hitter than CC it's not even funny. Forget this year. Forget CC's speed. Youk and his super high consistently high OBP vs LHP/RHP makes it a no brainer. AGon has had issue vs LHPs as well, but has always been better than CC as a 3/4 hitter. Papi would even be a better 3/4 hitter than CC. One could argu Drew vs RHPs and Cam and Jed vs LHPs are better choices. Pedey as well. This has nothing to do with the 2011 numbers. Look at CC's best season (2010) and compare those to our other players. Many of us did this in February and March. Then of course there was the "Youk is average at best as a third baseman," which was always bologna. I wanted Youk at 1B because I thought it might extend his career, lessen the chance of injury, and perhaps increase his offensive production. I also thought he was a very good 3Bman. I'm glad we have Gonzo, but I also would have been happy with Beltre and Youk. Out of curiosity, Burrito, who do you think is a better fielding corner combo? Youk/AGon      or Beltre/Youk?
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    You would have been happy with Beltre and Youk?  I wouldn't have been.  This team needed Gonzalez and he hasn't even hit his prime yet.  Beltre is on the downside of his prime.  Youk can always go back to 1B later on in his career.  I think the interesting question is what the Sox end up doing with Youk after next season when he becomes a F/A... that's still far away for now though.

    As for the Sox batting order, they have it right as is.  The weakest part of this lineup isn't even the end... It's the #6 hole that consists of Drew/Cameron.  Regardless, this team has been better with Crawford at the end of the lineup and with Salty beginning to heat up, it's only going to get better.

    What we have to really look forward to is Ellsbury, Pedroia, Youk and Gonzalez all hitting together.  Keep in mind, all 4 had very slow starts except Pedroia.  When the other 3 started heating up, Pedroia went into a funk and he's arguably one of the most pivotal members in that group of 4.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    boom, I think his arm is bad. I think RF'ers need strong arms, especially in Fenway. Yes, his speed could help a lot, but I still think he has late crack-of-the-bat break issues.

    I think he stays in CF and we find a RH's low-mid cost OF'er to go with Kalish and Reddick next year.

    Another point: I may be wrong, but weren't you one of those who said CC should bat 3rd?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    If Crawford was puttiing up last year's numbers I would have no problem with him hitting 3rd. 62 XBH is not too shaby, especially when 13 are triples and 19 are HR. Youk's best year out of the last 2 resulted in 64 XBH. They have had pretty similar offensive performances and Crawford is clearly the better base runner. Let me just say it. Given past performances, Crawford probably should be the guy getting up first, and more often. Of course the sample size from this year would obviate that at least for now.

    Crawford's .259 BAPIP so far this year has something to do with that but I think we can also just observe that he is not hitting as well as before either. It is interesting that the underlying data is not that bad for Crawford. He's not striking out that much more. He's walking at about the same rate. He appears to not be swinging at strikes as much. Now why would that be? Maybe he is such a good guy that he is freaking out to show his worth right now. He's anxious. If we root for anyone on this team it should be Crawford.

    I would prefer to hit him 2nd though. Imagine the quandry the opposing pitcher is in with Ellsbury and Crawford on 1st and 2nd. Which runner is he going to hold on? If he throws a curve that's 2 runners potentially advancing. That's 2 guys who can also usually score from 1st on a double, and Gonzalez, Youk and Pedroia are all great doubles hitters. If either gets on with a walk or a single, it's highly likely that guy will soon be standing on second unassisted. We have about a 2/3 chance that at least one of these 2 gets on base in front of the boppers.  After factoring in the statistical impact of doubles and the negative value of CS, that's like having a 2/3 chance every inning of a guy standing on 2nd in front of the boppers. Crawford and Ellsbury can easily score from 2nd on most singles, take 3rd on a single to RF ...etc. The above are all big factors in run production, especially when you are needing to have some small ball abilities to win games.

    The offensive impact of Crawford and Ellsbury are very difficult to quantify but don't we know that the Redsox have done that math? They probably have a reason for the $142 mil offer, even if we do not see it. I just think they overestimated the defensive value of that equation. Nonetheless, most of us are probably not aware of the offensive impact will have on the team when Crawford is firing on all cylinders.

    How important will they be when we are forced to play small ball. For example, against CC Sabathia ( whom we've beaten twice so far this year ) and Verlander. The world may never have seen 2 guys leading off as fast as Ellsbury and Crawford and we really have to run the numbers with advanced regression analysis, multivariable calculus...etc to quantify how many runs are generated by that level of base running ability in front of some major boppers.
     
    Enjoy the game folks!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, when I watch Ellsbury throw it's not like he's Johnny Damon out there. He has a decent arm IMO. He just takes too much time setting up the throw. The guy has made 2 errors in his entire mlb career. That is outstanding. The guy doesn't make throwing errors. Compare that to Drew's 3-4 errors per year, or about the same number of assists he generates. A strong case could be made, IMO, that Ellsbury is a better RF than Drew.

    Granted it's only about a 290 inning sample size but Ellsbury is about a PLUS 23 UZR/150 in RF for his career. In the past 5 years Drew has averaged less than a PLUS 10.

    BTW, Ellsbury's assist numbers are comparable to Drew's also. Does Drew scare runners away from running on his arm. Probably, but why doesn't he have more assists than Ellsbury anyway? If Drew is that much better he should have better numbers also. He should have more OF assists, especially since Ellsbury obviously doesn't risk his throws nearly as much.

    I know that few people in baseball would draw this conclusion, and even I probably wouldn't consider Ellsbury a BETTER OF than Drew even at this point in their careers, but a case can be made for Ellsbury in RF. Ellsbury might be a better RF right now. If we obtain a better CF next year, I would have absolutely no problem putting Ellsbury in RF.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Marlon Byrd just gut hit with the pitch in the face. Some of us old timers know the impact that can have on a guys career. Hopefully he will be ok. It's really smart to get him into the clubhouse quickly to minimize the swelling.

    Youk grimaced. Maybe he knows what is coming or will it be Adrian now?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Trying to measure CC's value by where he hits is mis-leading. As is the dimension he adds to this team. He is not UR prototypical Fenway hitter, thus his spot in the line-up reflects this.

    If you have to compare his salary to that of others - then take the Manny analogy Katz brought up. 

    Manny over 162 games: 237 runs produced. (Runs scored/RBI's). Career numbers.
    Now, what's not included is the fact he was likely juicing. That's gonna keep him out of the HOF.

    Beyond that, what's also not included is how many rallies he killed by being slow afoot. How do we put a number on that? GIDP? That hardly covers it.
    Also an issue was his pathetic glove on the road - hid somewhat at Fenway.
    Manny got on base, and when he didn't clog up the bases, scored over 100 runs a year. Manny drove in runs. Few were better. His off-field BS is legendary.

    If this is the standard for a 20 mil a year contract, then breaking down the positives must be balanced out with breaking down the negatives.

    Crawford over 162 games: 176 runs produced. These again are career numbers.
    They are closer to 200 if we're talking about his prime.
    Now, how do we measure what he adds on the bases?
    How do we measure the effect he has on opposing pitchers/catchers?
    How many more fastballs do hitters see with this guy on base?
    He can hit into a fielder's choice (rarely GIDP), throw off a pitcher's rhythm,
    steal 2nd, and score on a hard hit ball that would have Manny occupying
    2nd or 3rd.

    Yet, on the score card, it's "0-1 with a run scored".
    My point is, this guy can't be measured by using conventional stats or thought process. Which is why he'll get a bad wrap no matter what he does.

    I do agree with Moon that his final 2-3 years will become burdensome financially as his production may wane. That's why I never liked the tenure of the deal.
    But there's no certainty that this current regime won't sell the team high and lay the burden of escalating salaries at the feet of others.

    I wouldn't rule that out.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    If Crawford was puttiing up last year's numbers I would have no problem with him hitting 3rd. 62 XBH is not too shaby, especially when 13 are triples and 19 are HR. Youk's best year out of the last 2 resulted in 64 XBH. They have had pretty similar offensive performances and Crawford is clearly the better base runner. Let me just say it. Given past performances, Crawford probably should be the guy getting up first, and more often. Of course the sample size from this year would obviate that at least for now.

    1) The 3rd hitter should have a great OBP and a lot of extra base hits.
       Youk: .394 career and over .400 for three straight seasons.
       Craw: .334 career and a season's best .364 in 2009.

    2) Trends? Youk has improved his OPS every single year since year one!

    3) More HRs with about the same amount of extra base hits is worth something.

    4) Speed in the 3 hole has value, but notas much as at leadoff. I doubt they will run CC for SBs much in front of AGon/Youk/Papi.

    I respctfully say, it not even close boom.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, when I watch Ellsbury throw it's not like he's Johnny Damon out there. He has a decent arm IMO. He just takes too much time setting up the throw. The guy has made 2 errors in his entire mlb career. That is outstanding. The guy doesn't make throwing errors. Compare that to Drew's 3-4 errors per year, or about the same number of assists he generates. A strong case could be made, IMO, that Ellsbury is a better RF than Drew.

    boom, it is not even close. Not even close. Teams would be taking 3rd base at will and scoring from first on doubles to right with ease.

    I won't get into his late break on balls issues, beacuse it has been beaten to death.

    Also, why do you feel the need to move him from CF to RF?

    Granted it's only about a 290 inning sample size but Ellsbury is about a PLUS 23 UZR/150 in RF for his career. In the past 5 years Drew has averaged less than a PLUS 10.

    You keep using tiny UZR sample sizes boom. It's meant to be a 3 year metric, not 33 full game metric.

    BTW, Ellsbury's assist numbers are comparable to Drew's also. Does Drew scare runners away from running on his arm. Probably, but why doesn't he have more assists than Ellsbury anyway? If Drew is that much better he should have better numbers also. He should have more OF assists, especially since Ellsbury obviously doesn't risk his throws nearly as much.

    It's not even close boom, sorry. Drew has a great arm and Ellsbury: below average.

    I know that few people in baseball would draw this conclusion, and even I probably wouldn't consider Ellsbury a BETTER OF than Drew even at this point in their careers, but a case can be made for Ellsbury in RF. Ellsbury might be a better RF right now. If we obtain a better CF next year, I would have absolutely no problem putting Ellsbury in RF.

    It's usually easier to get good RF'er over a CF'er. I don't get the premise here.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Sorry harness, juiced or whatever, Manny produced way more than CC can even dream of.

    He could have hit into 50 more DPs and he'd still be way way better.

    He also turned into an albatross even with better numbers.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, Ur not seeing this beyond the limitations of conventional stats.
    Look how the Rays win. They do it without one-dimensional players clogging the bases. They beat you in ways Manny never could.
    So do the Angels.

    Stats don't illustrate my point.

    And there's no justifying Manny being a complete cheat.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    We are approaching a completely different era. And Manny without his needle would be a dinosaur.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Moon, Ur not seeing this beyond the limitations of conventional stats.
    Look how the Rays win. They do it without one-dimensional players clogging the bases. They beat you in ways Manny never could.
    So do the Angels.

    I agree, however having speed but a .332 OBP is not a good mix.

    Stats don't illustrate my point.

    And there's no justifying Manny being a complete cheat

    I wasn't "justifying" his cheating, I was just saying CC will never approach Manny's numbers or influence on a game's outcome anyway you look at it.

    I have never said CC is a bad player. My issue is with the contract andTheo's choice to fill a lowpriority position with a wrong-handed player.


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    His OBP doesn't reflect how many times he gets on due to errors or fielder's choice.
    This guy is a force anytime he is on base. Think about how Tito manages close games in late innings. He doesn't play for extra innings, instead using Bard/Paps in tie games. As a result, CC - Crawbury - becomes essential in 1-run/tie games. This is an element many teams don't have.

    And I also think upgrading in LF was more a priority than you might realize.
    Banking on Cam/Kalish would have been a big mistake.
    Theo addressed team needs at several positions. CC's salary didn't inhibit Theo from getting AGONE or filling out the pen or re-signing Papi.
    The decision to go with Salty wasn't based on dishing out 5-6 mil on a veteran, IMO. I think the FO simply didn't like the alternatives.

    UR right, CC will never approach Manny's juiced numbers. But Manny will never come close to being the multi-dimensional player CC is.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    His OBP doesn't reflect how many times he gets on due to errors or fielder's choice.

    OK, then subtract his 93 career CSs and he's at a .317 OBP, then add back the FC's and reach on errors and he's still way way way behind Manny, Youk, Agon...

    This guy is a force anytime he is on base. Think about how Tito manages close games in late innings. He doesn't play for extra innings, instead using Bard/Paps in tie games. As a result, CC - Crawbury - becomes essential in 1-run/tie games. This is an element many teams don't have.

    I agree, he can and does and will help in close games in ways AGon and Youk can't do, but I do not think makes up for the deficiency in OBP, power, and apparently fielding (in a short sample size).

    And I also think upgrading in LF was more a priority than you might realize.
    Banking on Cam/Kalish would have been a big mistake.

    I didn't say Cam/Kalish could not havebeen improved on: my point is that the upgrade from Cam/Kalish to Crawford was not even close to a $20M value even now at Crawford's prime years.
    Cam projected to be a very good platoon player this year (vs LHPs) and Kalish or Reddick could probably done well ve only RHPs. Maybe it wouldn't have worked out, and Theo's head would have been on the block

    Secondly, We coul have traded for or signed a cheaper option RH'd hitting LF'er and used the leftover money to upgrade catching, pitching and elsewhere. You have admitted Theo chose to "gamble" at catcher. You have to admit that the catching position was a higher priority than OF. The 2010 numbers were deceiving due to the fact that Ellsbury and Cam were hurt. There was no reason to think Ellsbury would not be 100% this year. We also have more than just Kalish waiting in the wings.

    Yes, DeJesus, Willingham, and Ordonez are off to bad starts also, but I think there were more options than them, and their deals would not have been 7 years. In hindsight, Berkman would have made a nice LF pick-up at $8M, along with a decent catcher like Ramon Hernandez at $4M, and
    another releiver like Downs ($6M x 3) or Crain ($4.5M x 3) or Guerrier ($4.5M x 3). Monday morning QB'ing, it appears a Berkman (8M), Hernandez (3) Crain and Guerrier (9) would have equalled CC and been less of a longterm risk.

    I really don't want to get back into naming particular players. It's not fair doing what I just did, I know and the variations of alternative plans are numerous. Many could and would have been disaterous. (I wasn't for getting Werth at that money either.) 

    Theo addressed team needs at several positions. CC's salary didn't inhibit Theo from getting AGONE or filling out the pen or re-signing Papi.
    The decision to go with Salty wasn't based on dishing out 5-6 mil on a veteran, IMO. I think the FO simply didn't like the alternatives.

    Do you really believe that if Theo had signed, let's say Ordonez at $11M/1, he'd have not used the leftover $9+M to get a better catcher and maybe another pen arm?

    UR right, CC will never approach Manny's juiced numbers. But Manny will never come close to being the multi-dimensional player CC is.

    He didn't need to be, and we have 2 rings because of him...and his juice.

    harness, I do respect the intangibles of the game. I originally tought CC had a lot of them. Hi fielding has been dissapointing thus far, but maybe it is just a funk or an adjustment phase. I hope he doesn't turn into a more expensive Renteria-type player that wilts under the spotlight. I know he will come back close to his norm. I know we will win a few games in "new ways" due to his speed. I know the CC was a good signing posters will comeback and say I was wrong when he does, but I am sticking to my position: we could have used the full $20+M a year x 7 years in a much more useful way. If Theo wasn't going to spend the difference, then your point is well taken.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Today's game again exemplifies the drawbacks of role definition.
    Bard was obviously unavailable. Hill throws 17 pitches and does well. Is he allowed to continue into 8th inning territory? No. It's not his role.
    Albers took over for Bard in this capacity.

    Albers is untested in these waters, as is Hill. But Hill was pitching well.
    Why remove him?

    Just more role idiocy.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II



    I really have to laugh at the comedy of errors in the 8th inning, yet I'll take a 7 or 8 game winning streak in-between anytime.

    When s***t happens, it really happens.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    And it really rubs off too!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Sun  ChC   Wake vs Russell
    Mon @Cle  Buch vs Mastrsn
    Tue @Cle   Beck vs Carmona
    Wed @Cle  Lest vs Talbot 
    Thu @Det  Aceves
    Fri   @Det  Wake
    Sat  @Det  Buch
    Sun  @Det  Beck
    Mon  CWS  Lest
    Tue  CWS  Acev
    Wed CWS  Wake
    Thur  OFF ****
    Fri   Oak   Buch (+1)
    Sat Oak    Beck (+1)
    Sun Oak    Lest (+1)
    Mon @NYY Acev ?
    Tue @NYY Wake ?
    Wed @NYY Buch
    3 @ Tor
    Day OFF
    3 @ TB
    Interleague
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share