A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]one can never accuse him of not repeating his points several times, now prepare for some more re-repeating of his points.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Not sure if you are talking about harness of me; I'll assume harness since there is no love lost between you two.

    I often repeat myself as well, or rephrase/re-present in order to help someone understand my position better, or if they misrepresent my position in a debate. It is sometimes a thin line to walk without making your debate partner think you are putting them down for "not understanding", but I feel sometimes some posters think "understanding" one's position is synonymous with agree with it (not saying harness, here. I do not feel he is like that). Some people feel like if they just make the other person "understand" their point, and "see the light", then they will agree, and conversely, if they don't agree, it must mean they don't really "understand".

    I'm OK with people having different points of view. I know some of my beliefs and baseball philosophies fly against the norm or traditional thinking. I know I am very opinionated and don't mind sharing my opinions and projections. As many as I have shared, I am bound to be wrong several times. I have been wrong many times. I have been right quite a few as well. I try to stay objective and above personal banter, but have not always been successful on that front. Silly clowns are like mosquitos at times: hard to ignore and hard to stop the pestering.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : I've tried to be polite and understanding with you expitch but you kept pushing Navarro as an option over and over and basically criticizing my position. Presenting Navarro as having a real chance at the position when he clearly did not. Navarro as a better SS defender....etc. I was stating that Navarro had only played 9 innings there this year, even though Scutaro was struggling. I pointed out over and over that the Redsox appeared to view Navarro as a utility guy and had been grooming him there even in the minors recently. I went to the extreme of going back through his minor league numbers to show that he had not hit above around .293 at any of his last 10 stops in the minors, no matter how small the sample size. I pointed out that his body type did not indicate good range at SS. Basically, how many relevant observations did I have to point out to get through to you, and clearly many others here, and it still was for naught right until the end? I even said I did not think we had an in house guy so maybe they would look into Jose Reyes. I said Navarro was so bad I'd put him last even if all we had to pick from at SS was Sutton, Iglesias and Navarro. You know, sometimes it's best to just admit when you get it wrong as Moon and I do regularly. Most of you got that one wrong. Period. Navarro got moved for a more expensive guy, who was hitting around .220 and we had to throw in a decent reliever prospect who once closed for the national amateur team if I remember correctly. You guys were not even close and neither were soxprospects. Sometimes, even the best of us just get it wrong. It happens.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    Listen, Carmac, my last post was in response to yours claiming that while the rest of us were nattering about a starter or right fielder you "made the call" about shortstop. Many posters were all over that subject. Some wanted to see Iglesias right now, others to see Navarro get a shot.  You were, as usual, patting yourself on the back, this time for making the call that half the board was making. You did not make the call on the trade. All of that, not the whole Navarro question, is what I called you on. But you are so wrapped up in your diagnostic and prognosticative acumen that you didn't read my post carefully. It did not go back over the whole Navarro issue. You chose to do that on your own here, without prompting because you love to strut. 
    Now, please read carefully. You are right that you and the Sox agreed about Navarro. That's it. You cannot be right yet about Navarro's destiny as sub/minor leaguer. Some of us thought Navarro was worth a shot. You and the Sox did not. ( You've repeated your "evidence" ad nauseam. ) That's the extent of your correctness. Gloat away.  If the Royals or some other team allows Navarro to play a sustained stretch at short or third, not your oft-repeated "9 games," we'll know more. 
    You do like to attack straw men. None of us claimed Navarro was a sure thing or that he should be penciled in at SS for 2012. We said we'd like to see him get a shot in ST, if not sooner. That's it. We won't get to see either. What are we "wrong" about. What's to admit to?  That we'd like to have seen a talented kid get a chance in Boston?  I'll admit to that if it will warm your heart. But no one has yet been right or wrong about Navarro's future. No one here predicted a great one for him, with Boston or anywhere. But more than one source HAS in fact predicted that he will have a better-than-average career if he gets a chance to play.  Gloat if you like that you were right and soxprospects wrong  about what Theo and Company think about the young man
    You're still patting yourself on the back. "I tried to be polite." ( You even went on about being a humane employer, to no purpose. ) I do not require or request politeness from you. ( It is not always appropriate. ) But I do request that you respond to what I've written in response to what you've written. You did not do that above. You used my post as an occasion to climb back on your hobby horse. You have not been "understanding" in the basic sense: getting the message that others are sending. 


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    in a mayonaise jar...hermetically sealed....noon today...(I miss Ed McMahon sparring with Johnny)
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]one can never accuse him of not repeating his points several times, now prepare for some more re-repeating of his points.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    I'll repeat: I hope we get a legitimate 2/3 starter type (like Shields, Guthrie or maybe Garza). I'd also like to see a guy like Fancouer, if the price is not too steep. If Reddick flounders, it will most likely be against LHPs, and if Crawford or Ellsbury get hurt, we won't be able to cover them well. Francouer would be a very good asset.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Bedard for Federowicz  & Chiang? 

    Seems like a bit much, but It's better than earlier reports of offers.

    Now, it will be time to hear all the bench/cut Wake threads. I do think Wake will need a break at some point, but here is how I rate our starters at this point:

    1) Beckett
    2) Lester
    3) Buchholtz (injured)
    4) Lackey
    5) Dice-K (injured)
    6) Wake
    7) Bedard__________
    8) Miller  (assuming Aceves stays in his relief role)
    9) Weiland

    Miller goes to the pen.

    I'd like to see Wake go 4-5 IP and have Miller of Aceves go 2-3 afterwards.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Bedard and Aviles.

    I think we are better than last week.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Bedard and Aviles. I think we are better than last week.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    And Moon, the guys we gave up were all secondary prospects. This does put us in a better position to win this year. We are going for it all this year. That is what this is all about. Long term guys like Fedex, Chiang and such might actually become decent mlb players but we are now in a better position to win this year. I hate this kind of trade but it's becoming clear that Buchholz may not be coming back this year and without this type of deal we might not even make the playoffs, let alone have  strong chance of winning. We need to get some solid contributions from Bedard and maybe even someday extend him if we can keep him healthy.  
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Seattle needed a catcher but we kept our top catching prospect. Chiang is a solid OF prospect but not a good fit for us ( not fast enough or a good enough fielder for CF or RF and not enough of a power bat for our LF plus we now have a lot of great OF prospects ). Fife was probably never more than a middle inning reliever.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]OK....I'm really going out there this time........What if Bedard is now available dirt cheap? Maybe Seattle doesn't have a lot to play for right now and why not move his contract? Maybe we can get him really cheap. He's coming back from a knee injury. It's not like his arm is bad. He might well still come back well after he gets his control back. I'd like to get him for a couple of B level prospects like Hazelbacker and Rodriguez. Something like that. It might be doable after his Friday outing and Theo certainly likes to buy low. I've been thinking about the playoffs lately. I think San Fran might even be favored after losing such a great talent in that young catcher ( Posey ). They have superb starting pitching. God knows that Beltran is a playoff performer. Philly looks to be a juggernaut but if Lincecum, Cain...etc are hot we might be looking at San Fran in the series again. We better have our #3 guy ready because if we get that far we probably are going to need him. And a lefty like a healthy Bedard would sure come in handy both against the Yanks and the Phillies. He has pitched well whenever he has been healthy. I think Bedard still has value. Just not as much as maybe was anticipated, making him a true bargain right now. Him having a bad outing in his first game back was good news to me. When he gets his control back he probably becomes a stud again.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    OK, since I'm now Carnac, the above post was from yesterday, before Harden was tried but after Bedard's disastrous outing Friday. I even predicted they would need a couple of "B" level prospects and that is what happened. Here are some other predictions. Personally I think I'm on a roll:

    1) Last winter I predicted Ellsbury would have a monster year in 2011. Not just a good year. A "monster" year. I've been predicting even 20-25 HR power from him for several years as he developed as a player. 

    2) I appear to have been wrong about Salty producing as a hitter this year. His RH swing in particular has improved and I stand corrected.

    3) I was one of the first to predict big things from Josh Reddick here and it appears to finally be happening. I predicted Reddick as still being the front runner in RF after Drew, even last year in the middle of the Kalish hype.

    4) I've been projecting Navarro to be of not much help to us for years now and that seems to be clearly confirmed now.

    5) I've been projecting Lavarnway as one of our top prospects for well over a year now. He is now proving to be the biggest bat we have developed in years. At this point in time, I think he is #1. That has been debated ad nauseum on soxprospects over the past year and I have been almost a minority of one on that projection. 

    6) I predicted Iglesias would be our top prospect shortly after he was signed. He is currently # 2 or 3 even after a down year and was #1 for a while.

    I could go on here but I'm just responding to the naysayers of the past few days. One of which just can't admit that he was wrong at all apparently.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Harness, Lackey just can't keep the ball down. He is not hitting his spots with the same frequency as before. At least that seems to be what is happening to me. He is getting hit badly. He's a big guy who needs to keep the ball down.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Again you generalize. You just posted that you admit when you are wrong.
    I showed you that his BB/IP was very similar to his #'s in CA. You said his control was "horrible".

    You said he's an 80 mil waste. I asked you to explain your assessment.
    Nothing.

    Now you say he is getting hit badly. He is in regression.
    How does 4-0 2.50 ERA constitute regression?

    On Navarro, here's a question to ponder: The Royals gave up a LT .286  hitter in Aviles - a two-time .300 hitter. Why would they do that for a
    projected utility player like Navarro?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]1. First of all, we need to exclude the Jimy/Joe seasons of Wake's career, which crushed his win-loss record as he pitched less innings and was an everyman reliever-spot starter. 2. Lackey has been a starter his whole career. Lackey has never once been in a situation where his SP role was in jeopardy. In fact, I'd say after the Toronto debacle, the following guys would have never seen another start if they were in Lackey's cleats---Wakefield or Aceves or even Miller if he was that horrendous (Miller's issues to me are wildness not particularly getting hit hard). 3. Wakefield makes less than 4 million a year, Lackey makes 17 million a year. Lackey was signed not to be a 14-win a year starter, but to be a No. 3 type guywho in the Sox view was actually a more solid-based producer than Clay, who at the time of Lackey's signing did not have his breakout year of 2010. 4. Of the Sox five starters, which one has not been on the DL due to injury or been out for any extended period...oh yeah, that fossil guy. My point is Wakefield and Lackey fall under different expectations from the FO or Tito or Theo. If they aren't, then Lackey would be making 4 million and we wouldn't be having a discussion about Lackey's disappointing run as a Sox. To me the biggest difference between Lackey and Wakefield is this: Lackey never has to worry about his rotation spot. Wakefield is on a start-to-start basis. Heck, he was just given a reprieve with the Harden deal falling through, and that was after probably his best start of the season. If Lackey gives up 8 ER next game, he's not falling under that microscope or scrutiny. He gets to get his next start and next start..why? Because his salary, the investment dictates it. It's the same philosophy as lower minor league ball. The guys who were given big money, high draft picks get free passes while 40th round guys have to hit .500 or pitch no hitters to be noticed or get through to the next level.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]


    Not sure how this evolved into a Wake/Lackey discussion. But comparing the two based on salary (and expectations there of) is ludicrous. One was a legit FA.
    The other gives his team team-friendly deals.

    I do agree with you that salary sways the politics of demotion. No doubt. But the discussion here is what the expectations of Lackey are. At the time of his signing, he was seen behind Lester/Beckett. That was the perception. Now, keep in mind, Dice was signed as a #2 at the time of his signing.
    But he ended up a #5. Why? Because of rotational depth/injury.

    "Lackey was not signed to be a 14 game winner" is UR opinion. He averaged 14 wins a year in CA. If he was seen as a 17-game winner sliding in the 3rd slot, that wasn't a realistic assessment, as no criteria validates that. My point is, you are over-estimating his worth based on a FA contract. Beckett wins an avg. of 14.6 wins per season with Boston. He has won 4% more of his starts than Lackey since coming to Boston.

    I asked Moon this on the Lackey thread, but perhaps he missed it. So I'll ask you: What in your opinion is Josh Beckett worth on the open market?
    And yes, I'm all about winning. That's what it all comes down to. R U any different?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : OK, since I'm now Carnac, the above post was from yesterday, before Harden was tried but after Bedard's disastrous outing Friday. I even predicted they would need a couple of "B" level prospects and that is what happened. Here are some other predictions. Personally I think I'm on a roll: 1) Last winter I predicted Ellsbury would have a monster year in 2011. Not just a good year. A "monster" year. I've been predicting even 20-25 HR power from him for several years as he developed as a player.  2) I appear to have been wrong about Salty producing as a hitter this year. His RH swing in particular has improved and I stand corrected. 3) I was one of the first to predict big things from Josh Reddick here and it appears to finally be happening. I predicted Reddick as still being the front runner in RF after Drew, even last year in the middle of the Kalish hype. 4) I've been projecting Navarro to be of not much help to us for years now and that seems to be clearly confirmed now. 5) I've been projecting Lavarnway as one of our top prospects for well over a year now. He is now proving to be the biggest bat we have developed in years. At this point in time, I think he is #1. That has been debated ad nauseum on soxprospects over the past year and I have been almost a minority of one on that projection.  6) I predicted Iglesias would be our top prospect shortly after he was signed. He is currently # 2 or 3 even after a down year and was #1 for a while. I could go on here but I'm just responding to the naysayers of the past few days. One of which just can't admit that he was wrong at all apparently.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Some real good calls, no doubt.
    The talk here in Seattle was that the M's wouldn't settle for less than Reddick. Kudo's to Theo for getting the deal done and saving Reddick/Kalish. It became a matter of lesser stock when Boston didn't get the open window to extend Bedard ahead of time.

    I think this deal was necessary. Like you, I hope it's more than an 8-week rental, because that 's a high cost for Fife/Fed.(our best all-around catching prospect)
    and Chiang. Of course, if it nets a ring, that's something else.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III


    Expitch,  was your sarcasm to Boom really necessary.  At another time, there was a another poster here who although intelligent, just oozed unnecessary sarcasm.

    I really would hope that you don't need an ego-extender.

    It was I who apologized to you when a post of yours hit a raw nerve with me.  And, Boom has had very kind words about you.  Now, he's Carnac?

    It's my hope that I don't have to reasses my initial feeling?

    But, whatever, this a blog site and people can choose any persona they want.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I'm not here to argue or criticize. I'm hear to talk baseball and give my opinion. I'm not here to brag. I only bring up the above because my projections have been criticized. I didn't like the Crawford deal either by the way for that kind of money but was excited about his potential anyway. I'm a fan but I don't want to be an ignorant fan. I actually liked the Lackey deal originally as a good use of money but I don't see how that one is going to work out well at this point. I projected Tampa Bay for 91 wins but that is probably questionable now. None of us are going to get it right even close to all the time.

    It's interesting that the Yanks stood pat. Maybe they are tired of spending money. We are becoming the Yanks and we are getting burned some from those high priced contracts which do not always produce. It's a cycle perhaps. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III



    i never interpreted anything you said as 'bragging'.

    What troubles me about Lackey is that he seems to get hit 'hard'.  Yeah, I know this is a statistical site, but what can I say?  It just seems that everything is hit solid when he pitches.

    I feel for a pitcher who has a 'bad game' when bloopers, hits to the opposite field down the line, or broken bat seeing-eye hits get through.

    I guess Theo feels that if enough is thrown against the wall, some will stick.  Maybe Millwood will come through later this year.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]i never interpreted anything you said as 'bragging'. What troubles me about Lackey is that he seems to get hit 'hard'.  Yeah, I know this is a statistical site, but what can I say?  It just seems that everything is hit solid when he pitches. I feel for a pitcher who has a 'bad game' when bloopers, hits to the opposite field down the line, or broken bat seeing-eye hits get through. I guess Theo feels that if enough is thrown against the wall, some will stick.  Maybe Millwood will come through later this year.
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    I think the reason for this perception is that he doesn't have the kind of pitch variance of a Josh Beckett. So, he's putting less in a hitter's head.
    His style of pitching has always been "hit-or-miss".

    In the same tone, Wake is also "hit-or-miss"  in this respect. Keep in mind, Wake has averaged 13.7 wins as a starter in his career. Lackey averages 14 wins.
    If the fans think Lackey should now win 17-18 a year because he's being paid more, they are in for a rude awakening...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Listen, Carmac, my last post was in response to yours claiming that while the rest of us were nattering about a starter or right fielder you "made the call" about shortstop. Many posters were all over that subject. 

    Yeah, as in proposing Navarro to be given a shot there. I don't care who was first but the projections appeared wrong to me. We didn't have a good internal solution and we still don't but we are going to limp by until next year apparently. Scutaro is acceptable and we now have both Lowrie and Avila for backup. Acceptable.

    Some wanted to see Iglesias right now, others to see Navarro get a shot.  You were, as usual, patting yourself on the back, this time for making the call that half the board was making. You did not make the call on the trade. 

    I said we didn't have a good internal option and I said that Theo was probably looking outside the organization. I suggested Jose Reyes as an unlikely possibility but suggested they had to do something external. It turned out to be the case.

    All of that, not the whole Navarro question, is what I called you on. But you are so wrapped up in your diagnostic and prognosticative acumen that you didn't read my post carefully. It did not go back over the whole Navarro issue. You chose to do that on your own here, without prompting because you love to strut.  Now, please read carefully. You are right that you and the Sox agreed about Navarro. That's it. You cannot be right yet about Navarro's destiny as sub/minor leaguer. Some of us thought Navarro was worth a shot. You and the Sox did not. ( You've repeated your "evidence" ad nauseam. ) That's the extent of your correctness. Gloat away.  If the Royals or some other team allows Navarro to play a sustained stretch at short or third, not your oft-repeated "9 games," we'll know more.  

    I said 9 innings like 3 times but you still didn't get it apparently. Navarro might become an acceptable 3rd base guy but it is unlikely. If he becomes a PED user he may develop more pop and become a good 3rd base option, even a great one. Other than that I think it is highly unlikely. Personally, I think he is primarily a career minor league guy waiting to happen.

    You do like to attack straw men. None of us claimed Navarro was a sure thing or that he should be penciled in at SS for 2012. 

    When did I ever say that you, or anyone else, said he was a sure thing or should be penciled in? It didn't happen. I was disputing that he would even be given a sincere shot. He was the Redsox SS of last resort only IMO.

    We said we'd like to see him get a shot in ST, if not sooner. That's it. We won't get to see either. What are we "wrong" about. What's to admit to?  

    That he was not going to be given a real shot at SS for the Redsox. He clearly was not going to be given that opportunity after 9 innings played there in 2 years in the majors and he was clearly being groomed as a sub even in the minors. 

    That we'd like to have seen a talented kid get a chance in Boston?  
    I'll admit to that if it will warm your heart. But no one has yet been right or wrong about Navarro's future. No one here predicted a great one for him, with Boston or anywhere. But more than one source HAS in fact predicted that he will have a better-than-average career if he gets a chance to play.  Gloat if you like that you were right and soxprospects wrong  about what Theo and Company think about the young man .  You're still patting yourself on the back. "I tried to be polite." ( You even went on about being a humane employer, to no purpose. ) I do not require or request politeness from you. ( It is not always appropriate. ) But I do request that you respond to what I've written in response to what you've written.

    I respond and you guys criticize that I respond too much. That I repeat things. I gave lots of pertinent details which proved relevant and insightful. Here is another response.

    You did not do that above. You used my post as an occasion to climb back on your hobby horse. You have not been "understanding" in the basic sense: getting the message that others are sending. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Red Sox have big money to win now.  That means prospects are swapped for other team's players (some being prospects that turned out better).  Signing major league free agents doesn't always work either as the injuries take their toll.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III



    I'm predicting a Red Sox vs. Braves World Series. 

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    The Braves have a great team. Got to win the wild card though probably.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxPatsCelts1988. Show SoxPatsCelts1988's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    It will take a massive playoff collapse from the Phillies for them not to make the WS.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : OK, since I'm now Carnac, the above post was from yesterday, before Harden was tried but after Bedard's disastrous outing Friday. I even predicted they would need a couple of "B" level prospects and that is what happened. Here are some other predictions. Personally I think I'm on a roll: 1) Last winter I predicted Ellsbury would have a monster year in 2011. Not just a good year. A "monster" year. I've been predicting even 20-25 HR power from him for several years as he developed as a player.  2) I appear to have been wrong about Salty producing as a hitter this year. His RH swing in particular has improved and I stand corrected. 3) I was one of the first to predict big things from Josh Reddick here and it appears to finally be happening. I predicted Reddick as still being the front runner in RF after Drew, even last year in the middle of the Kalish hype. 4) I've been projecting Navarro to be of not much help to us for years now and that seems to be clearly confirmed now. 5) I've been projecting Lavarnway as one of our top prospects for well over a year now. He is now proving to be the biggest bat we have developed in years. At this point in time, I think he is #1. That has been debated ad nauseum on soxprospects over the past year and I have been almost a minority of one on that projection.  6) I predicted Iglesias would be our top prospect shortly after he was signed. He is currently # 2 or 3 even after a down year and was #1 for a while. I could go on here but I'm just responding to the naysayers of the past few days. One of which just can't admit that he was wrong at all apparently.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    Hey, I admitted that I was wrong about about how Boston regarded Navarro.  I thought he would get a shot in ST if he wasn't traded. Well, he WAS traded, but even that doesn't mean that he would not have had a shot in ST if he were still with the club.
    None of this makes you right about Navarro as a player -- yet. And that has always been the core of your argument. And you can't be right about him at this point.  
    The distinction made in those paragraphs seems to elude you or to be too clear-cut for you to admit.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Expitch,  was your sarcasm to Boom really necessary.  At another time, there was a another poster here who although intelligent, just oozed unnecessary sarcasm. I really would hope that you don't need an ego-extender. It was I who apologized to you when a post of yours hit a raw nerve with me.  And, Boom has had very kind words about you.  Now, he's Carnac? It's my hope that I don't have to reasses my initial feeling? But, whatever, this a blog site and people can choose any persona they want.
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]
    Boom has persistently misconstrued or deliberately misrepresented my position, and that of others, on the Navarro issue, in order to make himself look good. Talk about ego.
    I have nothing to prove, as harness said, but I will not tolerate distortion of my argument, as neither should anyone else.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Again you generalize. You just posted that you admit when you are wrong. I showed you that his BB/IP was very similar to his #'s in CA. You said his control was " horrible ". You said he's an 80 mil waste. I asked you to explain your assessment. Nothing. Now you say he is getting hit badly. He is in regression. How does 4-0 2.50 ERA constitute regression? On Navarro, here's a question to ponder: The Royals gave up a LT .286  hitter in Aviles - a two-time .300 hitter. Why would they do that for a projected utility player like Navarro?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]
    Boom has a habit of generalizing and overstating and firing from the hip. If his responses to me are anything to go by, he also doesn't read carefully. Or doesn't get distinctions.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]I'm not here to argue or criticize. I'm hear to talk baseball and give my opinion. I'm not here to brag. I only bring up the above because my projections have been criticized. I didn't like the Crawford deal either by the way for that kind of money but was excited about his potential anyway. I'm a fan but I don't want to be an ignorant fan. I actually liked the Lackey deal originally as a good use of money but I don't see how that one is going to work out well at this point. I projected Tampa Bay for 91 wins but that is probably questionable now. None of us are going to get it right even close to all the time. It's interesting that the Yanks stood pat. Maybe they are tired of spending money. We are becoming the Yanks and we are getting burned some from those high priced contracts which do not always produce. It's a cycle perhaps. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    I have not criticized your projections. Show me where I have. BUT I have said that your projection of Navarro as a sub/minor leaguer is premature

     

Share