A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'll ask this again Moon: Why is it the Redsox demand compensation for Theo, but they pay to get rid of Young?

    My guess is because the Cubs are dumb enough to pay for Theo a year before they could have had him for free, and the A's are too poor and smart to pay Young as much as the Sox were paying him. The Sox would have paid Young anyways, and no way would Young go to the A's for less money. I guess he could have waited to be axed first and things might appear differently.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'm glad you responded also Moon. I wanted to ask you but was distracted. To me, it is a very tough call regarding Kalish/Reddick. We will see what happens. I think Reddick's arm makes the difference but I bet more people here would project Kalish. It depends in part on ST. Kalish has more long term upside maybe. He's potentially a very exciting player with a lot of speed and solid pop also. The thing about Reddick that I think gets missed is that he is very streaky. He wasn't necessarily exposed late season. He might just have stopped being hot. He can have some torrid hot streaks though, as he showed earlier in the year.

    My gut tells me Reddick is not for real. My gut has been wrong before, so I still hold our hope.

    With a catcher in Lavarnway's situation I do think he is more likely to start in Pawtucket, as that is conventioanl wisdom, as I alluded to above, but I wish they would just put him in the majors now. I think he can help us in 2012 at the ML level right from the start.

    Both are probably true: he can help us from day 1, but he'd be better served in AAA to start the year catching everyday. In the long run, it might be helpful for the Sox as well.

    I think having a chance to mainly just focus on hitting in the majors at first might actually help Lavarnway's development. I have no problem keeping Tek but I'd rather take the pick and use Lavarnway as the backup catcher. Maybe getting the same reps at catcher that Tek got. That is the situation Lavarnway is used to and he has shown good defensive development following that approach already. Plus it keeps him fresh and producing in the lineup. I really think this guy is going to hit at the ML level. He will be potentially one of the top hitting catchers in the league year one according to his minor league data. We will see. Who knows but I see zero reason to be negative on him as a hitter, like harness.

    I think he will be  a very good hitter too, but nothing is certain. many great AAA hitters turn into busts.

    No, I do not like Aviles as our SS. To me, he is a safety valve. We got him for Navarro right? I'm assuming mainly for the Royals to save a little cash as he was running out of options ( or had already run out maybe ). I'd be extremely surprised if he is our starting SS next year baring major injury to someone. 

    He was a salary dump, not a skills dump. The guy is a better fielder than Scutaro, and may hit better next year.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I'll ask this again Moon : Why is it the Redsox demand compensation for Theo, but they pay to get rid of Young? My guess is because the Cubs are dumb enough to pay for Theo a year before they could have had him for free, and the A's are too poor and smart to pay Young as much as the Sox were paying him. The Sox would have paid Young anyways, and no way would Young go to the A's for less money. I guess he could have waited to be axed first and things might appear differently.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]Exactly.

    The RS know they are going to be blowing up the coaching staff now that they have not exercised their option on Francona. So did the A's.

    From the A's perspective, they were out bid by the RS for Curt Young after the 2010 season. They clearly weren't happy with their replacement for Young and saw a chance to rectify the loss at terms that were advantageous to them. So they asked the RS for permission to talk to Young and the RS complied. 

    The Cubs case is a whole different kettle of fish. The Cubs had begun recruiting Epstein during the 2011 season. he was under contract. Comparing the Young situation to Epstein situation is apples and oranges. The writing was not on the wall that Larry Lucchino was being dismissed and that most of his key direct reports would be released while still under contract.

    The comparison is designed to support an argument but they are very different situations which I think the person posing the question knew. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Exactly. The RS know they are going to be blowing up the coaching staff now that they have not exercised their option on Francona. So did the A's. From the A's perspective, they were out bid by the RS for Curt Young after the 2010 season. They clearly weren't happy with their replacement for Young and saw a chance to rectify the loss at terms that were advantageous to them. So they asked the RS for permission to talk to Young and the RS complied.  The Cubs case is a whole different kettle of fish. The Cubs had begun recruiting Epstein during the 2011 season. he was under contract. Comparing the Young situation to Epstein situation is apples and oranges. The writing was not on the wall that Larry Lucchino was being dismissed and that most of his key direct reports would be released while still under contract. The comparison is designed to support an argument but they are very different situations which I think the person posing the question knew. 
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]
    I've read nothing to suggest that the Cubs were recruiting Theo Epstein while he was under contract during the 2011 season.

    The media speculated wildly* after the Cubs fired general manager Jim Henry in August. The Cubs no doubt had internal discussions about Henry's replacement soon thereafter. Information may have leaked out of this discussions, perhaps by a low-level employee.

    But that's a far cry from alleging the Cubs were recruiting Epstein during the season.

    * the early speculation from the Chicago newspapers rarely included Theo Epstein:
    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-08/sports/ct-spt-0909-gms-cubs-chicago--20110909_1_rickettses-tim-wilken-assistant-gm
    http://www.suntimes.com/sports/7165246-419/5-most-likely-candidates-for-the-cubs-gm-job.html
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I've read nothing to suggest that the Cubs were recruiting Theo Epstein while he was under contract during the 2011 season. The media speculated wildly* after the Cubs fired general manager Jim Henry in August. The Cubs no doubt had internal discussions about Henry's replacement soon thereafter. Information may have leaked out of this discussions, perhaps by a low-level employee. But that's a far cry from alleging the Cubs were recruiting Epstein during the season. * the early speculation from the Chicago newspapers rarely included Theo Epstein: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-08/sports/ct-spt-0909-gms-cubs-chicago--20110909_1_rickettses-tim-wilken-assistant-gm http://www.suntimes.com/sports/7165246-419/5-most-likely-candidates-for-the-cubs-gm-job.html
    Posted by hill55[/QUOTE]Okay let's assume that the leaks were writers throwing darts blindly at a board to point that RS ownership and Epstein felt compelled to answers those rumors. Seems pretty unlikely.

    I tend to assume that most rumors come from sources and it isn't dumb luck when they become fact later.

    The Cubs have effectively used the media through out this process to try and shape events and the conversations IMO.

    But let me reframe the statement since it is speculative. "The istuations are different because there was industry speculation that the Cubs were wanting to talk to Epstein about assuming the rol of team president that had been going on for two months prior to the conclusion of the season."

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Reddick was "not hot" for the since the All-Star break????
    Try comatose. 13 whole RBI and a .244 BA, .180 with RISP and 2 outs.
    Abysmal, not, "not hot".
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    On softy

    You should know all about patent lies. You just told two more.
    I never said or came close to saying:
     "the Red Sox had to sign the best FA OF on the market".

    Unlike UR posts, mine are still here. Put UR money where your mouth is.
    I said the team would go after CC/Werth in a big way. You claimed they would not.
    I said LF is where they are likely to upgrade. And I gave several reasons why. You disagreed with them.

    I said I liked a 3-4 year deal (13-16 mil) to take advantage of the speed tandem.
    Never did I advocate 7 years - especially at 20 mil.

    Stop sniffing so much glue...  (harness)

    He tried the same thing on me. First arguing I was for Crawford, when everyone and their mother knows I was against it with every bone in my body from even before the signing was announced. He then said I wanted Dunn to replace Papi at the money Chicago paid him. Yes, I wanted Dunn when the Nats signed him at $20M/2 and it would have been a great deal at $21M/2. I then wanted to trade for him when Youk got hurt. This winter I mentioned him as one of several options in LF, not DH and said I wouldn't go higher than $12M x 2 or 3 yrs. His lies are neverending. I suggest you do as I did: put him on Iggy.

    that is why you expel gas in your 3rd grade class.
    Posted by 2004Idiots


    Funny how this other clown just criticized you for being childish. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Reddick was "not hot" for the since the All-Star break???? Try comatose. 13 whole RBI and a .244 BA, .180 with RISP and 2 outs. Abysmal, not, "not hot".
    Posted by GhostofTito[/QUOTE]

    .244 is not abysmal or comatose - it's 20 points below league average, and on the year he hit .280, so I think it's OK to be optimistic.  Don't forget - he was streaking when the Sox called him up - between Pawtucket & Boston, he really had a great year.  Yeah, he faded at the end, but that's not uncommon for rookies not used to the stress of travel and schedule.  I think he'll show improvement next year. 

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I think most people read complete sentences and have no problem undertanding the sentence. Everyone except nit picking fiction writers like you. Misquoting, nit picking fiction writers like you. If you misquote me again, as you have done several times recently, I will be in your face again.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]
    People who read complete sentences correctly understand how parts relate to form meaning. I read the meaning of your sentence correctly as it appeared on the page. If you think that following the rules of syntax, as writer or reader, is nit-picking, no wonder your have trouble with reading comprehension. No sane person would enter your febrile brain to search out what you might have thought you meant.
    A thread from you is the rough equivalent of someone brandishing a powder puff. 

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Reddick was "not hot" for the since the All-Star break???? Try comatose. 13 whole RBI and a .244 BA, .180 with RISP and 2 outs. Abysmal, not, "not hot".
    Posted by GhostofTito


    .244 is not abysmal or comatose - it's 20 points below league average, and on the year he hit .280, so I think it's OK to be optimistic.  Don't forget - he was streaking when the Sox called him up - between Pawtucket & Boston, he really had a great year.  Yeah, he faded at the end, but that's not uncommon for rookies not used to the stress of travel and schedule.  I think he'll show improvement next year. 

    I'm not so sure. He's never hit well all year long. He's a very good fielder, so he can make up for some loss on offense, but I doubt he will ever be more than a .270  15  75 RH'er. Not bad, but even at his best, not really a difference maker either.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I



    I think Critter came up with the name Crawbury...
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : People who read complete sentences correctly understand how parts relate to form meaning. I read the meaning of your sentence correctly as it appeared on the page. If you think that following the rules of syntax, as writer or reader, is nit-picking, no wonder your have trouble with reading comprehension. No sane person would enter your febrile brain to search out what you might have thought you meant. A thread from you is the rough equivalent of someone brandishing a powder puff. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    I think we've more than covered this by now. I don't like to argue ad finitum over nothing. Over syntax when it was abundently clear I was talking about how some writers might not vote for Bautista because of PED suspicions. Many writers clearly have suspicions and quite frankly so do it. If you weren't such a Pollyanna you would too. The guy was released from one team to another something like 5 times in one year alone when he was around 26. He is up for a new contract and them BAM ...Superman. He went from ZERO to SUPERHERO. He's from the DR and he put up Bondsian type numbers. If you don't have suspicions you aren't following the data.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I think Critter came up with the name Crawbury...
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]
    If that is the case fine but Harness was all over it for sure. As were many of us. I didn't even think they would try to sign him. I remember Gammons saying the Redsox were going to be in on him and I thought Gammons was crazy. It was a complete shock to me that they even tried but when they did sign him many of us were excited. The disengenuous part was thinking anyone had any chance to sign him for under $60 mil. It smacks of Softy revisionism. It's not like anyone projected him signing for around $60 mil.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I'm glad you responded also Moon. I wanted to ask you but was distracted. To me, it is a very tough call regarding Kalish/Reddick. We will see what happens. I think Reddick's arm makes the difference but I bet more people here would project Kalish. It depends in part on ST. Kalish has more long term upside maybe. He's potentially a very exciting player with a lot of speed and solid pop also. The thing about Reddick that I think gets missed is that he is very streaky. He wasn't necessarily exposed late season. He might just have stopped being hot. He can have some torrid hot streaks though, as he showed earlier in the year. My gut tells me Reddick is not for real. My gut has been wrong before, so I still hold our hope. With a catcher in Lavarnway's situation I do think he is more likely to start in Pawtucket, as that is conventioanl wisdom, as I alluded to above, but I wish they would just put him in the majors now. I think he can help us in 2012 at the ML level right from the start. Both are probably true: he can help us from day 1, but he'd be better served in AAA to start the year catching everyday. In the long run, it might be helpful for the Sox as well. I think having a chance to mainly just focus on hitting in the majors at first might actually help Lavarnway's development. I have no problem keeping Tek but I'd rather take the pick and use Lavarnway as the backup catcher. Maybe getting the same reps at catcher that Tek got. That is the situation Lavarnway is used to and he has shown good defensive development following that approach already. Plus it keeps him fresh and producing in the lineup. I really think this guy is going to hit at the ML level. He will be potentially one of the top hitting catchers in the league year one according to his minor league data. We will see. Who knows but I see zero reason to be negative on him as a hitter, like harness. I think he will be  a very good hitter too, but nothing is certain. many great AAA hitters turn into busts. No, I do not like Aviles as our SS. To me, he is a safety valve. We got him for Navarro right? I'm assuming mainly for the Royals to save a little cash as he was running out of options ( or had already run out maybe ). I'd be extremely surprised if he is our starting SS next year baring major injury to someone.  He was a salary dump, not a skills dump. The guy is a better fielder than Scutaro, and may hit better next year.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Reddick doesn't get a lot of love around here and the numbers do not look good. Baseball America has thought highly of him though. Apparently some scouts like him still. He could be a regular going forward or he could  just be another flash in the pan OF like Brandon Moss or an irregular like David Murphy...etc. I can see that. I highly doubt he becomes an all star but I do think he can become a regular somewhere and I do think he has a chance to fit in with the Sox in RF. Who knows what his destiny entails? The data sure doesn't indicate a future star but my general projection is that he continues to be underated. If a guy can stay hot like that for several months he has a chance to put things together for longer than that. We had Nixon playing out in RF for years right, with really only one solid year out of him. Reddick can maybe surpass Nixon's career IMO.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    What was "abundantly clear" is that Boom assigned the taint to Baustista, and then speculated about consequences in the MVP voting. That's how his sentence reads in English. 
    As Harness has shown, there are other perfectly good explanations for Bautista's improvement. As long as they are in play, one should at the very least hesitate before blackening the man's reputation. A serious allegation requires serious proof.  Nothing said so far against the man meets that standard. Indeed, many of the writers Boom used as sources insist upon that very point. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rutland76. Show Rutland76's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Reddick was "not hot" for the since the All-Star break???? Try comatose. 13 whole RBI and a .244 BA, .180 with RISP and 2 outs. Abysmal, not, "not hot".
    Posted by GhostofTito[/QUOTE]

    We are all aware of that but you seem to be joyful about it. Why is that?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I said the team would go after CC/Werth in a big way. You claimed they would not.
    I said LF is where they are likely to upgrade. And I gave several reasons why. You disagreed with them.

    I never claimed what Inepstein would do. I said he would be an idiot if he went after Crawford. You gave several reasons why they had to do it. You then applauded it.

    Boomer is correct, you have zero credibility, despite shill status.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Reddick doesn't get a lot of love around here and the numbers do not look good. Baseball America has thought highly of him though. Apparently some scouts like him still. He could be a regular going forward or he could  just be another flash in the pan OF like Brandon Moss or an irregular like David Murphy...etc. I can see that. I highly doubt he becomes an all star but I do think he can become a regular somewhere and I do think he has a chance to fit in with the Sox in RF. Who knows what his destiny entails? The data sure doesn't indicate a future star but my general projection is that he continues to be underated. If a guy can stay hot like that for several months he has a chance to put things together for longer than that. We had Nixon playing out in RF for years right, with really only one solid year out of him. Reddick can maybe surpass Nixon's career IMO.

    I'm not doubting that Reddick might become a good or very good player some day, but my feeling is he may just become a good platoon player (maybe like Murphy) at best.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Anyone wanting Dunn for massive amounts of money is not credible on any issue.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Anyone wanting Dunn for massive amounts of money is not credible on any issue.
    Posted by hankwilliams[/QUOTE]I've got to say that I agree with you for the first time since the Gonzo deal, which I reckon is going to look like highway robbery in a couple of years. What Gonzo did this year, just coming off shoulder surgery is nothing short of amazing.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I


    I'm certain it was written many times, but I don't remember and really am not up to scrolling through about 500 posts to find the answer, so I'll ask.

    What were Sciocsia's feeling about Napoli when he played for the Angels?  I might be wrong here, but wasn't he thought of as being all bat and little defense?  If so, he's been looking pretty darned good offensively and defensively.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Anyone wanting Dunn for massive amounts of money is not credible on any issue.
    Posted by hankwilliams
    I've got to say that I agree with you for the first time since the Gonzo deal, which I reckon is going to look like highway robbery in a couple of years. What Gonzo did this year, just coming off shoulder surgery is nothing short of amazing.

    Don't fall for the lies. I never wanted Dunn at even close to what Chicago spent and I wanted him for 1B- 3 years ago and as a possibility in LF last winter.

    While softy's revisionist history will tell you he was "the leader in advocating for Gonzo" nothing could be farther from the truth. He blasted boom 2 years ago for wanting AGon, and all last season was saying there was a 50% chance that AGon would be traded at all before bcoming a FA. He then said, if it happened, it would be for "Jake and Jed". I correctly called the AGon trade last Spetmeber and showed softy the link when he lied about me earlier. I later said we'd trade Kelly, Rizzo and Bowden for AGon: softy said I was an idiot. Later when proven wrong, instead of admitting He was wrong and I was right, he blamed it on the "idiotic SD GM for noe demanding Ellsbury and Lowrie". Then, there was softy's lengthy thread whereby he claimed over and over that AGon would not extend in April, like many of us claimed he would, but instead would become a FA, and that the fact that we only traded Kelly and Rizzo for him proved it was just a 1 year rental. Of course, now he is claiming he got that one right too, just as he claimed Mauer would sign for $17-18M/yr with MN.

    Don't drink the Clown Kool-Aid: it's poison.   
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    posted at 10/24/2011 9:59 PM EDT
    Posts: 9118
    First: 11/17/2008
    Last: 10/24/2011

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    I think Critter came up with the name Crawbury...
    Posted by ampoule

    If that is the case fine but Harness was all over it for sure. As were many of us. I didn't even think they would try to sign him. I remember Gammons saying the Redsox were going to be in on him and I thought Gammons was crazy. It was a complete shock to me that they even triedbut when they did sign him many of us were excited. The disengenuous part was thinking anyone had any chance to sign him for under $60 mil. It smacks of Softy revisionism. It's not like anyone projected him signing for around $60 mil.


    It was a complete shock to you because your grasp is poor.  LF was the obvious position to upgrade last winter. I must have said it 5-10 times.

    Moon and I figured his potential worth to be around 13-16 mil a year - figured on the likelihood of a 3-4 year deal.
    What was anything but obvious last October was that he'd demand 20 mil a year for 7 years.

    Crit did come up with CRAWBURY, and I commended him on it and even started a thread about it.

    As for Softy revisionary tactics, you have more of him in you than anybody on this board. You've shown it since the end of the other REALISTIC thread. Your credibility has splintered into fragments of imbalanced emotional regression.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I'll ask this again Moon : Why is it the Redsox demand compensation for Theo, but they pay to get rid of Young? My guess is because the Cubs are dumb enough to pay for Theo a year before they could have had him for free, and the A's are too poor and smart to pay Young as much as the Sox were paying him. The Sox would have paid Young anyways, and no way would Young go to the A's for less money. I guess he could have waited to be axed first and things might appear differently.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    He would have if no other offers came his way...unless he opted to retire.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Amp, I think I did come up with "Crawberry."  I was stunned when we got him, thinking we would never go for him, that we already had his type, that we would go for a right hander.  I was stunned at what we paid him.  Then I started to get excited at the thought of what he and Ells might be able to do on the bases, what havoc they might bring to another team.  Since that initial excitement it's been a bitter pill.  At this point he doesn't deserve to be hooked up with Ells.  I won't refer to that moniker until he actually sustains some good baseball.  I thought we had two Ells and we only got one and a half.  I might call him "HalfBerry" in the future.

    I will throw this question out one more time as no one offered an answer the other day.  Will the RS actually try to change his batting approach/stance etc.
    I know players themselves will sometimes change after a bad year, but can an organization force this?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share