A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]How many inaccuracies can you say in one post Burrito? I have around 9000 or so posts. Does that disqualify me? It's not about popolarity. It should be about quality. As with most elections, it's often decided by the wrong criteria. I didn't say Bautista was using PEDS. I said SPORTSWRITERS MIGHT NOT VOTE FOR BAUTISTA IN THE MVP VOTE AS MUCH BECAUSE HE WAS SO TAINTED ( many sportswriters think he might be a PED user and have written about it extensively as I proved over and over with articles cited ). There clearly has been suspicion in the sportswriter venue for a long time. I didn't start it. I noted it's existence in the context of their MVP vote potential. That's called INSIGHT. It's valid data. I had to argue that statement for a week when virtually all of you stood by and didn't say a thing when my statement got distorted over and over. It turns out that Ellsbury did edge him out BTW. When people distort positions like that I FOR ONE WILL STEP UP AND GIVE MY SUPPORT TO THE ONE BEING TREATED THAT WAY. i've stated several times how much respect i have for Moon as a poster. I could list 5 or 6 things I have disagreed with him on significantly but he has reasoned arguments and contributes a lot here, OBVIOUSLY. Moon has insight and he contributes greatly here. He's probably still poster of the year in my view. He's just not perfect. None of us are. The Yankees fans are high fiving each other over how Kim played us ( Moon especially apparently ) into thinking he was a quality poster when he is now showing himself to be a troll of "Babe" proportions. That is what started this. I think you are generally a good person Burrito, and you are unfortunately collateral damage in this discussion. I'm sorry about that. Kim was the main issue. Expitch has some insight, even if as I suspect a lot of it is fiction writing ( I could be wrong there ). I value insight more than most I guess. Friendships have proven to be largely worthless here, as HArness has exhibited over and over ( how many votes did he get?).  This forum is an intellectual discussion where some people throw each other under the bus regularly, or ignore it when others are doing it, simply because they want others to agree with them. What is integrity worth to each of us? On a sports forum apparently not much. Isn't it easy to see how BS some people are here. Lots of people intentionally lie here. And many of us could not admit the slightest mistake if their life depended on it. Why play along with that? I don't want to offend people. Maybe I'm just autistic, because the filter doesn't seem to work with me as it does for others apparently. When someone makes a bonehead decision like that "Poster of the Year Roster" I comment about it. I hesitated to do it until Kim displayed himself in full colors ( you all can believe it's a girl if you want ). It looked like Moon just slocked it out, unlike his normal meticulous work. I don't know why. I prefer to think it was with good intentions but he just slocked it out. I had a great year in 2011. I really did and very few noticed apparently. Fine, that's ok. I think it was an insult to many of us though to see that list as it was comprised. Was it really a list of great posters? We all do things sometimes without thinking. I don't think Moon put a lot of thought into it because if he did I think it would come out differently IMO. This is not to say there were not a lot of great posters there. Notin is a good one. Tom, Hill, Katz. Harness gives us a ton of volume even if he is stubborn and misguided sometimes. He is the kind of guy who would throw kids in the "pokey" to make his point sometimes if he were a teacher. Absolutely the forum police to the extreme but he does contribute a lot. That counts also to me. JoeBriedy posts almost never ( it seems to me ) but he is dead on when he does every time IMO. Chip was great. Bill Lee was great. Guys like Red, and Zil and Youk with his poems...etc. all are worthy. I like 10-20 more who could fit on that list.  It wouldn't take much time to do a multithread poll of nothing but quality posters and still some would get left out but that's no big deal as long as the roster is solid. Once a year only and the originator should not be on the list of options. Even that might not be advised.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Please eloborate... Laughing

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Lovely posts by Boom in this thread. Must be his safe thread. He not only calls me a guy, but a troll very much like Babe/HeadofTed, admittedly the biggest Yankee troll ever. Wonder how his hero 791 will feel about that, since Babe has been his best friend. Covered himself with Burrito, probably seeing he's really no match for him. Amazing he backtracked on his original "illustrious list" comment, and added a few more names besides his own, probably to seem less like the girl who was/is crying because she was left off a list on a baseball forum.

    Anything else said in this thread I'm in support of, as long as it helps Boom stop crying.

     
  3. 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]Lovely posts by Boom in this thread. Must be his safe thread. He not only calls me a guy, but a troll very much like Babe/HeadofTed, admittedly the biggest Yankee troll ever. Wonder how his hero 791 will feel about that, since Babe has been his best friend. Covered himself with Burrito, probably seeing he's really no match for him. Amazing he backtracked on his original "illustrious list" comment, and added a few more names besides his own, probably to seem less like the girl who was/is crying because she was left off a list on a baseball forum. Anything else said in this thread I'm in support of, as long as it helps Boom stop crying.
    Posted by kimsaysthis[/QUOTE]
    As usual, another P.O.S. post from you "Kimberly". Full of comple BS as if "Babe" was ever 791's friend...etc. Have a great life in troll city. I have no idea what motivates you beyond the crank telephone call phenomena little deviant kids are famous for. Calling people out of nowhere and asking innocuous questions, breathing heavy ...etc. That is your level of discourse. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis'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 : As usual, another P.O.S. post from you "Kimberly". Full of comple BS as if "Babe" was ever 791's friend...etc. Have a great life in troll city. I have no idea what motivates you beyond the crank telephone call phenomena little deviant kids are famous for. Calling people out of nowhere and asking innocuous questions, breathing heavy ...etc. That is your level of discourse. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    Babe was his friend here, and was one of his biggest supporters on/of his blog. And 791 defended him constantly. And how can you call me Kimberly if you say I'm a guy?

    You're the one who put a post up saying Zac gets no love here, and you can't understand what motivates me? Join the club as I have no idea why a person would put that up.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Let's get back to Sox talk. I know there's not much new to discuss, but let's try anyway...

    Anyone know when we can expect to start seeing the arb players signed? I know Theo never had a player go to arb, but what's the timeframe we are looking at?

    The big deal will be Papi, and if we can go multiple years to lessen the luxury tax limit or not. Even a club option year can lessen the hit (with a buyout clause).
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    ugh multiple years.... why do you insist on such things. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'd rather have Papi for 1 year, but I'd like to have a lower hit on the luxury tax limit, so we have more 2012 flexibility. I'm not as worried about 2013 flex, since we lose Dice-K, Scutaro, Jenks and maybe a few others (Papi included).

    This is what I had in mind:

    Papi:
    '12: $12M (with some easy incentives/some tough that could bring him to $14M)
    '13: $9M club option (with same incentives to $11M) & buyout of $2M

    The luxury tax hit would only be $7M for 2012 ($12M+$2M=14/2 years). At worst, Papi makes $14M/1. At best $$16M/1 or $25M/2
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I thought Theo did have 1 or 2 guys go to arb in the last few years but possibly I'm wrong on that. We are signing one marginal mlb player after another because of the luxury tax threshhold. Part of it to me is a new approach in management style where guys will be pinch hit for, bunts laid down ....etc ( I think ) and the larger part is that they just don't want to spend money over the limit for financial reasons. If they are trying to reset the amount spent to be under the threshold this year ...good luck with the existing contracts in place.

    I sure would like to see a Kuroda added to the fold but that's probably an expensive multi year deal. I'm not digging Bard to the rotation. I just don't think he's cut out for it but maybe he has developed to a point where he is now. Even just throwing fastballs might be fine if he can locate them but he needs to get that off speed stuff over the plate consistently to really be successful. We need to improve the back end of that rotation badly IMO. We are going into next year relying on Bard and Aceves on the back end? Bard may end up with an ERA between 4-5 which is ok but I fear that Aceves ends up injured.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    When they gambled on Ortiz declining arb ( if that is effectively what they did do ), it hammered our starting pitching options.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Great points, boom.  

    Bard and Aceves to the rotation is very dangerous. They will not go deep into games or give us 25+ starts in all likihood. Our weakened pen will be more taxed than last year.  The fear of Bailey getting hurt is also a grave concern (something I believe you mentioned earlier).
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Boom, Theo has never had a player go to arbitration.

    Moon, I'm hoping that the arbitrators are savvy enough to realize that no DH has ever been paid what Ortiz made last year, let alone earning a big raise over that number. If a buyout year can essentially cut the luxary tax hit in half then it is certainly in our best interest to sign him up before arbitration. I've seen on here numbers like $14mil, and I doubt an arbitrator will give him that.

    Boom, I read somewhere, and it may well have been here, that Bard's BAA was a shade over .200 using his fastball and a miniscule.09 something with his off-speed stuff. I don't share the concern about him moving to the rotation except for the hole it leaves in the pen. I think that with the possible exception of your closer that your best five pitchers should be your starters. If you add Bailey to Beckett, Lester, Buch, Bard and Aceves then we are using our best six in the most important roles. I think bullpens are very volatile and can be pieced together as the season progresses. You start with the top six, starters and closer, and patchwork from there. Look no further than last year's champs for exhibit A. I don't think they had even established all bullpen roles, including closer, until just before the playoffs.

    Moon, Amp and I had a mini personal conversation on here yesterday and for that I'm very sorry; but we won't do it again, we'll stay on topic!Wink
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Boom,
    Believe it or not, the only fiction I've written about baseball is a story called
    "Class A." It appeared in Spitball, "the literary baseball magazine," Fall 2003, p, 18.  It's not Hemingway but it's not bad. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, I'm hoping that the arbitrators are savvy enough to realize that no DH has ever been paid what Ortiz made last year, let alone earning a big raise over that number. If a buyout year can essentially cut the luxary tax hit in half then it is certainly in our best interest to sign him up before arbitration. I've seen on here numbers like $14mil, and I doubt an arbitrator will give him that.

    It's unchartered territory, but $14M does sound too high. He should get $11-12.5M. Even having a great year, he was overpayed in 2011.

    Boom, I read somewhere, and it may well have been here, that Bard's BAA was a shade over .200 using his fastball and a miniscule.09 something with his off-speed stuff. I don't share the concern about him moving to the rotation except for the hole it leaves in the pen. I think that with the possible exception of your closer that your best five pitchers should be your starters. If you add Bailey to Beckett, Lester, Buch, Bard and Aceves then we are using our best six in the most important roles. I think bullpens are very volatile and can be pieced together as the season progresses. You start with the top six, starters and closer, and patchwork from there. Look no further than last year's champs for exhibit A. I don't think they had even established all bullpen roles, including closer, until just before the playoffs.

    I think he has the st IP>uff to be a starter and closer, but he won't be able to start 30 games and go 190+innings. He'll be lucky to give us 150 IP. In short, he will tax the very pen that he made worse by leaving it.

    Moon, Amp and I had a mini personal conversation on here yesterday and for that I'm very sorry; but we won't do it again, we'll stay on topic!

    It's hard not to ever interject the "personal".
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Call me crazy Moon, but I still think DiceK will pick up some very important innings before the season is over; maybe take some heat off of Aceves and Bard as they transition to starter durability. If the three of them ( Brad, Aceves & Dice) combine for 400 innings, and we get close to 600 from the front three, the bull pen will be less taxed, by a wide margin, than it was last year.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    By the way Moon, I was being facetious regarding the "conversation" between Amp and me as I assumed that you were trying to get the dialog away from the "poster of the year" thread.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Call me crazy Moon, but I still think DiceK will pick up some very important innings before the season is over; maybe take some heat off of Aceves and Bard as they transition to starter durability. If the three of them ( Brad, Aceves & Dice) combine for 400 innings, and we get close to 600 from the front three, the bull pen will be less taxed, by a wide margin, than it was last year.

    I could see Dice-K coming back and allowing Bard or Aceves to rest then return to the pen. That would help a lot.

    I don't think of myself as a pessimist, but I seriously doubt our top 3 will get over 550 IP.

    I also realize that Wake & Lackey went deeper in games than anyone else except Beckett and Lester. Replacing Miller (12 starts), Weiland (5 starts), and Bedard (8 starts) IP per starts with Bard and Aceves might be OK, but I doubt they will go deeper than Wake (23 starts) and Lackey (28 starts). Now, doing much better than Lackey and Wake is not hard, and so not going as deep may not be as important, if we are up by 2 more runs when they leave the game in the 4th or 5th inning instead of the 6th or 7th.

    I'm OK with 'the plan", but I'd much rather have one more quality innings eater in the rotation allowing Bard or Aceves to stay in the pen or share stretches of starting and relief. I don't think we can get that type of starter via free agency, and I'm not too thrilled with the choices. I want us to stay under the cap, and I think a trade is the only way we can do both. I've talked about trading Scutaro to free up payroll space and gain on defense at the same time. I've talked about offering Jenks to the Cubs as comp for Theo (not likely). I've talked about trying to get Floyd, Jurjjens, or Wandy, but I'm sure there may be other choices. I do not like trading our top prospects after already losing Kelly, Rizzo and a few lesser ones recently, but I think we can spare Middlebrooks, because we have Cecchini and Bogaerts to take over for Youk in 2014. I'm not a huge fan of Ranaudo, but realize he could turn out to be better than what we may trade him for. If we could trade Scutaro (maybe to ATL or DET) for a prospect, and then flip that prospect with Middlebrooks, Swihart and Bowden to get Gavin Floyd, we could probably also afford Cody Ross and stay under the cap. I'd be really pyched over this opening day 25 (with Dice-K joining in June/July).

    12 pitchers:
    Beckett-Lester-Buch-Floyd-Bard/Aceves
    Bailey-Melancon-Aceves/Bard-Morales-Albers-Doubront-Atchison (Jenks starts on DL)

    13 Everyday Players:
    Salty-Shopp
    AGon-Papi
    Pedey
    Youk-Punto
    Igyy-Aviles
    Craw
    Ellsb
    Ross-Sween

    In season possible help:
    C/DH: Lava-Exposito
    1B: Anderson
    IF: Emaus-Tejada-Ciriaco
    OF: Kalish-DMac-Linares-Hassan-Lin-Brentz-Hazelbaker-Nava
    P: Tazawa-Miller-Silva-Cook-AWilson-RHill-Germano-Haeger-Carlson-TPena
         Duckworth-Mathis
     
  17. 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]Boom, Theo has never had a player go to arbitration. Moon, I'm hoping that the arbitrators are savvy enough to realize that no DH has ever been paid what Ortiz made last year, let alone earning a big raise over that number. If a buyout year can essentially cut the luxary tax hit in half then it is certainly in our best interest to sign him up before arbitration. I've seen on here numbers like $14mil, and I doubt an arbitrator will give him that. Boom, I read somewhere, and it may well have been here, that Bard's BAA was a shade over .200 using his fastball and a miniscule.09 something with his off-speed stuff. I don't share the concern about him moving to the rotation except for the hole it leaves in the pen. I think that with the possible exception of your closer that your best five pitchers should be your starters. If you add Bailey to Beckett, Lester, Buch, Bard and Aceves then we are using our best six in the most important roles. I think bullpens are very volatile and can be pieced together as the season progresses. You start with the top six, starters and closer, and patchwork from there. Look no further than last year's champs for exhibit A. I don't think they had even established all bullpen roles, including closer, until just before the playoffs. Moon, Amp and I had a mini personal conversation on here yesterday and for that I'm very sorry; but we won't do it again, we'll stay on topic!
    Posted by jidgef[/QUOTE]

    It looks like you guys are right on the arbitration issue. I wasn't sure. If I remember correctly Bard's ERA as a starter at NC was never that good and his early record as a starter in the low minors was disastrous. He certainly has great stuff and I hope you are right on his prospects but I wouldn't be surprised if he were a 4.5 ERA guy or above as a starter in 2012. Possibly worse. Most guys need several pitches to go to or mlb hitters just sit on one and hammer it. Admittedly it's tough to sit on a 98 mph fastball and get much out of it but his is pretty straight and it's been hit before. He also has some tendency to walk guys and get into big innings.

    I know this sounds crazy to probably most members of this thread but we can't count to Bard to be a good starter IMO. He is worth the risk to try of course but he is in some ways a fall back position. He may be back in the pen before the 2nd half begins. Or he may be an all star. We don't really know. My best estimate is that he is a 4.50 ERA guy in 2012 but that is not bad at all for a #4 or 5 in Fenway. We can live with that. He could be great as a starter or even a total flop. He has data points indicating either scenario.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    It looks like you guys are right on the arbitration issue. I wasn't sure. If I remember correctly Bard's ERA as a starter at NC was never that good and his early record as a starter in the low minors was disastrous. He certainly has great stuff and I hope you are right on his prospects but I wouldn't be surprised if he were a 4.5 ERA guy or above as a starter in 2012. Possibly worse. Most guys need several pitches to go to or mlb hitters just sit on one and hammer it. Admittedly it's tough to sit on a 98 mph fastball and get much out of it but his is pretty straight and it's been hit before. He also has some tendency to walk guys and get into big innings.

    I agree. A 3.5 BB/9 rate is very high, although it has been steadily going down from 4.0 to 3.6 to 3.0. I do feel like te BB/9 rate is more than offset by the tremendous 6.0 H/9 rate.

    I know this sounds crazy to probably most members of this thread but we can't count to Bard to be a good starter IMO. 

    I have made this point as well. The same with Aceves. Just because they have been great relievers, does not mean they can do the same as starters, especially in the "going deep" part of a starter's repertoire.

    He is worth the risk to try of course but he is in some ways a fall back position. He may be back in the pen before the 2nd half begins. Or he may be an all star. We don't really know. My best estimate is that he is a 4.50 ERA guy in 2012 but that is not bad at all for a #4 or 5 in Fenway. We can live with that. He could be great as a starter or even a total flop. He has data points indicating either scenario.

    Maybe the plan is to move him back to the pen when Dice-K returns or if one of Doubront, Silva, Cook or Miller earn their way to the rotation by mid-season.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    It's worth a try. He may be ready for the move now and we catch lightning in a bottle. I'm just saying that I wouldn't put money on that.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I


    Actually, it frightens me death moving Bard into a starter role.  All I think of if how the Yankees screwed up Jaba by moving him back and forth.  He ended up not doing very well in either role.  I think the same way when the Rangers talk about Feliz switching over.

    My feeling is that if the clock isn't broken, don't fix it.

    If Bailey and Melancon(sp?) come through, it'll be easier to make-shift middle relievers without chancing ruining established people already in established roles.

    When I think of Aceves starting, it reminds me of Tavarez..strictly a temporary job in a fix.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": [QUOTE]Actually, it frightens me death moving Bard into a starter role.  All I think of if how the Yankees screwed up Jaba by moving him back and forth.  He ended up not doing very well in either role.  I think the same way when the Rangers talk about Feliz switching over. My feeling is that if the clock isn't broken, don't fix it. If Bailey and Melancon(sp?) come through, it'll be easier to make-shift middle relievers without chancing ruining established people already in established roles. When I think of Aceves starting, it reminds me of Tavarez..strictly a temporary job in a fix. Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE] Guys, this isn't a case where the Sox are "trying Bard as a starter just to see what happens." He asked for an opportunity to start, the Sox feel he deserves that opportunity (rightfully so) so he will get that opportunity. If it fails, they'll move on...
     
  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:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I": Guys, this isn't a case where the Sox are "trying Bard as a starter just to see what happens." He asked for an opportunity to start, the Sox feel he deserves that opportunity (rightfully so) so he will get that opportunity. If it fails, they'll move on...
    Posted by jasko2248[/QUOTE]

    Papelbon wanted to start as well... later he went along with the idea of closing and grew to like it.

    "If it fails, they'll move on..."  Move on to what? If he ended up not doing well after going back as a set-up man, we lost a great role player. That's the fear than many of us have.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248'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 : Papelbon wanted to start as well... later he went along with the idea of closing and grew to like it. "If it fails, they'll move on..."  Move on to what? If he ended up not doing well after going back as a set-up man, we lost a great role player. That's the fear than many of us have. Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE] Two different situations, two different makeups and I'm guessing two different conversations, which none of us are privy to. The Sox didn't have another young closer option as they do now. It's been mentioned that some in Sox organization question whether he has mental makeup to be a closer, whereas that was never a question with Paps...if it fails, they move him back to the bullpen. This is a spring training experiment. They aren't giving him a "season" to develop as a starter, he needs to show something this spring, but again, he asked, they agree he deserves opportunity, and he will get it. Maybe they tried to talk him into staying in pen and he made his case to be a starter. Who knows, but it's not a "Sox decision" to do this.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I


    It should be a Sox decision where the player plays...not a players decision.  A player should play wherever for the good of the team.  Hell, all the pitchers want to be starters or closers.  Actually, with Bard's past history in starts, it surprises me a change was even considered.  Besides, like mentioned earlier, I don't think he has enough pitches in his arsenal to fool hitters for any length of time.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248'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 : Papelbon wanted to start as well... later he went along with the idea of closing and grew to like it. "If it fails, they'll move on..."  Move on to what? If he ended up not doing well after going back as a set-up man, we lost a great role player. That's the fear than many of us have. Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE] Just to clarify, my point was that all over this board people are posting "I'd keep Bard in the pen," when in fact, that's not a realistic option for the organization to consider without completely alienating a player with one of the best young arms in the game.
     

Share