A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    If you didn't have your head up this thread's backside, you would have read my detailed CBT information. Moonshlep, himself, conceded my comment provided more accurate information. Needless to say, this thread needs to die so I won't be repeating what I provided on an earlier thread.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Just days away from the action beginning. I can't believe how fast this winter went! I'm still hoping for a solid 4th starter pick-up, but doubt it will happen until maybe July.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    To me this winter took forever Moon! 

    You know I don't normally find Softy's stuff comedic but he's gotten so absurd lately that it's just comical! The above post is just flat out laughable!
     
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    m
     
  6. 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]To me this winter took forever Moon!  You know I don't normally find Softy's stuff comedic but he's gotten so absurd lately that it's just comical! The above post is just flat out laughable!  
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    I have him on ignore at the moment, but by reading other people's responses to his absurd posts, I do catch some glimpses of his foolishness.

    I see he is claiming to have posted the salary numbers before, but some things have changed since then, and he claimed the player benefit was just $2M. He's only off by about $10M there.

    I'm curious about the Lackey injury clause. I'm not sure the club option added year at min wage will bring down our luxury tax number, since it is not guaranteed player money.



     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    m
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jidgef. Show jidgef's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]If you didn't have your head up this thread's backside, you would have read my detailed CBT information. Moonshlep, himself, conceded my comment provided more accurate information. Needless to say, this thread needs to die so I won't be repeating what I provided on an earlier thread.
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr[/QUOTE]
    Well that's clear as mud! I went back about ten pages of posts, found a bunch of Wakefield bashing posts, but nothing about CBT. Maybe it is under one of your other personae?
     
  9. 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:
    If you didn't have your head up this thread's backside, you would have read my detailed CBT information. Moonshlep, himself, conceded my comment provided more accurate information. Needless to say, this thread needs to die so I won't be repeating what I provided on an earlier thread.
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr

    Well that's clear as mud! I went back about ten pages of posts, found a bunch of Wakefield bashing posts, but nothing about CBT. Maybe it is under one of your other personae?

    He posted his numbers over a month ago, and he did have a couple more accurate numbers than mine. However, he claimed the player benefit number was just $2M. He also had his arb player estimates lower than what I had.

    He keeps acting like he's the only one who knows the final season number is what counts: not opening day. We all know that. My postings never claim they are the final numbers.

    He appears to keep saying "let this thread die", but yet he keeps bumping it up with his foolish rehashed drivel.

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    BTW, I never notice any artificial bumping on this thread. It stands on it's own merits. I look for it when I come here.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    What do we have to do to land Oswalt? Throw in a Porche and some lobster? The guy just doesn't want to come here. His stuff isn't nearly the same but all we want from him is to be a decent #4 or 5.

    I don't fault the FO for their total spend. I fault them for their recent decisions. They wanted to win last year and they really went for it. They just went too far and now we are limited for years to come.

    But if we can somehow find a way of getting decent performances from our #4 and 5 pitching slots we should be right in the mix. C'mon BARD! You can do it man! And whoever the #5 guy is, just give us 500 baseball with the top offense in baseball behind you and we will be happy as heck.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    And what if Lavarnway continues to tear up AAA ball and they bring him up. That potentially makes this one of the best lineups in baseball history. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The Redsox scored 875 runs last year compared to the Ray's 707. Their collective BA was .244 as a team. Unbelievable!

    If we can just pull our pitching together. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    What do we have to do to land Oswalt? Throw in a Porche and some lobster? The guy just doesn't want to come here. His stuff isn't nearly the same but all we want from him is to be a decent #4 or 5.

    I don't fault the FO for their total spend. I fault them for their recent decisions. They wanted to win last year and they really went for it. They just went too far and now we are limited for years to come.

    Do you fault the current GM for the past?

    The only "mistake" I can assign to ben is maybe the Papi arb offer. I don't think anyone expected him to cost us almost $15M. The lure of the 2 picks was a big lure. 

    I love the Bailey/Sweeney deal.
    I love the Melancon deal.
    I love the Ross signing.
    The Punto/Shopp deals were fine.
    Not overpaying for Paps was right.


    But if we can somehow find a way of getting decent performances from our #4 and 5 pitching slots we should be right in the mix. C'mon BARD! You can do it man! And whoever the #5 guy is, just give us 500 baseball with the top offense in baseball behind you and we will be happy as heck.

    Well, we have enough guys looking to be that 5th slot guy. My guess is one will rise to the top and do fine.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]The Redsox scored 875 runs last year compared to the Ray's 707. Their collective BA was .244 as a team. Unbelievable! If we can just pull our pitching together. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    I'm not one you stat guys, Boom, but it just seems that a lot of their runs were scored in blow-outs.  It just seems to me that getting a real important hit when needed was lacking.  Of course, I guess it's almost like saying you always bust when you hit 15 with a face card up, but seem to forget the times you make it...so, I might be all wet here.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    We did score more in blow-outs than other top scoring teams, but we still scored over 5 and 6 runs enough time to allow our staff to get the win. They didn't too many times.

    There's a lot of talk about "balanced line-ups": L-R, top-to-bottom, home-away, etc... I think we compare very well in all areas. I expect more runs this year, and better bottom order production with the Ross/Sweeney & Salty/Shopp L/R platoons.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I wonder if the White Sox would be interested in Salty as part of a deal for Floyd. Maybe something like this:

    Salty  $2.5M
    Middlebrooks
    Bowden

    for

    Floyd $7M

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

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I was commenting on Theo, Luchinno etc. more than Cherington Moon but I haven't see much from Cherington either. Theo / Luchinno put him in a major bind and that clearly limits what Cherington can do this year.

    I sense that you disagree with me and of course that's fine. To me though, and I think with you Moon, starting pitching was the top priority and to me we got squat. We got one high risk option after another to park down in AAA ball. The top priority of the off season was not fulfilled. 

    I also think that if they thought Papi would accept arb, they should not have offered it to him. It's only a matter of time when he tanks. And that last contract he signs will be worthless IMO. Maybe he has another great year and if so then great, but IMO when Papi degrades it could get ugly. I doubt if it's all that gradual. I wouldn't risk it when we had more urgent needs. That $14 plus mil could have been spent a lot more effectively. Lavarnway could have proved usefull this year in the majors as a part time DH and then we could have signed a Jackson or someone similar for less money and really shored up our starting ptching staff. 

    Historically I have not been very negative here ( I don't think ). I dumped on Salty and Tek last year early on. I wasn't happy with the Crawford signing at that cost but I was ebulient to get him. I didn't like the results we got from Lackey last year but who was satisfied with him last year? I'm just calling them as I see them. We could have done better. We took a big chance on Salty and if there were no better options then fine but I wasn't happy with the catching solutions last year and in particular Salty. When one team gives up on a guy, one of the best teams in baseball should probably not give him the starting job the next.

    There is a good chance Papi comes back for a great year and Bard / Aceves do extremely well as #4 and #5. We have a decent shot at the PO next year. I'm hoping for the best. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Amp, it's incredible the difference that can be achieved when everyone's head is in the game and they are striving at the optimal level. Winning close games is a huge indicator in how good a coaching staff they have and how likely that team is to win in the playoffs, or even make the playoffs. I'm with you. They didn't win a high percentage of close games if I remember correctly. They bludgeoned teams to death.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Amp, it's incredible the difference that can be achieved when everyone's head is in the game and they are striving at the optimal level. Winning close games is a huge indicator in how good a coaching staff they have and how likely that team is to win in the playoffs, or even make the playoffs. I'm with you. They didn't win a high percentage of close games if I remember correctly. They bludgeoned teams to death.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

     Boom, you're right about the bludgeoning, the Sox had one of their lowest median runs scored result in 8 years (4). They also scored just 4 runs in the most number of games (30) during the season. This was an offense that went wild some nights, and flat the next. It's hard not to think, well, every team gets hot and goes cold, because it's true. However, if they score just 4 runs again in 30 games it will take Cy Young years from the whole staff to offset that. They were 19-19 in one run games, and 32-17 in blowout games...by way of comparison;
     "4 run games"; 2011   30
                         2010   14
                         2009   16
     
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Don't keep bumping this lame thread, bury it!
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr[/QUOTE]

    Your jealousy is hilarious.  You can't bear the fact that Moon is a respected poster, and this series of posts - that you have many times vowed to avoid, but can't - is so popular....when you are neither.  Poor Mr. Hanky.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I sense that you disagree with me and of course that's fine. To me though, and I think with you Moon, starting pitching was the top priority and to me we got squat. We got one high risk option after another to park down in AAA ball. The top priority of the off season was not fulfilled. 

    I agree here, but realize with the very limited funds, it's hard to get quality pitching for little money. Ben did get Bailey and Melancon (low salary players) in hopes that Bard or Aceves can fill in one of those crucial starting slots, but it is a gamble.

    I also think that if they thought Papi would accept arb, they should not have offered it to him. It's only a matter of time when he tanks. And that last contract he signs will be worthless IMO. Maybe he has another great year and if so then great, but IMO when Papi degrades it could get ugly. I doubt if it's all that gradual. I wouldn't risk it when we had more urgent needs. That $14 plus mil could have been spent a lot more effectively. Lavarnway could have proved usefull this year in the majors as a part time DH and then we could have signed a Jackson or someone similar for less money and really shored up our starting ptching staff. 

    Historically I have not been very negative here ( I don't think ). I dumped on Salty and Tek last year early on. I wasn't happy with the Crawford signing at that cost but I was ebulient to get him. I didn't like the results we got from Lackey last year but who was satisfied with him last year? I'm just calling them as I see them. We could have done better. We took a big chance on Salty and if there were no better options then fine but I wasn't happy with the catching solutions last year and in particular Salty. When one team gives up on a guy, one of the best teams in baseball should probably not give him the starting job the next.

    The Papi decision was tough. He's the Sox biggest hero ever. He's on a one year deal, so the risk is minimal...if you can call $15M minimal!

    There is a good chance Papi comes back for a great year and Bard / Aceves do extremely well as #4 and #5. We have a decent shot at the PO next year. I'm hoping for the best. 

    I don't see Bard and Aceves both starting. My hope is someone else shines enough to force one to the pen, where they are greatly needed.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    m
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    m
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    m
     

Share