A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    Boom doesn't have to go back far to find his own words:
    "... Ideally Salty is [ emphasis mine ] not our #6. He's more like a #7 or 8 in a boston Redsox lineup. What lineup? Any lineup at any time. IS means NOW. As I said, the context of the discussion is the present. If you want to change the tense and then comment, you should have done it originally. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    Pretty amazing that only 2 teams in the AL are more than 8 games behind a playoff slot (MN & KC). 


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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Pretty amazing that only 2 teams in the AL are more than 8 games behind a playoff slot (MN & KC).  
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]This team could still get on a roll. You never know...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Boom doesn't have to go back far to find his own words: "... Ideally Salty is [   emphasis mine ] not our #6. He's more like a #7 or 8 in a boston Redsox lineup. What lineup? Any lineup at any time. IS means NOW. As I said, the context of the discussion is the present. If you want to change the tense and then comment, you should have done it originally. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    If you think Salty is a good # 6 it just confirms everything I've been saying about your insight. IDEALLY, we should strive for more. He is not a Redsox level #6. IDEALLY we have a lineup which works the count more. IDEALLY we have a guy with higher than a .290 OBP, a career BA higher than .240.....etc, etc, etc... Especially when he is a defensive liabilty. He can't even hit higher than .240  as a career platoon guy. 

    You are again arguing about nothing.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    As amazing as it is that we can't put a streak together at all, and we end up wasting a solid start from Buchholz to lose to Minnesota for God's sake, I still think we can make the playoffs. Even when the odds makers give us a less than 15% chance. 

    At this point we have no choice but to try. And we might as well change something related to the pitching staff because what we have been doing is not working.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    This team could still get on a roll. You never know..

    I'm usually one of the last to give up, carnie, and i keep waiting for us to put to gether a long win streak or something like 14-2, but I just don't see it happeneing.

    I'm not giving up, but I think we need to think about 2013, and if we can do something to put us in a better position going forward, we should pull the trigger,
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III


    I find it interesting that the 3-Red Sox amigos(John Henry et al) were together in their suite without Ben C. anywhere to be seen.  When Theo was here, it seems he was always with them up there.

    I wonder what their conversations were about.

    Personally, I feel that if the problems with ownership/BobbyV/Cherry/players and snitches(moles) aren't solved, we'll never have a 'streak'.

    Although some don't agree, chemistry and harmony in the clubhouse is important.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]This team could still get on a roll. You never know.. I'm usually one of the last to give up, carnie, and i keep waiting for us to put to gether a long win streak or something like 14-2, but I just don't see it happeneing. I'm not giving up, but I think we need to think about 2013, and if we can do something to put us in a better position going forward, we should pull the trigger,
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]Not necessarily right now. You don't want to run up the white flag before you need to. Think about it. Ellsbury's trade value isn't going to go down between now and April. Hopefully not anyway. I'm looking for Ben to put together something big over the winter. Then again, I could be a complete homer.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    Ellsbury should be in his prime. If we are going to make a run next year Ellsbury is probably a big part of that. If we were going to retool we should have started that process last week but we didn't.

    We should keep Ellsbury and hopefully we get a pick when he leaves.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III


    Expitch, For God's sake back off, will ya please.  I respect your baseball knowledge, but enough is enough.

    I've chatted with Boomer long before you came around and he's really a good guy.

    If you disagree...fine.  But how long do you feed a dead horse?

    The more this goes on, the more it sounds like Softy.


    Boomer.....it's time to move on, man.

    You two, who cares who said what and when?  So what if someone changes their mind about something.  Is it a crime?  Nobody's reputation is at stake here.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    I never expected Salty to have so many PAs batting 4-5-6, but I do think the injuries forced the issue much more than his 20 HRs.

    I would like to point something:

    Salty: .290/.500/.790

    AL's best teams 5th or 6th slot numbers with worse OPS than Salty:

    NYY 
    5) .325/.485/.810
    6) .326/.447/.773

    TEX
    5) .302/.375/.677
    6) .336/.401/.737

    OAK
    5) .326/.409/.735
    6) .295/.429/.724

    CWS
    5) .341/.566/.907
    6) .322/.448/.769

    LAA
    5) .336/.505/.840
    6) .326/.403/.728

    DET
    5) .286/.379/.666
    6) .300/.344/.644

    TBR
    3) .343/.361/.704
    4) .305/.330/.636
    5) .337/.426/.763
    6) .299/.403/.702

    BAL
    5) .307/.388/.696
    6) .351/.432/.783

    Of the 8 AL teams ahead of the Sox in the standings, none have a 6 slot OPS better than salty's .790. 

    Salty actually has a better OPS than 4 of the top 6 AL team's number 5 slot OPS.

    I know OBP has more importance than SLG%, but you keep looking for ways to show Salty is a minus, when in this case, he looks to be a plus even when batting 6th... at his season OPS.

    Now, check this out:

    Salty in 2012 :
         (PAs)   OBP/SLG/OPS
    4th (39)   .282/.400/.682
    5th (21)   .095/.000/.095
    6th (129) .318/.593/.911
    7th (57)   .351/.623/.974
    8th (43)   .233/.400/.633
    9th (10)   .200/.500/.700 




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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Ellsbury should be in his prime. If we are going to make a run next year Ellsbury is probably a big part of that. If we were going to retool we should have started that process last week but we didn't. We should keep Ellsbury and hopefully we get a pick when he leaves.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]So you want the picks. I figured you would.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    Ellsbury should be in his prime. If we are going to make a run next year Ellsbury is probably a big part of that. If we were going to retool we should have started that process last week but we didn't. We should keep Ellsbury and hopefully we get a pick when he leaves.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom
    So you want the picks. I figured you would.

    If we make a couple of strong pick-ups this winter, then keeping Jacoby for another year makes sense for a big ring push for 2013.

    The choice is essentially:

    A) 
    1 year of Ellsbury seeking his big contract.
    2) comp pick(s)

    B)
    2-3 top prospects

    C)
    worse player but with more team control

    D)
    equal player, but at a position of higher need or lesser depth (or RH'd OF'er)
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    We only get one pick if we are lucky when Ellsbury leaves. It is not definite. The new CBA is complicated but it does provide less compensation for lost FA generally. I may be wrong but I don't think so. If Ellsbury is great we still only get one pick for him if he leaves and there is no guarantee he wil be great, even though I do think he will be.

    If I am wrong I will readily admit it. I don't have time to look it up today but I think even in an ideal situation we will only get 1 pick if Ellsbury leaves under the new CBA.

    It's more about wanting to have access to a player in his prime. To me, if we go into rebuild mode fine, trade all such players in Ellsbury's position. But I think we have a chance to win next year. Why would i want o trade possibly our best player, in his absolute prime years, when I think we have a chance to win?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III


    Realistic Look for 2012:

    The Red Sox will not make the playoffs. 

    However, Tom Brady and the Patriots will win this year's Super Bowl. 

    Thank God football season is almost here. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    It's more about wanting to have access to a player in his prime. To me, if we go into rebuild mode fine, trade all such players in Ellsbury's position. But I think we have a chance to win next year. Why would i want o trade possibly our best player, in his absolute prime years, when I think we have a chance to win?

    I get thid position and don't necessarily disagree, but we would not be trading Ellsbury for nothing. We could trade him for prospects likely to be better and closer to MLB ready than the draft pick we might get for Ellsbury, so we could help our chances of winning for several more years beyong and not including 2013. We could also trade the prospects we get for Ellsbury for a fine MLB player that fills a role in greater need than a LH'd CF'er. We could also trade Ellsbury as part of a package for a top quality starting pitcher under team control for several years at possibly a lower cost than Ellsbury's 2013 contract, thereby allowing us to spend more in another area.

    We certainly have to field offers for Jacoby, but I'm not for giving him away, and I'm not for packing it in for 203 either.

    What if Bradley is fast-tracked and given a shot in 2013? We could improve on our 2012 CF numbers and have a starter from the Ellsbury trade. Bradley will just be one year younger than Lava is now and CF is an easier position to transition from the minors to majors than the catcher position.

    There's little doubt we will need to use a prospect to fill an important position or two next season in order to allow us to spend more freely elsewhere.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    Expitch, For God's sake back off, will ya pleaseBut how long do you feed a dead horse? The more this goes on, the more it sounds like Softy. Boomer.....it's time to move on, man. You two, who cares who said what and when?  
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]

    Amp is right, and it hurts the thread.

    These reports are often nonsense but here they are anyway:

    1.  The biggest name the Red Sox might deal, according to Jim Bowden of ESPNxm, is Jarrod Saltalamacchia. He says that the Red Sox would like to create room for Ryan Lavarnway and “get younger.”

    2.  Cafardo:  The Brewersinterest in catcher Kelly Shoppach was considerable after they had designated GK for assignment.  The Red Sox pushed fellow catcherJarrod Saltalamacchia and will offer him around again if Ryan Lavarnway shows he can handle the staff and hits well.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    I wish I knew any offers for Salty were.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    On this tread there has been a running dispute about
    which numbers should be counted or not counted, and how,
    which numbers should be emphasized or deemphasized, depending in part upon the player's position and when the numbers were put up,
    the relevance of MiL numbers,
    the relevance of age in judging catchers,
    the relevance of a player's "traveling history" to a current judgment,
    the importance of assumptions and methods that lie behind the development of stats.
    There have been varying interpretations on all of these points and on an overall assessment of a player's value. 
    Given all of this disagreement on the relevance, ranking, relative importance, and interpretation of stats, perhaps posters should eschew claims of substantiation and definitiveness.  And be slow to make peremptory judgments.
    I note that in my research to educate myself in the new, or newer, metrics
    ( research prompted largely by Moon but also last year somewhat by Harness ) the same sort of disagreements take place amongst "experts" in the field. This goes on in all fields, including the exact sciences.  All the more reason not to make "definitive" claims for one's own slant or "evidence."

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    With no additions, this looks like our 2013 team...

    C    Salty
    C    Butler/Rivera
    DH Lava
    1B AGon
    2B Pedey
    3B Midd
    SS Aviles
    IF Ciriaco
    IF Punto/Iggy/Valencia/Gomez
    LF Craw
    CF Ells
    RF Sween
    OF Kalish/Linares/Lin
    SP Beck
    SP Lest
    SP Buch
    SP Lack
    SP Doub
    SP Mor
    RP Bailey
    RP Bard
    RP Aceves
    RP Breslow
    RP Miller
    RP Hill/Melancon/Mortensen/Tazawa/Atchison/Carpenter/Stewart

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    We end the season with 6 games vs TB and 6 vs Balt.

    Before those 12 games we play 6 vs Toronto and 3 vs NYY.

    Those games could be telling, but the 9 game road trip before the last 24 games could be our roughest stretch. 3 games at LAA, then 3 at Oak, followed by 3 at SEA will not be easy.

    We might need to go at least 5-2 on the homestand before this trip (4 vs KC and 3 vs LAA).

    After this next 3 games vs Texas and before that 7 game homestand, we have a 10 game road trip:
    4 at CLE
    3 at Bal 
    3 at NYY

    Not an eassy schedule, but nearly everyone between us and the WC is on this list.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Expitch, For God's sake back off, will ya please.  I respect your baseball knowledge, but enough is enough. I've chatted with Boomer long before you came around and he's really a good guy. If you disagree...fine.  But how long do you feed a dead horse? The more this goes on, the more it sounds like Softy. Boomer.....it's time to move on, man. You two, who cares who said what and when?  So what if someone changes their mind about something.  Is it a crime?  Nobody's reputation is at stake here.
    Posted by ampoule[/QUOTE]
    On the "Pedbury" thread, Enchilada has your man dead to rights on his motivation, attitude, style, and gratuitous swipes at me. An example, just one:I started that thread with a simple observation about the 1 and 2 spots in the Sox lineup. The discussion went from there. The only person who went bananas was your boy.  Snakeoil, with whom I've had a tangle but respect, said my post was not "dumb," Boom's write off. He also missed the point. 
    Danny Cater ( I think ) told Boom that he sounds "like CC." Whining.
    Moon advised him to calm when he went hysterical on the Bautista thread, and made a disgusting remark about Special Olympians.
    Harness whipped him on the Bautista thread for irresponsibility in regard to a player's reputation.
    Do they all sound like Softy?
    I agree about "reputation." Now tell that to Boom. As far as I know, he's the only poster who frets SPECIFICALLY about his "reputation" being damaged.
    A reputation on an anonymous sports board! For heaven's sake.

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

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    I don't want to hurt this thread or any other thread. There is only one reason why I care about my reputation enough here to argue about it. Boomerangs.com is my kid's company and I don't want to have anything hurt it. Take away the identity and the problem goes away. 

    So, I'm eliminating or at least not using the identity any more. I don't know if i can even delete it. I'll create another one and then feel less inclined to protect my "reputation". it's the least I can do after all the stuff I've put some of you through. No one wants to come here and listen to this stuff. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    Please understand that once the identity is gone the new one is separate from all the BS before it. I will neither confirm it or deny it. Confirming I'm the same person just perpetuates the problem. So, hopefully we can all just move on. I'm looking forward to it! 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2012: Part III

    Moon, I would trade anyone as you know for the right deal but Ellsbury is in his prime, we do not really have a good replacement and i see no reason to try and trade a guy in his prime who was 2nd in the MVP vote last year. 

    There seems to be a good transition point to Bradley potentially after 2013. I just don't see us in major rebuilding mode with this team at any time in the near future. We should trade from areas of strength as prospects show that they are ready or we have an opportunity to upgrade via FA. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share