A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to jcri's comment:

     

    I guess today I would go with Webster if we need help.  I 'm ok with leaving Taz where he is but I do believe he could be a successful starter for us in the future.

    As to past discussions of yours about Zito, Moon, I played golf with my boss today and he said he thinks the Giants have won the last 12-15 games that Zito started.  Don't know if that's true, but he was great at the end of the last year and is 2-0 right now, and was ahead today 7-0 at one point.  Lincecum is still struggling to find himself, was behind 6-2 maybe yesterday, and the team came back and won 9-6.  Nobody seems to know why he can't seem to find himself, he doesn't claim an injury, but can't find consistentcy.

    Going to see the A's and Tigers on Saturday with a young teacher from my school who's from Michigan.  I don't think Detroit has a bona fide closer...I'm hoping Cher is sniffing around there a little...

     



    the biggest knock against Lincecum is that his mechanics/delivery is high stress and hard to replicate. I'd i had to bet that's what i'd look for. Watch some tape of him pitching 2-3 years ago and watch tape of him pitching last year and you will probably see a difference in his delivery which accounts for his performance. the other option is just mental.

     

     



    Good points.

     

    BTW, Zito won again last night. I think that's 16 SF wins in his last 16 starts counting the playoffs. This started a week or so after the trade deadline last year. I'm happy for the Dodger deal we pulled off, but the CC for Zito trade I suggested might have worked out better. We may have still made a Dodger deal, and maybe got more back fro LA since they didn't have to take on most of CC's contract.

     



    Do you really think that Barry Zito, a west coast surfer, guitarist, song writer & pitcher was going to waive his full no trade clause to pitch for a worse team in a ballpark that is notoriously tough on lefties, 3000 miles away?  You've mentioned this trade proposal several times over the last year, but I can say with 100% certainty that there was no "realistic" shot of it happening at all.  

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    I know the Zito proposal was a salary dump move but Zito would get body slammed in Fenway and the AL East. He needs a big park like in SF and San Diego to be successful at this point in his career.

     



    He's better than Dempster.

     

    I also seriously doubt a pitcher who has (I believe) led his team to 16 straight wins would get "body slammed" by anyone. The AL East is not what it used to be anyways.



    Zito hasn't had an ERA below 4.00 in the last 6 years, while pitching in a very large pitcher friendly park in the national league. His fastball is like 86 mph now or something similar. He's Bill Lee without the guile or humor.

    I'd take Dempster in a heartbeat. It was a potential salary dump option though.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    Hanrahan is pretty one dimensional though, and his control is not ideal. He's an ok closer. We have 3 or 4 of those. 

     



    Another argument for my winter position that we had too many mediocre to good pitchers and not enough great ones, hence my suggestion for a 2 or 3 for 1 deal.

     

     




    You will get that wish this year or this coming off season. 30 or so players that are going to be rule-5 eligible I believe.

     

    This is why I thought this year was an evaluation year of sorts, so they could get a better idea who they would cut loose/trade, resign, protect, etc...



    We're bound to lose some of these guys. I think we could have been proactive by making several 3 for 1 deals to upgrade quality at the expense of quantity.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to jcri's comment:

     

    I guess today I would go with Webster if we need help.  I 'm ok with leaving Taz where he is but I do believe he could be a successful starter for us in the future.

    As to past discussions of yours about Zito, Moon, I played golf with my boss today and he said he thinks the Giants have won the last 12-15 games that Zito started.  Don't know if that's true, but he was great at the end of the last year and is 2-0 right now, and was ahead today 7-0 at one point.  Lincecum is still struggling to find himself, was behind 6-2 maybe yesterday, and the team came back and won 9-6.  Nobody seems to know why he can't seem to find himself, he doesn't claim an injury, but can't find consistentcy.

    Going to see the A's and Tigers on Saturday with a young teacher from my school who's from Michigan.  I don't think Detroit has a bona fide closer...I'm hoping Cher is sniffing around there a little...

     



    the biggest knock against Lincecum is that his mechanics/delivery is high stress and hard to replicate. I'd i had to bet that's what i'd look for. Watch some tape of him pitching 2-3 years ago and watch tape of him pitching last year and you will probably see a difference in his delivery which accounts for his performance. the other option is just mental.

     

     



    Good points.

     

    BTW, Zito won again last night. I think that's 16 SF wins in his last 16 starts counting the playoffs. This started a week or so after the trade deadline last year. I'm happy for the Dodger deal we pulled off, but the CC for Zito trade I suggested might have worked out better. We may have still made a Dodger deal, and maybe got more back fro LA since they didn't have to take on most of CC's contract.

     



    Do you really think that Barry Zito, a west coast surfer, guitarist, song writer & pitcher was going to waive his full no trade clause to pitch for a worse team in a ballpark that is notoriously tough on lefties, 3000 miles away?  You've mentioned this trade proposal several times over the last year, but I can say with 100% certainty that there was no "realistic" shot of it happening at all.  

     

    I don't think Zito was happy is SF before the deadline. He had been benched several times. He may have welcomes going back to the league where he was successful. We'll never know.

    Your 100% certainty is a bit of an overstatement. 

    Sure, now he's happy in SF, but last July he was in the midst of a long nightmare.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

     

    I know the Zito proposal was a salary dump move but Zito would get body slammed in Fenway and the AL East. He needs a big park like in SF and San Diego to be successful at this point in his career.

     



    He's better than Dempster.

     

    I also seriously doubt a pitcher who has (I believe) led his team to 16 straight wins would get "body slammed" by anyone. The AL East is not what it used to be anyways.

     



    Zito hasn't had an ERA below 4.00 in the last 6 years, while pitching in a very large pitcher friendly park in the national league. His fastball is like 86 mph now or something similar. He's Bill Lee without the guile or humor.

     

    I'd take Dempster in a heartbeat. It was a potential salary dump option though.



    The trade suggestion was not out of some idea that Zito was going to be great, it was to dump CC's salary and get something possibly useful in return. He has been a new man since the 2012 deadline. That's all.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    In response to jcri's comment:

     

    I guess today I would go with Webster if we need help.  I 'm ok with leaving Taz where he is but I do believe he could be a successful starter for us in the future.

    As to past discussions of yours about Zito, Moon, I played golf with my boss today and he said he thinks the Giants have won the last 12-15 games that Zito started.  Don't know if that's true, but he was great at the end of the last year and is 2-0 right now, and was ahead today 7-0 at one point.  Lincecum is still struggling to find himself, was behind 6-2 maybe yesterday, and the team came back and won 9-6.  Nobody seems to know why he can't seem to find himself, he doesn't claim an injury, but can't find consistentcy.

    Going to see the A's and Tigers on Saturday with a young teacher from my school who's from Michigan.  I don't think Detroit has a bona fide closer...I'm hoping Cher is sniffing around there a little...

     



    the biggest knock against Lincecum is that his mechanics/delivery is high stress and hard to replicate. I'd i had to bet that's what i'd look for. Watch some tape of him pitching 2-3 years ago and watch tape of him pitching last year and you will probably see a difference in his delivery which accounts for his performance. the other option is just mental.

     

     



    Good points.

     

    BTW, Zito won again last night. I think that's 16 SF wins in his last 16 starts counting the playoffs. This started a week or so after the trade deadline last year. I'm happy for the Dodger deal we pulled off, but the CC for Zito trade I suggested might have worked out better. We may have still made a Dodger deal, and maybe got more back fro LA since they didn't have to take on most of CC's contract.

     



    Do you really think that Barry Zito, a west coast surfer, guitarist, song writer & pitcher was going to waive his full no trade clause to pitch for a worse team in a ballpark that is notoriously tough on lefties, 3000 miles away?  You've mentioned this trade proposal several times over the last year, but I can say with 100% certainty that there was no "realistic" shot of it happening at all.  

     

     

     

    I don't think Zito was happy is SF before the deadline. He had been benched several times. He may have welcomes going back to the league where he was successful. We'll never know.

    Your 100% certainty is a bit of an overstatement. 

    Sure, now he's happy in SF, but last July he was in the midst of a long nightmare.

     



    Actually, if you knew anything about Barry Zito, you'd be able to say with 100% certainty that he wouldn't have waived his no trade to go to Boston as well...

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    I don't think Zito was happy is SF before the deadline. He had been benched several times. He may have welcomes going back to the league where he was successful. We'll never know.

    Your 100% certainty is a bit of an overstatement. 

    Sure, now he's happy in SF, but last July he was in the midst of a long nightmare.

     

     



    Actually, if you knew anything about Barry Zito, you'd be able to say with 100% certainty that he wouldn't have waived his no trade to go to Boston as well...

    Yes, everybody we never signed or traded for could have possibly ever ended up here. You are right. We got all the players we were meant to get, and we could never have expected anything better.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I don't think Zito was happy is SF before the deadline. He had been benched several times. He may have welcomes going back to the league where he was successful. We'll never know.

    Your 100% certainty is a bit of an overstatement. 

    Sure, now he's happy in SF, but last July he was in the midst of a long nightmare.

     

     



    Actually, if you knew anything about Barry Zito, you'd be able to say with 100% certainty that he wouldn't have waived his no trade to go to Boston as well...

    Yes, everybody we never signed or traded for could have possibly ever ended up here. You are right. We got all the players we were meant to get, and we could never have expected anything better.



    That's not the point, Moon.  Proposing other ideas is what makes this board great at times.  It's when you spend the entire winter shredding the Front Office and saying your "plan" was so much better, yet your plan was unrealistic.  You post over and over and over again that you would have traded for Justin Upton, signed Brandon McCarthy, trade for Zito last summer, traded for Brett Anderson, traded all the free agents to be and start the kids.  None of this was realistic at all.  You also said they did nothing to help the future, which makes no sense, since they kept all of their young players, kept all of their draft picks and didn't sign anyone to long term deals.  These are the players you keep posting that they "could" have acquired:

    Justin Upton:  Had "no trade clause" that included Boston and said he wouldn't waive it to come here, yet how many times have you posted "They should have traded for Upton." It wasn't an option.

    Brandon McCarthy:  He told his agent, "I want to stay out west."  Pretty cut and dry there. Last time I checked, Boston is the farthest baseball city from "out west."  The Sox also weren't going to sign a guy who was injury prone and hadn't thrown a pitch since he was hit in the face with a line drive.  A lot of these guys in the Front Office were around when a line drive to the face ruined the careers of Clement & Florie.  There was zero mutual interest.  By the way he's been batting practice his first two starts for AZ. 

    Brett Anderson:  Billy Beane made it clear that "he's not available."  Sure, if you want to give them a ridiculous package, then anyone is available, but that doesn't make any sense, either. 

    Barry Zito:  Already explained how he wasn't waiving no trade for Boston, and not sure why Boston would have been interested last summer, even to dump Crawford.

    Jacoby Ellsbury: They actively shopped him this winter but they weren't going to give him away.  It made more sense to hang onto him at the end of the day.

     

    It's not the ideas, it's the way you present them over and over like the Sox "could" have made these moves and didn't.  Okay, so you don't like the moves they made, but it's time to move on. 

     

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Zito for Crawford, as a straight salary dump made some sense as Crawford's contract was a lot longer and both contracts were looking real bad. Even last year though, Zito's ERA was still above 4.00 in the NL west, in a pitchers park. And it was possibly his best year in the past 6. We don't want him.

    But your point was always the salary dump option. I get that. I just wouldn't take him over Dempster, who so far has been fine IMO.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    I posted this on the game thread...I

    Just saw a picture of old Dodger pitcher Don Newcombe.

    Did you guys know that in 1950 he pitched both ends of a double header?  He pitched a shutout complete game in the 1st game, and gave up only two runs in the second game after seven innings.

    Why in hell do pitchers today tire out after 5 innings or so?  Yes, a few exceptions..Verlander, for one.. Nolan Ryan was another.

    Really! what in the world?

     

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I don't think Zito was happy is SF before the deadline. He had been benched several times. He may have welcomes going back to the league where he was successful. We'll never know.

    Your 100% certainty is a bit of an overstatement. 

    Sure, now he's happy in SF, but last July he was in the midst of a long nightmare.

     

     



    Actually, if you knew anything about Barry Zito, you'd be able to say with 100% certainty that he wouldn't have waived his no trade to go to Boston as well...

    Yes, everybody we never signed or traded for could have possibly ever ended up here. You are right. We got all the players we were meant to get, and we could never have expected anything better.

     



    That's not the point, Moon.  Proposing other ideas is what makes this board great at times.  It's when you spend the entire winter shredding the Front Office and saying your "plan" was so much better, yet your plan was unrealistic.  You post over and over and over again that you would have traded for Justin Upton, signed Brandon McCarthy, trade for Zito last summer, traded for Brett Anderson, traded all the free agents to be and start the kids.  None of this was realistic at all.  You also said they did nothing to help the future, which makes no sense, since they kept all of their young players, kept all of their draft picks and didn't sign anyone to long term deals.  These are the players you keep posting that they "could" have acquired:

     

    Justin Upton:  Had "no trade clause" that included Boston and said he wouldn't waive it to come here, yet how many times have you posted "They should have traded for Upton." It wasn't an option.

    Brandon McCarthy:  He told his agent, "I want to stay out west."  Pretty cut and dry there. Last time I checked, Boston is the farthest baseball city from "out west."  The Sox also weren't going to sign a guy who was injury prone and hadn't thrown a pitch since he was hit in the face with a line drive.  A lot of these guys in the Front Office were around when a line drive to the face ruined the careers of Clement & Florie.  There was zero mutual interest.  By the way he's been batting practice his first two starts for AZ. 

    Brett Anderson:  Billy Beane made it clear that "he's not available."  Sure, if you want to give them a ridiculous package, then anyone is available, but that doesn't make any sense, either. 

    Barry Zito:  Already explained how he wasn't waiving no trade for Boston, and not sure why Boston would have been interested last summer, even to dump Crawford.

    Jacoby Ellsbury: They actively shopped him this winter but they weren't going to give him away.  It made more sense to hang onto him at the end of the day.

     

    It's not the ideas, it's the way you present them over and over like the Sox "could" have made these moves and didn't.  Okay, so you don't like the moves they made, but it's time to move on. 

     

     

     



    Everybody has a price.

    I have moved on.

    I disagree with your positions, but your 100% "certainty" is a joke.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Just finished watching tonight's game on tape delay. Tough loss.

    Gotta say, that O's 3 to 7 stretch in their line-up is deadly:

    3) Markakis

    4) A Jones

    5) C Davis

    6) Weiters

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcri. Show jcri's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Amp, that is amazing.  I didn't know that.  As to why, let me propose something that may or may not be a factor.  My students today here in San Jose are typical suburban kids.  Among them are some good athletes, but none of them do chores: no firewood, no lawn mowing, no plowing or harrowing, no raking or shoveling--all stuff I did in the 60's by the way.  These kids don't even want to put the garbage bins out on collection day.  My father and his four brothers grew up on a small farm in the 30's and 40's--they all did this and a lot more, haying, pulling bushes, clearing land.  You get the point.  These guys were MEN in high school, as were most young men in those days.  Farm kids are still like this and some rural kids, but I think all kids today don't have enough physical stuff to do.  Playing baseball was fun for those guys back in the day, not work.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcri. Show jcri's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Sounds like Papi had a good rehab game today.  Maybe we need that Bad Boy in the middle of our line-up.  

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jcri's comment:

    Amp, that is amazing.  I didn't know that.  As to why, let me propose something that may or may not be a factor.  My students today here in San Jose are typical suburban kids.  Among them are some good athletes, but none of them do chores: no firewood, no lawn mowing, no plowing or harrowing, no raking or shoveling--all stuff I did in the 60's by the way.  These kids don't even want to put the garbage bins out on collection day.  My father and his four brothers grew up on a small farm in the 30's and 40's--they all did this and a lot more, haying, pulling bushes, clearing land.  You get the point.  These guys were MEN in high school, as were most young men in those days.  Farm kids are still like this and some rural kids, but I think all kids today don't have enough physical stuff to do.  Playing baseball was fun for those guys back in the day, not work.

     




    I hear you and believe you.  My father could chin himself one-arm.

    Today's youth answer are weights.  I'm sure they're stronger than an old has-been like myself was in my prime, but I question duration.

    I'd think that with today's medical/technilogical expertise, the duration problem would have been addressed and solved.  Yet, today, it's rare for a pitcher to complete a whole game.

    On the strength issue, Ted Williams blasted a 502ft home run in Fenway..without HGH or steroids, or buffing up with weights,  Why aren't hitters today doing that?  Today, anything over 400ft is a big deal.

    My thought is that the talent has been enormously diluted.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to ampoule's comment:

    In response to jcri's comment:

     

    Amp, that is amazing.  I didn't know that.  As to why, let me propose something that may or may not be a factor.  My students today here in San Jose are typical suburban kids.  Among them are some good athletes, but none of them do chores: no firewood, no lawn mowing, no plowing or harrowing, no raking or shoveling--all stuff I did in the 60's by the way.  These kids don't even want to put the garbage bins out on collection day.  My father and his four brothers grew up on a small farm in the 30's and 40's--they all did this and a lot more, haying, pulling bushes, clearing land.  You get the point.  These guys were MEN in high school, as were most young men in those days.  Farm kids are still like this and some rural kids, but I think all kids today don't have enough physical stuff to do.  Playing baseball was fun for those guys back in the day, not work.

     

     




    I hear you and believe you.  My father could chin himself one-arm.

     

    Today's youth answer are weights.  I'm sure they're stronger than an old has-been like myself was in my prime, but I question duration.

    I'd think that with today's medical/technilogical expertise, the duration problem would have been addressed and solved.  Yet, today, it's rare for a pitcher to complete a whole game.

    On the strength issue, Ted Williams blasted a 502ft home run in Fenway..without HGH or steroids, or buffing up with weights,  Why aren't hitters today doing that?  Today, anything over 400ft is a big deal.

    My thought is that the talent has been enormously diluted.



    Great discussion here.

    Hitting bombs is not always about brute strength. It's a lot about fluidity, form, and hand-eye coordination. Also, the ball has changed, pitchers have changed, and park sizes as well. 

    I think the pitchers of that day were sometimes focusing on longevity, and maybe "saved themselves" a bit, in order to go 8-9 innings 40 times a year. Now, with all the bull pen specialty roles, every one is asked to go all out every inning, and they know someone's has their back after 5-6 IP. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to ampoule's comment:

     

    In response to jcri's comment:

     

    Amp, that is amazing.  I didn't know that.  As to why, let me propose something that may or may not be a factor.  My students today here in San Jose are typical suburban kids.  Among them are some good athletes, but none of them do chores: no firewood, no lawn mowing, no plowing or harrowing, no raking or shoveling--all stuff I did in the 60's by the way.  These kids don't even want to put the garbage bins out on collection day.  My father and his four brothers grew up on a small farm in the 30's and 40's--they all did this and a lot more, haying, pulling bushes, clearing land.  You get the point.  These guys were MEN in high school, as were most young men in those days.  Farm kids are still like this and some rural kids, but I think all kids today don't have enough physical stuff to do.  Playing baseball was fun for those guys back in the day, not work.

     

     




    I hear you and believe you.  My father could chin himself one-arm.

     

    Today's youth answer are weights.  I'm sure they're stronger than an old has-been like myself was in my prime, but I question duration.

    I'd think that with today's medical/technilogical expertise, the duration problem would have been addressed and solved.  Yet, today, it's rare for a pitcher to complete a whole game.

    On the strength issue, Ted Williams blasted a 502ft home run in Fenway..without HGH or steroids, or buffing up with weights,  Why aren't hitters today doing that?  Today, anything over 400ft is a big deal.

    My thought is that the talent has been enormously diluted.

     



    Great discussion here.

     

    Hitting bombs is not always about brute strength. It's a lot about fluidity, form, and hand-eye coordination. Also, the ball has changed, pitchers have changed, and park sizes as well. 

    I think the pitchers of that day were sometimes focusing on longevity, and maybe "saved themselves" a bit, in order to go 8-9 innings 40 times a year. Now, with all the bull pen specialty roles, every one is asked to go all out every inning, and they know someone's has their back after 5-6 IP. 




    I agree. The game today is much different and thus the athletes are conditioned to it. Pitchers are more conditioned to get the "quality start" than they are to complete over 10 games a year. They are paid a ton more as well and owners want to preserve their investment.

     

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Hanrahan is responsible for this 2 game losing streak. He affected the confidence of an already supsect team. Don`t forget that scrub Drew

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to BostonBruinss' comment:

    Hanrahan is responsible for this 2 game losing streak. He affected the confidence of an already supsect team. Don`t forget that scrub Drew



    Didnt realize Hanny pitched last night. Drew was on base 3 times last night.
    thats 2 dumb comments Ive seen from you today...keep up the good work!

    sorry guys...back to business....

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to BostonBruinss' comment:

    Hanrahan is responsible for this 2 game losing streak. He affected the confidence of an already supsect team. Don`t forget that scrub Drew



    Actually, it's all Beckett's fault. The residuals may take years to get over.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to ampoule's comment:

    I posted this on the game thread...I

    Just saw a picture of old Dodger pitcher Don Newcombe.

    Did you guys know that in 1950 he pitched both ends of a double header?  He pitched a shutout complete game in the 1st game, and gave up only two runs in the second game after seven innings.

    Why in hell do pitchers today tire out after 5 innings or so?  Yes, a few exceptions..Verlander, for one.. Nolan Ryan was another.

    Really! what in the world?

     

     

     



    I think the longest mlb game ever played was 26 innings if I remember correctly and I believe both pitchers threw the entire game. Something like that. The old timers threw forever.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    The Orioles might well have been inordinately lucky last year but they obviously have a lot of emerging young talent. Machado, Adams, Wieters...etc. And they have 2 young starters coming up soon. They are a problem. No question about it. Their pitching should improve over time.

    But we are a competitive team also. We are in for a classic pennant race.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    The Orioles might well have been inordinately lucky last year but they obviously have a lot of emerging young talent. Machado, Adams, Wieters...etc. And they have 2 young starters coming up soon. They are a problem. No question about it. Their pitching should improve over time.

    But we are a competitive team also. We are in for a classic pennant race.



    The O's are good enough to give us pretty significant odds of finishing in last place.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    And I would not rule out the possibility that some umps are on the take. It was proven last year in FIFA soccer matches worldwide. I've seen obvious examples of it in Soccer, including in the recent USA vs Mexico game. The main ref's brother was the linesman. And some horrible calls were made to keep Mexico from winning that game where the USA were huge  underdogs. 

    We have seen some games recently where the umps were just terrible. Squeezing a pitcher's strike zone can absolutely change the outcome of a game.

    Organized crime can threaten kidnappings in an umps family or black mail them or just bribe them with incredible amounts of money.

    Sometimes it's good to be the underdog. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Barry Zito:  Already explained how he wasn't waiving no trade for Boston, and not sure why Boston would have been interested last summer, even to dump Crawford.

    I don't remember ever reading that Zito refused to come to Boston. I live out here near SF and I don't think that such a trade was ever publicly discussed. Do you have a link to that interview? If not then I am going to assume that your "100% certainty" comment is just something you made up.

     

Share