A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    I agree that Bogaerts is untradeable, even straight up for Stanton. 

    But that doesn't mean he can't have an assigned value to him, and i HOPE that value is much higher come July 31.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Did your "secret source" also tell you that it is a fact that Boegarts is going to be a star "sooner rather than later". You would do well to lose the ascerbic writing style and try to respond to others with a modicum of respect.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    First I'll comment on all the Stanton talk. I agree with the folks who do not want to give up the farm for a defensively challenged slugger who has had a difficult time staying on the field. Stay the course Ben!

    Today's game at the fort was entertaining. We got pretty good pitching, better than the numbers indicate and we got some timely hitting. We left after the team took the lead in the eighth, only to hear the collective groan from the crowd in the top of the ninth. Lackey threw the ball well but manages to give up more fifteen-hoppers for hits than anyone I know. He was almost out of the third having only allowed two runs when Miller relieved him and gave up a run-scoring hit on his first pitch. From that point on the bullpen shut down the vaunted Marlin attack. Badenhop, Koji, Mujica and Tazawa all looked very good. Britton had a strong eighth, but gave up the lead in the ninth with a two-run homer we didn't see. Vasquez and Butler got key hits to tie and put us ahead respectively. Carp hit another bomb and is either inflating his trade value or forcing Farrell to find time for him. I believe it will be the former.

    Crit, you had asked about Britton and he came from behind in counts to get outs in the eighth. He has a power arm but I'm certain he starts the season in AAA, most likely getting innings as a starter. He has Miller, Breslow and Capuano all ahead of him from the left side with Hill and Mijares as veteran insurance, so I don't see him cracking the Boston staff. But I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb by saying his ceiling is higher than any of those lefties; just needs time to harness the stuff.

    You also asked about Hassan and he is a mystery to me. We didn't see him much in ST last year and he was injured a good part of last year at AAA, although his numbers were great when he played. Problem is he hits left-handed, like most of our outfielders, and he's not that young, 26 on opening day. He looks like a player and perhaps could be of value to a second division team as a starting outfielder.

    The guy who has opened my eyes, after I ripped him a bit for sloppy defense and missing cut-off men, is Brentz. He makes consistently hard contact, not to say his contact is consistent, but his contact is consistently hard, and he can really throw! The key for him, especially as opposed to Hassan, is the right-handed bat. But he is also not that young at 25. Pawtucket should be very good this year if we can keep all these guys there. Corey Brown has also looked very good and should play between Hassan and Brentz at AAA. All of that is assuming we don't move or otherwise lose these guys.

    I didn't see the Orioles game obviously, but another Middlebrooks homer and a two-run triple for Bradley, and three more knocks for AJ are all encouraging signs. Lavarnway also homered, perhaps adding to his value.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Did your "secret source" also tell you that it is a fact that Boegarts is going to be a star "sooner rather than later". You would do well to lose the ascerbic writing style and try to respond to others with a modicum of respect.

    [/QUOTE]

    Put me on ignore, Pumpsie. You should have plenty enough to whine about with the Sox before you have to start worrying about my posts as well...Is your idea of "respect" calling someone a "zero?"  Don't be such a hypocrite.

    By the way, Hill is a smart poster, he can handle it.  He chooses to go the "glass is half empty" route on all things Red Sox on a Boston forum, so I call him on it once in a while.

    Any time someone posted anything positive about the Sox prior to last season, he called them a "69 win team," over and over and over again, as if that was their talent level.  If someone posts anything remotely positive about Middlebrooks, he jumps on it, and he has for over a year now.  I'm sure he has his reasons for his passion for Middlebrooks' failure, but I'm going to, again, call him on it.  Don't worry, though, he doesn't need a big brother.   

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    I'll be the first to admit that Xander Bogaerts does not carry the red flags that Will Middlebrooks carried into the latter's MLB debut two years ago. I don't doubt that Bogaerts has a good chance of becoming a star some day, but I would not be surprised if the 21-year-old struggled in his rookie season.

    Texas infielder Jurickson Profar, who is younger than Bogaerts, entered the 2013 season as Baseball America's top-ranked prospect but stumbled in his rookie year. Profar and Bogaerts come from neighboring islands off the Caribbean coast of Venezuela.

    I hope Bogaerts has a good season but there are no guarantees. It's been so long since Boston had a Top 10 prospect that Red Sox fans might have inflated expectations of Bogaerts.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Did your "secret source" also tell you that it is a fact that Boegarts is going to be a star "sooner rather than later". You would do well to lose the ascerbic writing style and try to respond to others with a modicum of respect.

    [/QUOTE]

    Put me on ignore, Pumpsie. You should have plenty enough to whine about with the Sox before you have to start worrying about my posts as well...Is your idea of "respect" calling someone a "zero?"  Don't be such a hypocrite.

    By the way, Hill is a smart poster, he can handle it.  He chooses to go the "glass is half empty" route on all things Red Sox on a Boston forum, so I call him on it once in a while.

    Any time someone posted anything positive about the Sox prior to last season, he called them a "69 win team," over and over and over again, as if that was their talent level.  If someone posts anything remotely positive about Middlebrooks, he jumps on it, and he has for over a year now.  I'm sure he has his reasons for his passion for Middlebrooks' failure, but I'm going to, again, call him on it.  Don't worry, though, he doesn't need a big brother.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Disrespect begets disrespect. When you make inane comments such as you did during our other discussion you should expect to be labelled a zero, or worse. You are right: Hill is one of the best posters here. Lose the ascerbic crap and stop representing your opinion as fact and you might actually get some decent conversations and debates here.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    I'll be the first to admit that Xander Bogaerts does not carry the red flags that Will Middlebrooks carried into the latter's MLB debut two years ago. I don't doubt that Bogaerts has a good chance of becoming a star some day, but I would not be surprised if the 21-year-old struggled in his rookie season.

    Texas infielder Jurickson Profar, who is younger than Bogaerts, entered the 2013 season as Baseball America's top-ranked prospect but stumbled in his rookie year. Profar and Bogaerts come from neighboring islands off the Caribbean coast of Venezuela.

    I hope Bogaerts has a good season but there are no guarantees. It's been so long since Boston had a Top 10 prospect that Red Sox fans might have inflated expectations of Bogaerts.

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice post Hill, even though you had to get that zinger in at the end. I think that's why you aggravate me, as I feel like I'm on a string at the end of our banter.  

    Profar and Bogaerts are similar in that they both have tremendous make-up as you mentioned, but Bogaerts' "ceiling" is significantly higher, at least from what I've seen AND heard. We shall see.  I fully expect Bogaerts to take his "lumps," but I think he's actually "under" hyped in Boston, due to the depth of the current farm system.  

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Did your "secret source" also tell you that it is a fact that Boegarts is going to be a star "sooner rather than later". You would do well to lose the ascerbic writing style and try to respond to others with a modicum of respect.

    [/QUOTE]

    Put me on ignore, Pumpsie. You should have plenty enough to whine about with the Sox before you have to start worrying about my posts as well...Is your idea of "respect" calling someone a "zero?"  Don't be such a hypocrite.

    By the way, Hill is a smart poster, he can handle it.  He chooses to go the "glass is half empty" route on all things Red Sox on a Boston forum, so I call him on it once in a while.

    Any time someone posted anything positive about the Sox prior to last season, he called them a "69 win team," over and over and over again, as if that was their talent level.  If someone posts anything remotely positive about Middlebrooks, he jumps on it, and he has for over a year now.  I'm sure he has his reasons for his passion for Middlebrooks' failure, but I'm going to, again, call him on it.  Don't worry, though, he doesn't need a big brother.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Disrespect begets disrespect. When you make inane comments such as you did during our other discussion you should expect to be labelled a zero, or worse. You are right: Hill is one of the best posters here. Lose the ascerbic crap and stop representing your opinion as fact and you might actually get some decent conversations and debates here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Name one example of where I stated an "opinion" as fact.  Just one.  

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Did your "secret source" also tell you that it is a fact that Boegarts is going to be a star "sooner rather than later". You would do well to lose the ascerbic writing style and try to respond to others with a modicum of respect.

    [/QUOTE]

    Put me on ignore, Pumpsie. You should have plenty enough to whine about with the Sox before you have to start worrying about my posts as well...Is your idea of "respect" calling someone a "zero?"  Don't be such a hypocrite.

    By the way, Hill is a smart poster, he can handle it.  He chooses to go the "glass is half empty" route on all things Red Sox on a Boston forum, so I call him on it once in a while.

    Any time someone posted anything positive about the Sox prior to last season, he called them a "69 win team," over and over and over again, as if that was their talent level.  If someone posts anything remotely positive about Middlebrooks, he jumps on it, and he has for over a year now.  I'm sure he has his reasons for his passion for Middlebrooks' failure, but I'm going to, again, call him on it.  Don't worry, though, he doesn't need a big brother.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Disrespect begets disrespect. When you make inane comments such as you did during our other discussion you should expect to be labelled a zero, or worse. You are right: Hill is one of the best posters here. Lose the ascerbic crap and stop representing your opinion as fact and you might actually get some decent conversations and debates here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Name one example of where I stated an "opinion" as fact.  Just one.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    Sure sounds like you are putting that out there as fact to me.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to jidgef's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First I'll comment on all the Stanton talk. I agree with the folks who do not want to give up the farm for a defensively challenged slugger who has had a difficult time staying on the field. Stay the course Ben!

    Today's game at the fort was entertaining. We got pretty good pitching, better than the numbers indicate and we got some timely hitting. We left after the team took the lead in the eighth, only to hear the collective groan from the crowd in the top of the ninth. Lackey threw the ball well but manages to give up more fifteen-hoppers for hits than anyone I know. He was almost out of the third having only allowed two runs when Miller relieved him and gave up a run-scoring hit on his first pitch. From that point on the bullpen shut down the vaunted Marlin attack. Badenhop, Koji, Mujica and Tazawa all looked very good. Britton had a strong eighth, but gave up the lead in the ninth with a two-run homer we didn't see. Vasquez and Butler got key hits to tie and put us ahead respectively. Carp hit another bomb and is either inflating his trade value or forcing Farrell to find time for him. I believe it will be the former.

    Crit, you had asked about Britton and he came from behind in counts to get outs in the eighth. He has a power arm but I'm certain he starts the season in AAA, most likely getting innings as a starter. He has Miller, Breslow and Capuano all ahead of him from the left side with Hill and Mijares as veteran insurance, so I don't see him cracking the Boston staff. But I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb by saying his ceiling is higher than any of those lefties; just needs time to harness the stuff.

    You also asked about Hassan and he is a mystery to me. We didn't see him much in ST last year and he was injured a good part of last year at AAA, although his numbers were great when he played. Problem is he hits left-handed, like most of our outfielders, and he's not that young, 26 on opening day. He looks like a player and perhaps could be of value to a second division team as a starting outfielder.

    The guy who has opened my eyes, after I ripped him a bit for sloppy defense and missing cut-off men, is Brentz. He makes consistently hard contact, not to say his contact is consistent, but his contact is consistently hard, and he can really throw! The key for him, especially as opposed to Hassan, is the right-handed bat. But he is also not that young at 25. Pawtucket should be very good this year if we can keep all these guys there. Corey Brown has also looked very good and should play between Hassan and Brentz at AAA. All of that is assuming we don't move or otherwise lose these guys.

    I didn't see the Orioles game obviously, but another Middlebrooks homer and a two-run triple for Bradley, and three more knocks for AJ are all encouraging signs. Lavarnway also homered, perhaps adding to his value.

    [/QUOTE]


    Good stuff as usual. Was wondering if you have seen Breslow throw at all down there. Heard he was going to throw his 1st bullpen either today or tomorrow. Seems awfully late? He started last yr on DL, think we could see same thing this year and maybe Britton makes staff til he returns [I'd prefer he start at AAA build up arm as starter].

    Corey Brown has looked good as little as I've seen of him this spring. Hit a shot out straight away CF the other day. I believe he was a former No 1 of somebody and still only 25. Could provide some depth should Sizemore go down during season.

    Lavarnway again as little as I've seen of him has not looked bad defensively at 1B.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Corey Brown has looked good as little as I've seen of him this spring. Hit a shot out straight away CF the other day. I believe he was a former No 1 of somebody and still only 25. Could provide some depth should Sizemore go down during season.

    [/QUOTE]

    Brown is actually 28 and a minor league veteran. He's played 3 full seasons at AAA, posting a .794 OPS. 

    One thing that has to be looked at in these spring training games is who the opposing pitchers were.  In the Rays game Brown went 2 for 2 with a double and homer.  But the double was off Erik Bedard, and the long home run was off a kid who has pitched just a handful of innings above AA ball. 

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to garyhow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jidgef's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First I'll comment on all the Stanton talk. I agree with the folks who do not want to give up the farm for a defensively challenged slugger who has had a difficult time staying on the field. Stay the course Ben!

    Today's game at the fort was entertaining. We got pretty good pitching, better than the numbers indicate and we got some timely hitting. We left after the team took the lead in the eighth, only to hear the collective groan from the crowd in the top of the ninth. Lackey threw the ball well but manages to give up more fifteen-hoppers for hits than anyone I know. He was almost out of the third having only allowed two runs when Miller relieved him and gave up a run-scoring hit on his first pitch. From that point on the bullpen shut down the vaunted Marlin attack. Badenhop, Koji, Mujica and Tazawa all looked very good. Britton had a strong eighth, but gave up the lead in the ninth with a two-run homer we didn't see. Vasquez and Butler got key hits to tie and put us ahead respectively. Carp hit another bomb and is either inflating his trade value or forcing Farrell to find time for him. I believe it will be the former.

    Crit, you had asked about Britton and he came from behind in counts to get outs in the eighth. He has a power arm but I'm certain he starts the season in AAA, most likely getting innings as a starter. He has Miller, Breslow and Capuano all ahead of him from the left side with Hill and Mijares as veteran insurance, so I don't see him cracking the Boston staff. But I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb by saying his ceiling is higher than any of those lefties; just needs time to harness the stuff.

    You also asked about Hassan and he is a mystery to me. We didn't see him much in ST last year and he was injured a good part of last year at AAA, although his numbers were great when he played. Problem is he hits left-handed, like most of our outfielders, and he's not that young, 26 on opening day. He looks like a player and perhaps could be of value to a second division team as a starting outfielder.

    The guy who has opened my eyes, after I ripped him a bit for sloppy defense and missing cut-off men, is Brentz. He makes consistently hard contact, not to say his contact is consistent, but his contact is consistently hard, and he can really throw! The key for him, especially as opposed to Hassan, is the right-handed bat. But he is also not that young at 25. Pawtucket should be very good this year if we can keep all these guys there. Corey Brown has also looked very good and should play between Hassan and Brentz at AAA. All of that is assuming we don't move or otherwise lose these guys.

    I didn't see the Orioles game obviously, but another Middlebrooks homer and a two-run triple for Bradley, and three more knocks for AJ are all encouraging signs. Lavarnway also homered, perhaps adding to his value.

    [/QUOTE]


    Good stuff as usual. Was wondering if you have seen Breslow throw at all down there. Heard he was going to throw his 1st bullpen either today or tomorrow. Seems awfully late? He started last yr on DL, think we could see same thing this year and maybe Britton makes staff til he returns [I'd prefer he start at AAA build up arm as starter].

    Corey Brown has looked good as little as I've seen of him this spring. Hit a shot out straight away CF the other day. I believe he was a former No 1 of somebody and still only 25. Could provide some depth should Sizemore go down during season.

    Lavarnway again as little as I've seen of him has not looked bad defensively at 1B.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Corey Brown will be 28 this year.  He kind of reminds me of Reddick; good power, good defense but not approach at the plate.  Still he has never really got a good long look at the MLB level and he looks like he could be a really good 4th/5th outfielder. 

    We don't really have a lot of outfield depth and were we do there are question marks.  When we have to slide Nava over to RF our defense is horrible; for who is in left and nava being in right.  Having a guy like Brown who can play all 3 positions at an above average level certainly doesn't hurt this team in any way. 

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Jasko, I think Hill is possibly/probably the least biased person on this board.  Some just don't like it when he points out probabilities based on those pesky facts of his. :-)

    Can you provide even one example of a where Hill's been overtly negative/abusive/obsessed with Midds or any other player?

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Did your "secret source" also tell you that it is a fact that Boegarts is going to be a star "sooner rather than later". You would do well to lose the ascerbic writing style and try to respond to others with a modicum of respect.

    [/QUOTE]

    Put me on ignore, Pumpsie. You should have plenty enough to whine about with the Sox before you have to start worrying about my posts as well...Is your idea of "respect" calling someone a "zero?"  Don't be such a hypocrite.

    By the way, Hill is a smart poster, he can handle it.  He chooses to go the "glass is half empty" route on all things Red Sox on a Boston forum, so I call him on it once in a while.

    Any time someone posted anything positive about the Sox prior to last season, he called them a "69 win team," over and over and over again, as if that was their talent level.  If someone posts anything remotely positive about Middlebrooks, he jumps on it, and he has for over a year now.  I'm sure he has his reasons for his passion for Middlebrooks' failure, but I'm going to, again, call him on it.  Don't worry, though, he doesn't need a big brother.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Disrespect begets disrespect. When you make inane comments such as you did during our other discussion you should expect to be labelled a zero, or worse. You are right: Hill is one of the best posters here. Lose the ascerbic crap and stop representing your opinion as fact and you might actually get some decent conversations and debates here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Name one example of where I stated an "opinion" as fact.  Just one.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    Sure sounds like you are putting that out there as fact to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    Depends on how you define star.  Ultimately I agree that is an opinion because he hasn't had the time to put it together at the MLB level.  If you attribute the level star based on fame, and expectations then I think you could argue that here in Boston he is already a young star.  Lebron James was a star before he played in one game because of the hype.  I don't think Bogaerts has the same exact pedigree on a national level, but around the baseball world everyone knows who he is....and most expect him to be one of the better players in the entire game.  Bryce Harper was another one, he was a household name around baseball for he played in one MLB game.

    Like I said I'm not saying you're wrong....just that the topic is subjective. 

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Did your "secret source" also tell you that it is a fact that Boegarts is going to be a star "sooner rather than later". You would do well to lose the ascerbic writing style and try to respond to others with a modicum of respect.

    [/QUOTE]

    Put me on ignore, Pumpsie. You should have plenty enough to whine about with the Sox before you have to start worrying about my posts as well...Is your idea of "respect" calling someone a "zero?"  Don't be such a hypocrite.

    By the way, Hill is a smart poster, he can handle it.  He chooses to go the "glass is half empty" route on all things Red Sox on a Boston forum, so I call him on it once in a while.

    Any time someone posted anything positive about the Sox prior to last season, he called them a "69 win team," over and over and over again, as if that was their talent level.  If someone posts anything remotely positive about Middlebrooks, he jumps on it, and he has for over a year now.  I'm sure he has his reasons for his passion for Middlebrooks' failure, but I'm going to, again, call him on it.  Don't worry, though, he doesn't need a big brother.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Disrespect begets disrespect. When you make inane comments such as you did during our other discussion you should expect to be labelled a zero, or worse. You are right: Hill is one of the best posters here. Lose the ascerbic crap and stop representing your opinion as fact and you might actually get some decent conversations and debates here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Name one example of where I stated an "opinion" as fact.  Just one.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    Sure sounds like you are putting that out there as fact to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    Depends on how you define star.  Ultimately I agree that is an opinion because he hasn't had the time to put it together at the MLB level.  If you attribute the level star based on fame, and expectations then I think you could argue that here in Boston he is already a young star.  Lebron James was a star before he played in one game because of the hype.  I don't think Bogaerts has the same exact pedigree on a national level, but around the baseball world everyone knows who he is....and most expect him to be one of the better players in the entire game.  Bryce Harper was another one, he was a household name around baseball for he played in one MLB game.

    Like I said I'm not saying you're wrong....just that the topic is subjective. 

    [/QUOTE]


    And Jasko is hardly alone on this opinion. I also have the same opinion.

    Ive read many scouts say this kid has that special something. Ive seen him play a lot over the last 2 years. Kid is legit.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    Nice post Hill, even though you had to get that zinger in at the end. I think that's why you aggravate me, as I feel like I'm on a string at the end of our banter.  

    I'm not here to aggravate you or any other poster on this forum. More often than not, I merely provide overlooked stats and other information, then let the readers draw their own conclusions.

    I look forward to your substantive contributions to this forum but hope that you avoid making matters personal.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Gary I have not seen Breslow yet, but Farrell has said that he will NOT start the season on the DL and needs very little time to get ready. I'm going down to the minor-league complex today as Doubie is pitching a minor-league game. Some of my best times last year were had at the lower fields as the guys are more accessible and the younger players and media will talk to anyone. Add to that the fact that I'm pushing a wheelchair and everyone is kinder to me/us. I will be sure to ask about Breslow today. One thing I've learned over the last few years here is that Spring Training is too long, it's a money-maker for MLB, and the only people who really need alot of time are the starting pitchers. In this day and age, with the salaries what they are, players are not coming down to get back in shape after working their winter jobs. Their winter job IS to stay in shape. I haven't seen a Red Sox player yet this spring who doesn't look very fit.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Did your "secret source" also tell you that it is a fact that Boegarts is going to be a star "sooner rather than later". You would do well to lose the ascerbic writing style and try to respond to others with a modicum of respect.

    [/QUOTE]

    Put me on ignore, Pumpsie. You should have plenty enough to whine about with the Sox before you have to start worrying about my posts as well...Is your idea of "respect" calling someone a "zero?"  Don't be such a hypocrite.

    By the way, Hill is a smart poster, he can handle it.  He chooses to go the "glass is half empty" route on all things Red Sox on a Boston forum, so I call him on it once in a while.

    Any time someone posted anything positive about the Sox prior to last season, he called them a "69 win team," over and over and over again, as if that was their talent level.  If someone posts anything remotely positive about Middlebrooks, he jumps on it, and he has for over a year now.  I'm sure he has his reasons for his passion for Middlebrooks' failure, but I'm going to, again, call him on it.  Don't worry, though, he doesn't need a big brother.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Disrespect begets disrespect. When you make inane comments such as you did during our other discussion you should expect to be labelled a zero, or worse. You are right: Hill is one of the best posters here. Lose the ascerbic crap and stop representing your opinion as fact and you might actually get some decent conversations and debates here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Name one example of where I stated an "opinion" as fact.  Just one.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    Sure sounds like you are putting that out there as fact to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    Depends on how you define star.  Ultimately I agree that is an opinion because he hasn't had the time to put it together at the MLB level.  If you attribute the level star based on fame, and expectations then I think you could argue that here in Boston he is already a young star.  Lebron James was a star before he played in one game because of the hype.  I don't think Bogaerts has the same exact pedigree on a national level, but around the baseball world everyone knows who he is....and most expect him to be one of the better players in the entire game.  Bryce Harper was another one, he was a household name around baseball for he played in one MLB game.

    Like I said I'm not saying you're wrong....just that the topic is subjective. 

    [/QUOTE]


    And Jasko is hardly alone on this opinion. I also have the same opinion.

    Ive read many scouts say this kid has that special something. Ive seen him play a lot over the last 2 years. Kid is legit.

    [/QUOTE]

    SP, there is a good chance that Boegarts will be successful in the ML. Thats my opinion as well. Stating that he WILL be a star puts it out there as fact when its opinion, not fact. That was the point. Its going to take a few years of being successful to be able to label him a star.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Did your "secret source" also tell you that it is a fact that Boegarts is going to be a star "sooner rather than later". You would do well to lose the ascerbic writing style and try to respond to others with a modicum of respect.

    [/QUOTE]

    Put me on ignore, Pumpsie. You should have plenty enough to whine about with the Sox before you have to start worrying about my posts as well...Is your idea of "respect" calling someone a "zero?"  Don't be such a hypocrite.

    By the way, Hill is a smart poster, he can handle it.  He chooses to go the "glass is half empty" route on all things Red Sox on a Boston forum, so I call him on it once in a while.

    Any time someone posted anything positive about the Sox prior to last season, he called them a "69 win team," over and over and over again, as if that was their talent level.  If someone posts anything remotely positive about Middlebrooks, he jumps on it, and he has for over a year now.  I'm sure he has his reasons for his passion for Middlebrooks' failure, but I'm going to, again, call him on it.  Don't worry, though, he doesn't need a big brother.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Disrespect begets disrespect. When you make inane comments such as you did during our other discussion you should expect to be labelled a zero, or worse. You are right: Hill is one of the best posters here. Lose the ascerbic crap and stop representing your opinion as fact and you might actually get some decent conversations and debates here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Name one example of where I stated an "opinion" as fact.  Just one.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    Sure sounds like you are putting that out there as fact to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    Depends on how you define star.  Ultimately I agree that is an opinion because he hasn't had the time to put it together at the MLB level.  If you attribute the level star based on fame, and expectations then I think you could argue that here in Boston he is already a young star.  Lebron James was a star before he played in one game because of the hype.  I don't think Bogaerts has the same exact pedigree on a national level, but around the baseball world everyone knows who he is....and most expect him to be one of the better players in the entire game.  Bryce Harper was another one, he was a household name around baseball for he played in one MLB game.

    Like I said I'm not saying you're wrong....just that the topic is subjective. 

    [/QUOTE]


    And Jasko is hardly alone on this opinion. I also have the same opinion.

    Ive read many scouts say this kid has that special something. Ive seen him play a lot over the last 2 years. Kid is legit.

    [/QUOTE]

    SP, there is a good chance that Boegarts will be successful in the ML. Thats my opinion as well. Stating that he WILL be a star puts it out there as fact when its opinion, not fact. That was the point. Its going to take a few years of being successful to be able to label him a star.

    [/QUOTE]

    like I said before the term Star is subjective.  You are saying that being a star necessitates performance, when that is not always the case.  Lebron James was a star before he played one game, Bryce Harper was a star before he had 1 at-bat at the MLb level.

    Again this is under the assumption that being a star is associated with fame, when the performance matches then you are an All-star MVP candidate.  Bogaerts doesn't have the playing time to be a star by YOUR definition (which many people would agree with) but if recognition and fame are thrown into the picture (which ALOT of people also believe in ) then Yes Bogaerts is turning into a star right not before our eyes.

    Again the definition is subjective, some share your opinion many share mine. 

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    like I said before the term Star is subjective.  You are saying that being a star necessitates performance, when that is not always the case.  Lebron James was a star before he played one game, Bryce Harper was a star before he had 1 at-bat at the MLb level.

    Again this is under the assumption that being a star is associated with fame, when the performance matches then you are an All-star MVP candidate.  Bogaerts doesn't have the playing time to be a star by YOUR definition (which many people would agree with) but if recognition and fame are thrown into the picture (which ALOT of people also believe in ) then Yes Bogaerts is turning into a star right not before our eyes.

    Again the definition is subjective, some share your opinion many share mine. 


    Star: celebrated, prominent, or distinguished; preeminent: a star basketball player; a star reporter.


    I do not believe that someone who has yet to play a single full season at the ML level could accurately be labeled as "celebrated, prominent, or distinguished" as a description of his professional career. Professional sports is littered with guys with great potential who, for whatever reason, were never the successful stars that their potential would have predicted. Greg Oden in basketball is one example. I am sure you can think of others. Until there is performance there is no star...IMO. There is only a potential star.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    Hill is objective and knowledgeable. No doubt it would take quite a few premium prospects to land Stanton. I'd probably give Miami 4-5 guys like Marrerro, Brentz, Hassan etc...but no way that gets it done. It probably would take at least Owens, Cechinni, MarreroRanaudo but that doesn't mean we have to do that trade.

    If one great player can get you in the playoffs then Baltimore would be in the playoffs last year on the fruits of Chris Davis's year. It is a huge factor but you need a team, not one stud. And Stanton is probably a long way from the year Chris Davis had last year.

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Might I add that not all prospects are equal.  The #2 one year might be much more valuable than a #2 the next.  Also a guy could rank high because he is MLB ready and has a very high ceiling while another guy might rank a little lower but have a much higher ceiling. 

    In a trade for Stanton a lower ranking prospect with a higher ceiling might be worth more than a close to the majors guy, though I'm sure they would still have to make up the difference somewhere.

    I'm will be curious to find out whether Xander Bogaerts' trade value is more (or less) now than it will be at the trade deadline and more (or less) than it will be in the next offseason.

    Much can happen between now and July 31 ... good and bad.

    [/QUOTE]

    It doesn't really matter what his trade "value" is in the eyes of anyone but the Boston Front Office.  He's considered "untouchable" and will still be considered "untouchable" at the deadline, regardless of what he does between now & then.  He's not going anywhere, and regardless of what their predicted "WAR values" are, the Sox would never even consider Bogaerts straight up for Stanton at this point.  Not for a nanosecond.

    Stick to your obsession with Middlebrooks never being a good player, you might actually have a chance at being right about that one, as Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Did your "secret source" also tell you that it is a fact that Boegarts is going to be a star "sooner rather than later". You would do well to lose the ascerbic writing style and try to respond to others with a modicum of respect.

    [/QUOTE]

    Put me on ignore, Pumpsie. You should have plenty enough to whine about with the Sox before you have to start worrying about my posts as well...Is your idea of "respect" calling someone a "zero?"  Don't be such a hypocrite.

    By the way, Hill is a smart poster, he can handle it.  He chooses to go the "glass is half empty" route on all things Red Sox on a Boston forum, so I call him on it once in a while.

    Any time someone posted anything positive about the Sox prior to last season, he called them a "69 win team," over and over and over again, as if that was their talent level.  If someone posts anything remotely positive about Middlebrooks, he jumps on it, and he has for over a year now.  I'm sure he has his reasons for his passion for Middlebrooks' failure, but I'm going to, again, call him on it.  Don't worry, though, he doesn't need a big brother.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Disrespect begets disrespect. When you make inane comments such as you did during our other discussion you should expect to be labelled a zero, or worse. You are right: Hill is one of the best posters here. Lose the ascerbic crap and stop representing your opinion as fact and you might actually get some decent conversations and debates here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Name one example of where I stated an "opinion" as fact.  Just one.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Bogaerts is going to be a star in this league, and sooner rather than later.  

    Sure sounds like you are putting that out there as fact to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    When referring to the "future," how you can label anything as being "factual," as it hasn't happened yet?

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    like I said before the term Star is subjective.  You are saying that being a star necessitates performance, when that is not always the case.  Lebron James was a star before he played one game, Bryce Harper was a star before he had 1 at-bat at the MLb level.

    Again this is under the assumption that being a star is associated with fame, when the performance matches then you are an All-star MVP candidate.  Bogaerts doesn't have the playing time to be a star by YOUR definition (which many people would agree with) but if recognition and fame are thrown into the picture (which ALOT of people also believe in ) then Yes Bogaerts is turning into a star right not before our eyes.

    Again the definition is subjective, some share your opinion many share mine. 


    Star: celebrated, prominent, or distinguished; preeminent: a star basketball player; a star reporter.


    I do not believe that someone who has yet to play a single full season at the ML level could accurately be labeled as "celebrated, prominent, or distinguished" as a description of his professional career. Professional sports is littered with guys with great potential who, for whatever reason, were never the successful stars that their potential would have predicted. Greg Oden in basketball is one example. I am sure you can think of others. Until there is performance there is no star...IMO. There is only a potential star.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok I agree with you,  You are saying in your opinion.  But there are many others that look at that view completely differently.  If you buy into the notion that "star" is reflective on fame and anticipation then Bogaerts is already a star in Boston in the same sense that Bryce Harper was in Washington.

     

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    like I said before the term Star is subjective.  You are saying that being a star necessitates performance, when that is not always the case.  Lebron James was a star before he played one game, Bryce Harper was a star before he had 1 at-bat at the MLb level.

    Again this is under the assumption that being a star is associated with fame, when the performance matches then you are an All-star MVP candidate.  Bogaerts doesn't have the playing time to be a star by YOUR definition (which many people would agree with) but if recognition and fame are thrown into the picture (which ALOT of people also believe in ) then Yes Bogaerts is turning into a star right not before our eyes.

    Again the definition is subjective, some share your opinion many share mine. 


    Star: celebrated, prominent, or distinguished; preeminent: a star basketball player; a star reporter.


    I do not believe that someone who has yet to play a single full season at the ML level could accurately be labeled as "celebrated, prominent, or distinguished" as a description of his professional career. Professional sports is littered with guys with great potential who, for whatever reason, were never the successful stars that their potential would have predicted. Greg Oden in basketball is one example. I am sure you can think of others. Until there is performance there is no star...IMO. There is only a potential star.

     



    Ok I agree with you,  You are saying in your opinion.  But there are many others that look at that view completely differently.  If you buy into the notion that "star" is reflective on fame and anticipation then Bogaerts is already a star in Boston in the same sense that Bryce Harper was in Washington.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok, poor choice of words on my part.  I "think" Xander Bogaerts will be a perennial all-star in this league, while eventually becoming one of the best players in the game. There are plenty of people on this board who state their opinion over and over as if it is fact.  I make it a point to never do that.  If I had posted, "The Pats are going to win the Superbowl" back in January, I don't think anyone would think I was stating a "fact."

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

    Re: A Realistic View at 2014: Part II

    No doubt Bogaerts could still flame out but he sure doesn't look like he will. What impresses me the most is that he keeps getting better. He has adjusted well and nothing seems to bother him. The guy is an animal already at around 21 years old. Look how far he has come at such a young age and the Sox didn't even rush him. Other teams may well have had him in the majors most of last year. He looks for real and he may well continue to get better. I have followed him closely since he first made that video with his brother back in Aruba. I have been a skeptic throughout that time but he keeps proving for real at every level and, as I said, even improving. 

    I think he's almost a lock to be a star at this point. That bat will play extremely well at SS and he should be acceptable defensively.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share