Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    great read...once again the mid size newspaper of the Spfld Republican gets it right on the Sox....Morteson for Scutaro? After the way Scoot played in 2011, hurt and still tearing it up in Sept when all the fatcats gave up?

     

    http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2012/10/2012_world_series_star_marco_s.html#incart_river_default

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    Why he isnt playing SS for the SF Giants/Rockies?   

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    great read...once again the mid size newspaper of the Spfld Republican gets it right on the Sox....Morteson for Scutaro? After the way Scoot played in 2011, hurt and still tearing it up in Sept when all the fatcats gave up?

     

    http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2012/10/2012_world_series_star_marco_s.html#incart_river_default

    [/QUOTE]

    While letting Marco go was certainly not in the best interest of the baseball quality on the Red Sox, and was certainly a maneuver to simply save money, I think it is looking at the whole picture with blinders on to not see the giant problem that made such a crummy move inevitable.  This wasn't about penny pinching in a vacuum.  It was about penny pinching because the club was laden with albatross contracts and still needed salary wiggle room to be even remotely competitive.  The money had to be squeezed from somewhere, and Marco's money was the most expendable, with a gamble that the Golden Mendoza Iggy might be ready before too many people noticed Marco was missing.  I think the front office knew that it was a sacrifice to let gamer #1 Marco Scutaro go (we can deduce this because the year prior, they had made it their very first off-season priority to re-ink him).  But they had to shed payroll.  If the same situation had come up this year, I imagine they would have had a very different approach.

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    It was a move that had to be made to address other needs. Because the bad contracts, the Sox has to shed it from somewhere. We still had Aviles and Iggy and had aquired Ciriaco. I believe they got Cody Ross with some of that money saved. Besides, Scoot played 2b this year, not SS.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    think we couldve used scoot at 2b, 3b and shortstop this year? wow...just amazing how some are in denial...my fav is the statement that a ss making 6 mil was traded to "sign" a rightfielder when a rightfielder making 14 mil a yr was coming off the books....

     

     

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    trading scutaro last winter basically allowed the red sox to sign ross.  so, getting mortenson and ross for scutaro was a good trade.


    good for scutaro, a hard driving player, to do so well on a world series team.

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    think we couldve used scoot at 2b, 3b and shortstop this year? wow...just amazing how some are in denial...my fav is the statement that a ss making 6 mil was traded to "sign" a rightfielder when a rightfielder making 14 mil a yr was coming off the books....

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, for you to not recognize the actual financial situation in the autumn of 2012 is far more "denial" than whatever broadstroke accusation you have been levelling at supposed "bootlickers".  Drew coming off the books was basically a wash with Adrian Gonzales' new contract kicking in.  I am sure they weren't looking at the Drew money as dollars they culd re-invest elsewhere.  

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    I'm sure many in Boston as well as Colorado lament trading Scutaro for whatever reason...bet Scutaro is just happy they did.  You probably heard his post-game interviews - he gave credit and praise to his teammates and the team chemistry.  He didn't have that here or in Colorado. 

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    great read...once again the mid size newspaper of the Spfld Republican gets it right on the Sox....Morteson for Scutaro? After the way Scoot played in 2011, hurt and still tearing it up in Sept when all the fatcats gave up?

     

    http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2012/10/2012_world_series_star_marco_s.html#incart_river_default

    [/QUOTE]

    Why is after the fact so important ? Dam ! Let it go. I'm so sick of after the fact. he's doing great why did we not keep him . If you are that shallow, You should lose your voting right because your that dam ignorent.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    he was wrong about scutaro, wrong about melancon, wrong about paps/bailey, wrong about theo compensation, wrong about beckett, wrong about reddick, wrong about the rotation...but oh yea right on ross after he let reddick go....

     

    ben is the gw bush of GMs..everything he touches turns to chit...

     

    farrell....hmmm i wonder.... 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    think we couldve used scoot at 2b, 3b and shortstop this year? wow...just amazing how some are in denial...my fav is the statement that a ss making 6 mil was traded to "sign" a rightfielder when a rightfielder making 14 mil a yr was coming off the books....

     

     i see Space...JDs money wasnt used for replacing him but instead financed a 1B who was already signed....really?  that is bootlicker bad....

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, for you to not recognize the actual financial situation in the autumn of 2012 is far more "denial" than whatever broadstroke accusation you have been levelling at supposed "bootlickers".  Drew coming off the books was basically a wash with Adrian Gonzales' new contract kicking in.  I am sure they weren't looking at the Drew money as dollars they culd re-invest elsewhere.  

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    think we couldve used scoot at 2b, 3b and shortstop this year? wow...just amazing how some are in denial...my fav is the statement that a ss making 6 mil was traded to "sign" a rightfielder when a rightfielder making 14 mil a yr was coming off the books....

     

     i see Space...JDs money wasnt used for replacing him but instead financed a 1B who was already signed....really?  that is bootlicker bad....

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, for you to not recognize the actual financial situation in the autumn of 2012 is far more "denial" than whatever broadstroke accusation you have been levelling at supposed "bootlickers".  Drew coming off the books was basically a wash with Adrian Gonzales' new contract kicking in.  I am sure they weren't looking at the Drew money as dollars they culd re-invest elsewhere.  

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    I know you are smarter than you let on G.  You really cant see the corrollation between the signing of Gonzalez and Drew coming off the books the same year?  

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    think we couldve used scoot at 2b, 3b and shortstop this year? wow...just amazing how some are in denial...my fav is the statement that a ss making 6 mil was traded to "sign" a rightfielder when a rightfielder making 14 mil a yr was coming off the books....

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    did we know about the Youk and WMB fiasco before the year started? No. Did we know Pedey would get hurt? No. Did we need $ freed up to take care of other needs? Yes.

    Although I was a big Scutaro fan and love the way he plays the game, I also realized that he was the most expendable with 3 possible guys that couldve stepped in and played SS along with the $$ he was making. If your going to be mad at anyone, be mad at Theo and ownership for putting us in that kind of situation where we had to make tough decisions like that.

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    he was wrong about scutaro, wrong about melancon, wrong about paps/bailey, wrong about theo compensation, wrong about beckett, wrong about reddick, wrong about the rotation...but oh yea right on ross after he let reddick go....

     

    ben is the gw bush of GMs..everything he touches turns to chit...

     

    farrell....hmmm i wonder.... 

    [/QUOTE]

    What was wrong about Pap/Bailey?  Regardless of Bailey's injury and injury history, they werent re-signing Papelbon because the years were too long and the money too steep for a closer at his age.  This matter cannot be proved wrong until we see how Papelbon fares in teh coming years.  And, again, if they werent already saddled with albatross contracts, they may have been willing to potentially lose a little value on the backend of Papelbon's contract.  But, they weren't in any position to take on any more deadweight long term.  

    And, AGAIN, nothing 'wrong' about the Scutaro dealing.  They had to shed payroll.  There was no room at 2B and 2 potential options at SS that, over the long haul, were ballpark production to what Scutaro offered and much cheaper.  Yes, he is a gamer.  Yes, he had a great post-season.  Good for him.  But it wasnt matter of right or wrong here.  JUst a matter of necessary sacrifice.  

    Wrong about Beckett?  How?  To not move him when there was no move to be made?  What was he supposed to do with him?

    I will grant you he was absolutely wrong about the rotation.  There were a number of guys like Kuroda, Peavey, all for the taking for short deals/reasonable cost.  And he stood pat.  Which was a mistake.

    Wrong about melancon?  Sure.  What a disaster.  But, it was an interesting gamble.  Didn't work out ... yet.

    I don't know man.  Sure, we can criticize Cherrington year 1.  But, I think your hard on to blast him is ignoring what you yourself knew and shouted to the high heavens was the elephant in the room:  the "fat cat" contracts were sinking the SS Red Sox.

    He had no room to maneuver except to cut bait.  Now he has room to maneuver.  We shall see what is what.  But seriously, by refusing to put anything he has done in perspective, your criticisms are lightweight.

     I am not suggesting that Ben is a competent GM.  I do not know yet.  I do know he managed to redirect the Titanic.  I do know that he did not take on any unecessary weight. And that, given the circumstances, certainly has bought him some time to prove himself.

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    Shucks!

    Had we kept Scoot, we'd have won it all!

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    InEpstein and Cherry was so incompetent they paid market for 2nd baseman Scutaro and then, without a decision on a long term SS, turned around and threw Scutaro in the dumpster. The Red Sox didn't need a 2nd baseman, but once they signed Scutaro to market, they should have seen the better net value in not throwing in the scrap sale dumpster, a true hard working professional who makes Ellsbury look like the goldbricker he is.

    [/QUOTE]

    You can just hear the revisionist gears grinding loudly.

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shucks!

    Had we kept Scoot, we'd have won it all!

    [/QUOTE]

    And if we'd kept Renteria we'd have won it all in 2010! 

     

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    And what about Hanley and A Sanchez for Beckett and Lowell? Heck we had to give away Gonzo just to get Beckett off the team, and Lowell could barely walk by the end of his contract. sarcasm/>

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    Scutaro can no longer play shortstop full time due to his rotator cuff issues.  The Sox were well aware of this at the time of the trade.  Paying Marco Scutaro 6 million to be a back up 2nd baseman in 2012 would have been the foolish move. 

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    when you trade scutaro to allow aviles to play shortstop, and then you trade aviles to sign a last place coach - im thinking your GM skills are sorely lacking....

    crazy opinion i know....

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

    Re: Ben and Company totally wrong on Scutaro

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    when you trade scutaro to allow aviles to play shortstop, and then you trade aviles to sign a last place coach - im thinking your GM skills are sorely lacking....

    crazy opinion i know....

    [/QUOTE]

    crazy, only in in the sense that it is crazy to ignore context entirely. Crazy only the sense that witch hunts are generally crazy.  

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share