Concerned?

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

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In full disclosure, I supported both signings at the time they were made.  I like the idea of finding diamonds in the rough, and resurrection projects.  But as I have ruminated on it, I do not see much wisdom in bringing in known clubhouse "cancers"  onto a team which had problems with clubhouse chemistry which you are trying to correct.  And I think Bobby V is NOT the manager to suffer fools gladly. It does make me think that Ben is far more the moneyball guy that John Henry tried to hire back in 2003 when he offered Beane the most money ever offered a GM in the history of sports than Theo was/is.  It seems that Ben's entire decision-making process in regards to Silva and Padilla was calculated around runs, specifically their ability to prevent them, than around the intangibles that so many scouts and FO types try to assess in making deals.
    Posted by parhunter1


    Speaking of diamonds in the rough and resurrection, I believe that Dontrelle Willis will have a comeback season. I wanted the RS to take a flyer on him.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from coachzap. Show coachzap's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    Figures Al. You havent been right yet. Why start now?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : I don't recall that he was pulled from a game because of ankle trouble. Pitching trouble, yes. Ankle trouble? Not a word about it. It would have been first-paragraph news.
    If I missed something, I will hear about it.
    Posted by expitch


    He was pulled in the middle of the 4th inning on 5 Sep with an ankle injury (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/09/josh-beckett-injury-boston-red-sox/1) then missed a start for the same reason.  His next start was 16 Sep.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from LadyLake. Show LadyLake's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    Ankle sprain cited on in Sept 13th article.
    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/09/boston-red-sox-josh-beckett-to-start-against-rays/1
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : He was pulled in the middle of the 4th inning on 5 Sep with an ankle injury ( http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/09/josh-beckett-injury-boston-red-sox/1) then missed a start for the same reason.  His next start was 16 Sep.
    Posted by Chilliwings
    Nothing said about him pitching "hurt" when he returned.

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

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:

    Now find something that says he pitched on a bad ankle after returning to the rotation. 

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

    Re: Concerned?

    I’d say only 5 with Sox ties.  Silva and Padilla have yet to enter the Sox clubhouse, but you omitted Rickey Henderson from your list.


    The whole “clubhouse cancer” idea is just further proof that sportswriters have to invent topics to write about, as they like to lead every fan to believe that every player in MLB has to be lumped into one of two categories – “leader” or “cancer.”  As if you can get any 25 adult males into one room and expect them all to get along with everyone else.   Or are we to believe that, if one of these reputed “cancers” is not around, the team will spend hours holding hands in a circle singing folk songs?  And by highlighting single incidents of questionable behavior as proof further shows how overblown this is, since you could probably argue that almost any player in MLB history has done something at some point in time that a teammate found disagreeable.  

     

    For example, where is Chad Curtis, who forced his exit from three different teams (Angels, Tigers, Yankees) for fighting with teammates, including Derek Jeter in NY?  Or Ruben Rivera, who was given a shot to return to the Yankees as a favor to his cousin Mariano, and subsequently was cut for stealing Derek Jeter’s batting gloves to sell as memorabilia?  How about Alex Rodriguez, who repeatedly condescended to nearly every Ranger teammate to the point that they all were glad to see the former AL MVP get traded?  I’ve always heard another one was former Sox 2B Todd Walker, whose was very persistent with his Born Again views and many teammates found him to be extremely difficult and off-putting. (To be honest, I don’t even know if Walker ever was a Born Again Christian, let alone a difficult person.  This is all reputation, too.)   Per this list, these guys were less of an issue than Oliver Perez, whose only reason for inclusion was exercising the rights the union provided him.

     

    How much legitimacy is there to these reputations?  And isn’t it situational?  AJ Pierzynski always carried the reputation with him, from his days in San Francisco, where he was not liked.  It got to the point where it was a media concern when the White Sox acquired him.  However, since joining the White Sox, Pierzynski has been found to have an impeccable reputation as a teammate, and has far and away been the most accessible, personable, and marketable member of that team.   He’s never been their best player, but he has definitely been the face of that franchise.

     

    In fact, when Rodriguez left Texas, only one Ranger teammate allowed himself to be named as he was quoted about A-Rod’s departure, and that was Mark Teixeira.  I guess he really didn’t hate him all that much since he went on to join him in New York.  Just a little more evidence that this entire issue is a complete media concoction…

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

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : The only reason this sack of lard is always pitching "hurt" is because he is a disgrace of an athlete. The guy has barely reached thirty and he seems incapacitated/hurt for large spells of the every season...29 million for this salami and he has given us 19 wins in that time....maybe the most overrated Sox "star" player in the past thirty years.
    Posted by georom4


    Typically with arm  ior shoulder injuries, which are not uncommon for pitchers.  Pitchers use their arms and shoulders alot.

    Or are you suggesting is "lack of conditioning" was part of his blister problem, too?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : The only reason this sack of lard is always pitching "hurt" is because he is a disgrace of an athlete. The guy has barely reached thirty and he seems incapacitated/hurt for large spells of the every season...29 million for this salami and he has given us 19 wins in that time....maybe the most overrated Sox "star" player in the past thirty years.
    Posted by georom4


    He's averaged 28.8 starts/year over 6 years with the Red Sox, 30+ 4 years out of 6.  Don't you check things before you post?  You often criticise people for "not watching the games" or "being obsessed with stats at the expense of observation" but the above observation of yours is obviously wrong and/or biased.  Why should your view of Beckett be taken seriously when you can't be bothered to spend 60 seconds to check something central to your point and so easily refuted?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : Your point, if there is one, is vague. If anyone, anywhere, at any time, then or since, had attributed Beckett's demise to a hurt ankle, posters seeking to trace that demise to the ankle would have found and referred to it. It would have been big news. What's more, as far as I know, there has been no mention of Beckett's having the entire off-season to rest his wounded ankle.  The big news is that there has been no news along those lines. The dog didn't bark.  The reasoning to support the contention that the ankle was the villain goes like this: pitched great, then ankle incident, then pitched poorly. This assignment of causality has a superficial appeal, like many arguments that fall into the category of "after this, therefore because of this." The problem is that there was not and has not been any reporting of actual events to confirm this abstract reasoning.   Beckett is pricey beef on the hoof. It would not have made sense for the Sox to have kept sending him out there time and again in September if he were even slightly hobbled or altering his delivery to accommodate a weak puppy. The fact  that they did send him out there is concrete evidence of complete confidence in his health. ( This is a club that sits players with runny noses. ) I don't recall that he was pulled from a game because of ankle trouble. Pitching trouble, yes. Ankle trouble? Not a word about it. It would have been first-paragraph news. If I missed something, I will hear about it.
    Posted by expitch



    That must all be selective on your part.  I've linked you to articles before.  And you even commented on my linked articles, so you must have read them.

    Why you are repressing this injury is beyond me...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    I saw the game where Josh was pulled when he injured his ankle. It's really common knowledge. Josh's biggest problem when the Sox collapsed at the end of the season was that he was not a media darling, and didn't really like talking to the media. IMO How a person who pitched every five days could be blamed for the team's losses during the entire month of September is beyond me.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : Your point, if there is one, is vague. If anyone, anywhere, at any time, then or since, had attributed Beckett's demise to a hurt ankle, posters seeking to trace that demise to the ankle would have found and referred to it. It would have been big news. What's more, as far as I know, there has been no mention of Beckett's having the entire off-season to rest his wounded ankle.  The big news is that there has been no news along those lines. The dog didn't bark.  The reasoning to support the contention that the ankle was the villain goes like this: pitched great, then ankle incident, then pitched poorly. This assignment of causality has a superficial appeal, like many arguments that fall into the category of "after this, therefore because of this." The problem is that there was not and has not been any reporting of actual events to confirm this abstract reasoning.   Beckett is pricey beef on the hoof. It would not have made sense for the Sox to have kept sending him out there time and again in September if he were even slightly hobbled or altering his delivery to accommodate a weak puppy. The fact  that they did send him out there is concrete evidence of complete confidence in his health. ( This is a club that sits players with runny noses. ) I don't recall that he was pulled from a game because of ankle trouble. Pitching trouble, yes. Ankle trouble? Not a word about it. It would have been first-paragraph news. If I missed something, I will hear about it.
    Posted by expitch



    This is the same team that sewed together Curt Schilling from biology lab remnants and Thanksgiving leftovers, and then sent him out sameday to pitch in a post-season game. 

    Have you weighed this against history?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : This is the same team that sewed together Curt Schilling from biology lab remnants and Thanksgiving leftovers, and then sent him out sameday to pitch in a post-season game.  Have you weighed this against history?
    Posted by notin
    Yes, in a post-season game. That's the difference.

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

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    I saw the game where Josh was pulled when he injured his ankle. It's really common knowledge. Josh's biggest problem when the Sox collapsed at the end of the season was that he was not a media darling, and didn't really like talking to the media. IMO How a person who pitched every five days could be blamed for the team's losses during the entire month of September is beyond me.
    Posted by kimsaysthis
    Right, he was pulled from a game, missed two starts, then went back into the rotation. He was never pulled again because of his ankle, as far as I know.

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

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : That must all be selective on your part.  I've linked you to articles before.  And you even commented on my linked articles, so you must have read them. Why you are repressing this injury is beyond me...
    Posted by notin
    Link me again to articles that quote reliable sources within the organization to the effect that Beckett was hobbled by an ankle injury after he went back into the rotation. If a pitcher of his value was sent back into action either unfit to pitch at top effectiveness or at the risk of further injury, management should have been sued for malpractice.

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

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : Right, he was pulled from a game, missed two starts, then went back into the rotation. He was never pulled again because of his ankle, as far as I know.
    Posted by expitch


    With all the patchwork that needed to be done to the starting rotation, do you really believe that Beckett would have been kept out of a game because of pain in his ankle at the end of the season when the team was trying to make the playoffs?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : With all the patchwork that needed to be done to the starting rotation, do you really believe that Beckett would have been kept out of a game because of pain in his ankle at the end of the season when the team was trying to make the playoffs?
    Posted by kimsaysthis[/QUOTE
    Pain in the ankle of the push-off foot is a sign of weakness and vulnerability. It would also be a distraction and could cause a pitcher to hurry his delivery. I doubt that Beckett would have been cleared to go if that had been the case. The Sox still expected to make the playoffs, where Beckett would really be needed. Why out him out the injured and risk losing him for the rest of the year?

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

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    I’d say only 5 with Sox ties.  Silva and Padilla have yet to enter the Sox clubhouse, but you omitted Rickey Henderson from your list. The whole “clubhouse cancer” idea is just further proof that sportswriters have to invent topics to write about, as they like to lead every fan to believe that every player in MLB has to be lumped into one of two categories – “leader” or “cancer.”  As if you can get any 25 adult males into one room and expect them all to get along with everyone else.   Or are we to believe that, if one of these reputed “cancers” is not around, the team will spend hours holding hands in a circle singing folk songs?  And by highlighting single incidents of questionable behavior as proof further shows how overblown this is, since you could probably argue that almost any player in MLB history has done something at some point in time that a teammate found disagreeable.     For example, where is Chad Curtis, who forced his exit from three different teams (Angels, Tigers, Yankees) for fighting with teammates, including Derek Jeter in NY?  Or Ruben Rivera, who was given a shot to return to the Yankees as a favor to his cousin Mariano, and subsequently was cut for stealing Derek Jeter’s batting gloves to sell as memorabilia?  How about Alex Rodriguez, who repeatedly condescended to nearly every Ranger teammate to the point that they all were glad to see the former AL MVP get traded?  I’ve always heard another one was former Sox 2B Todd Walker, whose was very persistent with his Born Again views and many teammates found him to be extremely difficult and off-putting. (To be honest, I don’t even know if Walker ever was a Born Again Christian, let alone a difficult person.  This is all reputation, too.)   Per this list, these guys were less of an issue than Oliver Perez, whose only reason for inclusion was exercising the rights the union provided him.   How much legitimacy is there to these reputations?  And isn’t it situational?  AJ Pierzynski always carried the reputation with him, from his days in San Francisco, where he was not liked.  It got to the point where it was a media concern when the White Sox acquired him.  However, since joining the White Sox, Pierzynski has been found to have an impeccable reputation as a teammate, and has far and away been the most accessible, personable, and marketable member of that team.   He’s never been their best player, but he has definitely been the face of that franchise.   In fact, when Rodriguez left Texas, only one Ranger teammate allowed himself to be named as he was quoted about A-Rod’s departure, and that was Mark Teixeira.  I guess he really didn’t hate him all that much since he went on to join him in New York.  Just a little more evidence that this entire issue is a complete media concoction…
    Posted by notin
    You seem to speak with great authority on this topic. I am curious to hear about your own experience in locker rooms and clubhouses at a competitive level, and on planes and in busses and hotels with teammates.

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

    Re: Concerned?

    I have reviewed the "literature" on the subject of Beckett's ankle. And tried not be "selective." Maybe Google missed something, but there is plenty of what one must assume is typical of the commentary.
    The day after Beckett left a Toronto game, there was much hand-wringing and grinding of teeth. The injury was called "mysterious," a strain, a threat to Boston's season, and so on.  
    First, the injury was not technically a "strain." There was no structural damage to the ankle. No damaged ligaments.
      A strain does not sound as ominous as a break, but it can be just as debilitating. Typically, it takes longer to heal than the time Beckett was on the shelf.  
    Here are links to a couple of pieces I found interesting: firebrand.com/ Charlie Saponara; joyofsox.blogsport.com/extent of Beckett's injury. 
    In any event, the injury was not ultimately judged to be serious enough to impede Beckett's effectiveness. Nor did he say it was, as far as I know. He's usually been honest both ways about his performances -- whether or not they were affected one way or another by this or that.
    I was unable to locate any article written after he returned to the rotation that connected for certain his performance with the lingering effects of a turned ankle.  I don't mean speculation. I mean a knowledgeable source. Beckett himself? Terry? Theo? A trainer? Sister Mary Agnes?
    I repeat. He appears to have been held back two starts as a precautionary measure -- so he'd be healthy for the post-season. Surely, no one in his right mind would want a guy who throws in the mid-90's to push off on a cranky and vulnerable ankle. Or in pain. It's actually easier to pitch with a cranky arm than with a cranky foot.
    If the ankle was bothersome the first time out after he returned to the rotation, why would the Sox keep sending him out there?  He had throwing sessions before that return, and must have passed muster in his own mind and in those of observers.
    Now that pitchers and catchers are reporting, has anyone said that the Sox will keep an eye on Beckett's "injured" ankle?

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

    Re: Concerned?

    As player and coach, I spent a lot of time in training rooms where athletes were being treated for assorted boo-boos and were being prepared for action that day. The rolled or turned ankle, as opposed to a real sprain, was not uncommon and was not considered serious. Pressure was relieved by strips of tape brought up from under the foot to three or four inches above the ankle. Additional tape was used to secure and to reinforce the strips. A good taping job is a work of art.
    Even sprinters thus taped were given the green light to compete.
    I don't know for sure how Beckett's ankle was treated after it was determined that there was no structural damage. But I would not be surprised to hear that it was taped as a precautionary measure before he took the mound again. Perhaps even taping was not thought necessary if he had no trouble putting weight on the ankle when he had a side session. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : You seem to speak with great authority on this topic. I am curious to hear about your own experience in locker rooms and clubhouses at a competitive level, and on planes and in busses and hotels with teammates.
    Posted by expitch


    Or you could tell me about yours.

    Actually, if you read what I wrote you will find it simply falls into line with human beings in general.  And the idea of indiviual "cancers" needing to be labeled as such is a media creation and done with selection, and probably purpose in many cases.  After all, why did the Bleacher Report decide locker room fighter Chad Curtis did not belong on this list, but Oliver Perez, who exercised a privilege provided by the MLB players union, did and was therefore a detriment to his teams.

    If you re-read what I wrote (or read for the first time, if need be), I don't deny humans don't all get along, and I don't attempt to establish any impact of allegeedly cancerous individuals.  I only question media interpretation. AND I honestly believe I have been on as many buses and in as many locker rooms and traveled with as many MLB players on planes as all the bloggers at the Bleacher Report combined.  What are their credentials?

    I do find it interesting that you refuse ESPN reports on Becket's ankle, but have no problem with the material supplied by bloggers and readily accept it at face value...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    Josh's ankle, Carls wrist, Lackey's elbow, and the list goes on and one. If the 2011 team were a ship it would have been named USS Excuses.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    In Response to Re: Concerned? : Or you could tell me about yours. Actually, if you read what I wrote you will find it simply falls into line with human beings in general.  And the idea of indiviual "cancers" needing to be labeled as such is a media creation and done with selection, and probably purpose in many cases.  After all, why did the Bleacher Report decide locker room fighter Chad Curtis did not belong on this list, but Oliver Perez, who exercised a privilege provided by the MLB players union, did and was therefore a detriment to his teams. If you re-read what I wrote (or read for the first time, if need be), I don't deny humans don't all get along, and I don't attempt to establish any impact of allegeedly cancerous individuals.  I only question media interpretation. AND I honestly believe I have been on as many buses and in as many locker rooms and traveled with as many MLB players on planes as all the bloggers at the Bleacher Report combined.  What are their credentials? I do find it interesting that you refuse ESPN reports on Becket's ankle, but have no problem with the material supplied by bloggers and readily accept it at face value...
    Posted by notin
    All media interpretation? Shouldn't you be more "selective"?
    I said I found those pieces "interesting."  That's all. Where do you get "face value"?
    Are you implying that ESPN reports are always to be trusted? They are made by journalists, about whom you have been less than charitable. Has ESPN reporting never been erroneous?
    What reports? When? When is the big question. I'm still waiting to hear when someone cited a reliable source inside the organization to the effect that Beckett's ankle affected performance after he returned to the rotation.

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

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    Surely, no one in his right mind would want a guy who throws in the mid-90's to push off on a cranky and vulnerable ankle. Or in pain. It's actually easier to pitch with a cranky arm than with a cranky foot. If the ankle was bothersome the first time out after he returned to the rotation, why would the Sox keep sending him out there?  Posted by expitch


    I agree that if Beckett were feeling pain, the staff likely would not send him back out there. 

    But don't you think it's possible that Beckett was psychologically still favoring that ankle the slightest bit, not because he was in pain, but because he was afraid of reinjuring it?  He said that when the injury originally happened, it was a pain like he had never felt before.  The injury apparently made him quite nervous.

    He might not have even known consciously that he was favoring the ankle.  Maybe the coaching staff had picked up on it and were trying to correct it, but that is sometimes easier said than done.  Or maybe it was so subtle that no one picked up on it right away.

    If I recall correctly, Beckett had a similar concern with an elbow issue a few seasons back.  The team medical staff had cleared him physically, but he did was not fully convinced until he visited the Tommy John specialist (his name escapes me right now).   Peace of mind can be an amazing thing.   Look at what  it did for Pedroia and his foot last season.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from LadyLake. Show LadyLake's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    What is this debate between Notin and expitch really about?
     
    Are they merely debating source material that can determine if Beckett was pitching in September with an injury that hindered his performance? Why is that so important to each of them?

    RSN knows for sure that Beckett pitched poorly during September and is not really obsessed or losing sleep over why or what was the cause. RSN probably in general prefers that the real Beckett was impaired. Call that an excuse if you wish to but isn't that what one would expect from a real fan?

    So Notin is debating and trying to bring to the the daylight news articles that Beckett had a sprained ankle and how that MIGHT affect his performance going foreward. It may be speculative but so what. A fan would want an excuse.

    Expitch on the other hand is aware of the sprain but thinks that Beckett was not affected by the injury. Thus expitch wants to blame Beckett's poor performance on the speculation that Beckett just stunk as a pitcher in September. He is also speculating and has no solid evidence. His behavior is atypical of what one would expect from a red Sox fan.

    It boils down to hidden agendas. Notin is hoping that Beckett was at a disadvantage and is really better than what we saw in September. Expitch, for some mysterious motive, has an agenda that Beckett was / is a bad pitcher. Very strange indeed for a Red sox fan with no evidence.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share