Daniel Bard

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

    Re: Daniel Bard

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    It can't hurt to keep him around at a low cost and hope for the best.

    Sox4ever

     



    Time to move on Moon to other prospects....

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How is keeping Bard in the system for another year holding anyone else back? Every year the team adds "filler players" to the AAA and AA teams as lower prospects are not yet ready to advance. Bard would act as one of those players, but with an outside hope that he may regain what he once had.

    Like I said, I am not holding my breath.

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

    Re: Daniel Bard

    Why hasn't he been DFA yet? Couldn't we find a good use for another roster spot?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Daniel Bard

    In response to lasitter's comment:

    Why hasn't he been DFA yet? Couldn't we find a good use for another roster spot?



    Why would you DFA him? 

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Daniel Bard

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    Beantowne and Geo, I agree.  In hindsight, it turned out to be a bad move.  However, IMO, the Sox were correct in their decision to try him as a starter.  He would have been so much more valuable to the team as a starter if he had succeeded.

    I'm not so sure that the "experiment" is what messed Bard up anyway.  There were signs from the end of the previous season that Bard was already having some issues.  Had he stayed in his set up role last year, he might not have been any more successful than he was as a starter.

     

     



    Amazing how little this comes up in threads like this.  He got absolutely shelled the previous September, with an 0-4, 11/9 K/W, and a 10.64 ERA.

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

    Re: Daniel Bard

    There is no reason to give up on him yet.  Nothing to lose by keeping him around. We have some marginal guys on the 40 man and potential rule 5's. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Leftfielder61. Show Leftfielder61's posts

    Re: Daniel Bard

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Beantowne and Geo, I agree.  In hindsight, it turned out to be a bad move.  However, IMO, the Sox were correct in their decision to try him as a starter.  He would have been so much more valuable to the team as a starter if he had succeeded.

    I'm not so sure that the "experiment" is what messed Bard up anyway.  There were signs from the end of the previous season that Bard was already having some issues.  Had he stayed in his set up role last year, he might not have been any more successful than he was as a starter.

     

     

     



    Amazing how little this comes up in threads like this.  He got absolutely shelled the previous September, with an 0-4, 11/9 K/W, and a 10.64 ERA.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree completely. Moving him to the Rotation didn't wreck his career, he was already damaged goods. Starter or Reliever Bard was unraveling.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Daniel Bard

    Keep him in the system, why not? 

    Weird how he and Lester were A baseball players (large sample sizes) until September 2011, at which time Lester became a C and Bard an F and both have stayed that way ever since.  Let's hope that both (or at least one) becomes the pitchers they once indubitably were.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share