DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    Typical whining when it doesn' t matter.

     

     A career that shows solid, sometimes better, sometimes less ... following a very good year with a couple of bad starts in Texas ... doesn't inspire any trust ...

      The FO sees enough talent to invest multiple millions of dollars, but we know better.  We take the guy's name and turn it into garbage ...

      Class act.

     

      Not impressed, indeed.   With the attitude          ...

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    1) 3 runs in 4 innings is not getting 'lit up', no matter what you or softy say.

    2) For spring training Dempster had a 3.74 ERA and a 1.15 WHIP, so if spring stats are really that important to you, you should be happy.

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

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

     What ?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    You have to be impressed with two pitchers, Slackey and Dumpster, who are only getting paid about 30 million a year.




    they kept within their budget this year with 12M held over. Who cares what they make at this point as long as they can both have about 10-12 wins and an era south of 4.50. neither one will probably be here after next year anyway, if that long.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    . Who cares what they make at this point as long as they can both have about 10-12 wins and an era south of 4.50. neither one will probably be here after next year anyway, if that long.

    20 wins from both, and a bunch of team losses from both, and an ERA of 4.4 isn't asking much for nearly 30 million a year.



    But you defined 160 IP and an ERA under 4.5 as a "good pitching job"

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    The context was in response to a posters comment that Dempster/Lackey were good bottom of the rotation starters.

     



    So in your world definitions have contexts?

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    the real question is: where will softlaw be when Dempster has good outings?? hiding most likely.

    but you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as he will come out of the woodwork the instant Dempster has a mediocre outing.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    In response to mef429's comment:

    the real question is: where will softlaw be when Dempster has good outings?? hiding most likely.

    but you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as he will come out of the woodwork the instant Dempster has a mediocre outing.




    Kind of like what's happened this spring?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

     

    the real question is: where will softlaw be when Dempster has good outings?? hiding most likely.

    but you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as he will come out of the woodwork the instant Dempster has a mediocre outing.

     




    Kind of like what's happened this spring?

     



    exactly. talk about spineless...

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

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    Yes, if Wakefield's ERA was under 4.5, that was good pitching. Now, if a pitcher is being paid to be a top tier league pitcher, good pitching is not a 4.49 ERA.

     




    Dempster wasn't brought in here to be a top tier pitcher, no matter what his salary is. By the way, top tier pitchers get paid 20M per these days. That would make him a mid to BOTR pitcher, or a 3, 4, or 5 in the rotation, which is what he is.

     

     

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

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Yes, if Wakefield's ERA was under 4.5, that was good pitching. Now, if a pitcher is being paid to be a top tier league pitcher, good pitching is not a 4.49 ERA.



    Wakefield's lifetime ERA is 4.41 ...

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

    Re: DEMPSTER = DUMPSTER? not impressed....

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Yes, if Wakefield's ERA was under 4.5, that was good pitching. Now, if a pitcher is being paid to be a top tier league pitcher, good pitching is not a 4.49 ERA.




    Wake was NEVER paid as a top tier pitcher.  But he satisfies your innings definition and ERA definition as GOOD ....  

      lifetime.

          Ain't it time, by your own definitions, to give Wake a break?

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share