I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]Agree Katz. Douby is better served pitching more in AAA. I wasn't impressed with his secondary stuff last year, and I see nothing from him to alter my take. He needs work in meaningful situations. His constant DL stints are also a concern. Wake is not the odd man out. That was decided before the season began.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    This is unusual, but I agree with everything harness just said.  I, too, haven't been impressed with Doubront's secondary stuff.  Occasionally he through a good tight curve, but for the most part it's been long and loopy.  His change-up could become a good pitch to neutralize RHH, but it's not there yet.  I'd much rather see him pitch in AAA where the games don't count quite as much as they do at the MLB level.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]me personally would rather see a young guy getting his feet wet in that spot. Also today would have been a good spot to get Oki back into the swing. I can see Wakes value, just not on this team. Either give him 12 starts this season or what role does he have? Do you want an erratic kinuckleballer who needs "the feel" of the pitch in a close game with men on base?
    Posted by rkarp[/QUOTE]

    That's the thing.  Wake probably won't be pitching in situations like that.  He looks as if he's regulated to long-man, mop-up role duties.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    softy...I mean Baseball GM -

    What's the obsession with needing a second lefty.  You don't need that many lefties if you have pitchers that have right handed pitchers with historically similar platoon splits.  Other than Wheeler (who should only face righties), each of the RHPs in the bullpen do well enough against LHP to justify only having one lefty.  Having a second LHP in the bullpen is having one just to have one.  At this point, it's not necessary.  Furthermore, Doubront would be better served by getting a chance to pitch more frequently (and in more higher leverage situations) by pitching with Pawtucket.

    Yes, and it would be a "waste of a roster spot" to have a second lefty that is barely needed. Tito has more confidence in Papelbon, Bard, and Jenks vs lefties that Oki or Douby.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]Once a player is designated for assignment, the team has ten days to do one of the following things: the player can be traded, the player can be released, or the player can be put on waivers and, provided he clears, outrighted to the minors JB, in your continued arrogance, you display ignorance. Hint, trade deadline.......

    As for the game log, you gloss over the ripple effect of having to use so many arms during the poor starting pitching in a string of games. Having Aceves most certainly could have allowed an quicker plug pulling on Slackey.

    JB, your arrogance befits the fantasy baseball player mindset you have. You don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    You're reason for citing the trade deadline is what exactly?  That teams would rather have a half year of a player than a nearly full year when it doesn't cost them anything?  Even if they ran him through waivers and he went unclaimed, they could still release him.  That's the point that you're missing.  I have a hard time believing that he would accept a minor league assignment, but if he would then that's just one more way to keep as many arms as possible in the system in case of emergency.

    C'mon Softy, we both know that Tito wasn't about to pull Lackey any earlier than the 4th inning.  Having Aceves instead of Wake to start the year means that you also have to make up for Wake's innings during those first 6 games.  You're still taxing the rest of the pen the same way.

    As for the fantasy baseball comment, yes I do play.  One of the reasons that I win is because I use actual analysis in the draft and for FA's.  3 first place teams out of 4 isn't bad.  I think many on here would agree that I have a better idea of what I'm talking about than you do.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan791. Show redsoxfan791's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    Yes, and it would be a "waste of a roster spot" to have a second lefty that is barely needed. Tito has more confidence in Papelbon, Bard, and Jenks vs lefties that Oki or Douby.

    Agreed.  Maybe as time goes on, and someone gets hurt or proves to be completely ineffective, maybe Francona makes the move to add a second lefty.  At this point, there's no need. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    As for whom Wakefield is blocking, nobody at the moment. Doubront was sent down I am sure because he is better off working regularly in Pawtucket on his game rather than being a so-so LOOGY, seeing sporadic action As the season goes on it may become an issue but right now it is not.

    Katz, two issues with your comment. (1) Who is Wake blocking? My preference is that Doubrandt, Hill or Miller get acclimated in low pressure situations that Wake is being employed. Could be a good confidence builder/lead to spot starting etc. Also could pad the resume for a future move to aquire potential trade pieces down the road. (2) I am of the opinion that a 2nd lefty in the pen is beneficial to the Sox than a 45 year old mop up guy. Especially is the first lefty out of the pen is Oki, whom I have a 1 inning max comfort level with.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]As for whom Wakefield is blocking, nobody at the moment. Doubront was sent down I am sure because he is better off working regularly in Pawtucket on his game rather than being a so-so LOOGY, seeing sporadic action As the season goes on it may become an issue but right now it is not. Katz, two issues with your comment. (1) Who is Wake blocking? My preference is that Doubrandt, Hill or Miller get acclimated in low pressure situations that Wake is being employed. Could be a good confidence builder/lead to spot starting etc. Also could pad the resume for a future move to aquire potential trade pieces down the road. (2) I am of the opinion that a 2nd lefty in the pen is beneficial to the Sox than a 45 year old mop up guy. Especially is the first lefty out of the pen is Oki, whom I have a 1 inning max comfort level with.
    Posted by rkarp[/QUOTE]Well in the case of both Doubront and Miller the RS preference unlike yours appears to be to have these fellows get regular work in starting roles rather than very sporadic duty in mop roles. Considering they still have high ceilings as opposed to a 40 something knuckleball pitcher, I think the reasoning is sound. Even if both of these guys end up being MLB relievers, many relievers are developed in the minors as starters. And the last thing Miller with his career trajectory needs is a good dose of "Boston love" after a couple of bad MLB relief appearances.

    A second lefty would be nice but at this point if it is at the expense of losing control of a proven starting pitcher for depth on a very modest contract I tend to see why the RS aren't crazy about pulling that trigger. The last time the RS primarily went with 5 pitchers over the course of an entire season was 2004. And even then a major change was made in late May from BH Kim to Bronson Arroyo. And they needed a few spot starts from Abe Alvarez being called up as well due to scheduling issues.

    I get some of the argument about Wakefield being a relatively dead roster spot when the 5 starters are healthy because it makes the bullpen slightly more shallow in typical day-to-day situations. But the RS do have guys with options so they can do things like the Doubront - Okijima swap at moments when the depth is an issue.

    For the moment it appears that the RS are willing to juggle the bullpen at moments for depth and hold on to both Aceves and Wakefield who give them modest depth at the starting positions.

    What they do between now and the deadline is quite another matter but this early in the season teams tend to spend their time accessing what they came north with and make moves to solidify themselves for the final half to one third of the season.  

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

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    He looks as if he's regulated to long-man, mop-up role duties.

    007, I mean 791, it's "relagated", not "regulated". I'm no more softlaw than you are Earl Weaver.

    You are wrong on not needing two dedent lefties, as the Red Sox have proven on the other end. But let's assume you are right. Do you really think a "regulated" Wakefield is a better option than "Al" or Atchison? No, you don't, but you will never admit it, anymore than most Red Sox fans are bigoted in their emotions towards DiceK taking away a starting spot from good ole boy Tim Wakefield.  
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]He looks as if he's regulated to long-man, mop-up role duties. 007, I mean 791, it's "relagated", not "regulated". I'm no more softlaw than you are Earl Weaver. You are wrong on not needing two dedent lefties, as the Red Sox have proven on the other end. But let's assume you are right. Do you really think a "regulated" Wakefield is a better option than "Al" or Atchison? No, you don't, but you will never admit it, anymore than most Red Sox fans are bigoted in their emotions towards DiceK taking away a starting spot from good ole boy Tim Wakefield.  
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    Hey "BaseballGM", its decent, not dedent.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    You're reason for citing the trade deadline is what exactly?  That teams would rather have a half year of a player than a nearly full year when it doesn't cost them anything?  Even if they ran him through waivers and he went unclaimed, they could still release him.  That's the point that you're missing.  I have a hard time believing that he would accept a minor league assignment, but if he would then that's just one more way to keep as many arms as possible in the system in case of emergency.

    JB, the fact that you still don't know the reason exposes even more ignorance. They don't have to run him through waivers, which you clumsily claimed. I said there was no reason to do so, and there isn't. They can try and trade him to whoever they want, not running him through waivers.

    You pretended to understand waivers, which you don't. Calling me after an old poster doesn't make you look any less foolish.
    C'mon Softy, we both know that Tito wasn't about to pull Lackey any earlier than the 4th inning.

    No, we don't know that, JB. And you that we don't know that, you are just grasping at any diversion to deflect your false assertions that carrying Wakefield had no possible affect on the outcome or one or two games. 

     Having Aceves instead of Wake to start the year means that you also have to make up for Wake's innings during those first 6 games.  You're still taxing the rest of the pen the same way.

    No, because:

    1. It's a false assumption to pretend that Wakefield's innings have to be "made up", as is his departure leaves this unfillable void. Wakefield has made 6 appearances in 18 days. He's "pitched" 10.1 innings. Pretending that Aceves and the rest of the bottom 3 of the rotation couldn't have mopped up is not even worthy of a retort.

    2. It's a false assumption to pretend that Wakefield's departure means that the pen is being "taxed". No, the pen is being used with bottom pen arms who can both mop up with the best of them but still provide some decent innings of relief work without throwing the ball to the backstop and soft tossing batting practice.

    Making up a role for Wakefield is like a government non-essential worker making up a reason why a non-essential worker is on the dole in the first place. Wakefield has no role, and if he were Asian he'd be run out of town for trying to throw a goofball (not gyroball) and waddle over to first base at near 50 years old.  
    As for the fantasy baseball comment, yes I do play.  One of the reasons that I win is because I use actual analysis in the draft and for FA's.  3 first place teams out of 4 isn't bad.  I think many on here would agree that I have a better idea of what I'm talking about than you do.

    Fantasy baseball results aren't any indication that you know what you are talking about. The rules do no reflect anything close to real roster management and record results. They are what makes a lot of ignorant people pretend they can do brain surgery because they play fantasy baseball. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and I know how real baseball rules work because I play fantasy baseball.  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    Space, I'm not softlaw, and you aren't Bill Lee. There is a difference between a typo and someone not knowing the difference between "regulated" and "relegated".

    Space, let's hear what you claim that Wakefield's role is. Is it like Mike Lowell's role, last year, to get warmed up for a retirment ceremony?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronk1. Show ronk1's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    A second lefty would be nice but at this point if it is at the expense of losing control of a proven starting pitcher for depth on a very modest contract I tend to see why the RS aren't crazy about pulling that trigger. The last time the RS primarily went with 5 pitchers over the course of an entire season was 2004. And even then a major change was made in late May from BH Kim to Bronson Arroyo. And they needed a few spot starts from Abe Alvarez being called up as well due to scheduling issues.

    I think this is where we disagree. I do not agree that Wake is still capable of being a proven starter, even the #5 spot in the AL east. I also think Wake needs to work regularly, something he may not be physically capable of, to be effective. He is stuck in the chicken/egg arguement. He will not be effective due to lack of activity. He will not get more activity, because he has been iineffective.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]You're reason for citing the trade deadline is what exactly?  That teams would rather have a half year of a player than a nearly full year when it doesn't cost them anything?  Even if they ran him through waivers and he went unclaimed, they could still release him.  That's the point that you're missing.  I have a hard time believing that he would accept a minor league assignment, but if he would then that's just one more way to keep as many arms as possible in the system in case of emergency. JB, the fact that you still don't know the reason exposes even more ignorance. They don't have to run him through waivers, which you clumsily claimed. I said there was no reason to do so, and there isn't. They can try and trade him to whoever they want, not running him through waivers. You pretended to understand waivers, which you don't. Calling me after an old poster doesn't make you look any less foolish. C'mon Softy, we both know that Tito wasn't about to pull Lackey any earlier than the 4th inning. No, we don't know that, JB. And you that we don't know that, you are just grasping at any diversion to deflect your false assertions that carrying Wakefield had no possible affect on the outcome or one or two games.    Having Aceves instead of Wake to start the year means that you also have to make up for Wake's innings during those first 6 games.  You're still taxing the rest of the pen the same way. No, because: 1. It's a false assumption to pretend that Wakefield's innings have to be "made up", as is his departure leaves this unfillable void. Wakefield has made 6 appearances in 18 days. He's "pitched" 10.1 innings. Pretending that Aceves and the rest of the bottom 3 of the rotation couldn't have mopped up is not even worthy of a retort. 2. It's a false assumption to pretend that Wakefield's departure means that the pen is being "taxed". No, the pen is being used with bottom pen arms who can both mop up with the best of them but still provide some decent innings of relief work without throwing the ball to the backstop and soft tossing batting practice. Making up a role for Wakefield is like a government non-essential worker making up a reason why a non-essential worker is on the dole in the first place. Wakefield has no role, and if he were Asian he'd be run out of town for trying to throw a goofball (not gyroball) and waddle over to first base at near 50 years old.   As for the fantasy baseball comment, yes I do play.  One of the reasons that I win is because I use actual analysis in the draft and for FA's.  3 first place teams out of 4 isn't bad.  I think many on here would agree that I have a better idea of what I'm talking about than you do. Fantasy baseball results aren't any indication that you know what you are talking about. The rules do no reflect anything close to real roster management and record results. They are what makes a lot of ignorant people pretend they can do brain surgery because they play fantasy baseball. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and I know how real baseball rules work because I play fantasy baseball.  
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for making me laugh, this is why i choose to play this game.....

    Anyway, we are simply coming from different angels on the waiving Wake issue, no real surprise there.  You claimed he should be traded or DFA'd and that he should not even go through waivers.  I never said he needed to be waived in order to be traded, just that he should be waived before being DFA'd.  You continue to change the issue to attempt to hold the superior position, something which is apparent to everyone.

    If you start the year with Aceves instead of Wake on the roster, then yes someone does have to pitch Wake's innings, while you have Aceves to take over that role, that doesn't leave him available for the other situations you are claiming he could have prevented.

    Entering the 4th inning of the Rangers game, Lackey had given up 3 runs through 3 innings.  Not something that would warrant pulling your #2 starter.  Aceves would not have made a difference in the 4th inning.  When Tito decided to pull Lackey, he went with a career relief pitcher in Wheeler.  Could he have chosen Aceves instead?  Sure.  But the reason this is important to the conversation is that in the time it took a normal RP to warm up, Lackey had surrendered 9 runs.  This wasn't a product of Wake taking too long to to get ready, this was a set up man getting ready quick.

    If you really want to back up your claim that choosing Wake over Aceves cost the Sox multiple games, then tell me which ones.  Several posters have no problem defending their position with facts, why don't you try it out here?

    "He's "pitched" 10.1 innings. Pretending that Aceves and the rest of the bottom 3 of the rotation couldn't have mopped up is not even worthy of a retort."

    Allow me to respond to this, since your ignorance is showing.  Wake hasn't been good, I'm not arguing that.  What I am saying is that he didn't cost us any of those 6 games.  If Wake wasn't on the roster, someone from the bottom 3 pitchers in the pen would have had to pick up those innings.  While those pitchers may have fared better than Wake, it would not have affected the outcome of the games given how they played out prior to Wake entering the game.

    "Fantasy baseball results aren't any indication that you know what you are talking about. The rules do no reflect anything close to real roster management and record results. They are what makes a lot of ignorant people pretend they can do brain surgery because they play fantasy baseball. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and I know how real baseball rules work because I play fantasy baseball."

    Ummmm no sh!t, it's a game.  To presume that someone, who has shown you to be wrong on several occasions in the past, is applying simple fantasy baseball logic to an argument is ignorant.  Have I made any claims about moving players to random positions?  No.  I have mirrored your opinion on moving Lowrie around, we simply differ on the number of AB's he should get.  If I were looking at the Wake situation from purely a fantasy baseball perspective, I would say to get rid of that bum.  But of course, there is a bigger picture here.  If you are going to DFA a player, you waive them first.  It's a no risk move with some reward (salary relief if nothing else), assuming the player is claimed.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]Space, I'm not softlaw, and you aren't Bill Lee. There is a difference between a typo and someone not knowing the difference between "regulated" and "relegated". Space, let's hear what you claim that Wakefield's role is. Is it like Mike Lowell's role, last year, to get warmed up for a retirment ceremony?
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    This is all I got from that....

    Space, I'm Softlaw.

    The "not" was clearly a typo which he is so fond of making.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    JB, you most certainly did say he needed to be waived to be traded:

    How exactly do you propose the Sox circumvent the waiver system?  You do realize that once a player is DFA's, they have to go through waivers prior to their release right and that there is no downside to this process?

    JB, you have no credibilty.

    And the amusing part from your own flippant comments that exceeded your knowledge of the rules, is that I made it a point to say that there was no need to bother with the waiver process, not whether or not it would have any "downside" to doing so. You leaped, thinking I didn't understand the rules of waiver, then made a fool of yourself.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]Space, I'm not softlaw, and you aren't Bill Lee. There is a difference between a typo and someone not knowing the difference between "regulated" and "relegated". Space, let's hear what you claim that Wakefield's role is. Is it like Mike Lowell's role, last year, to get warmed up for a retirment ceremony?
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    I do not hesitate to say that I can make no claims as to Wakefield's role.  I am not certain he should be on the roster.  My heart says keep him around.  But my brain says there are better options.  Right now it certainly seems like a retirement warm-up.  But there is this nagging feeling (maybe fear) that Wake will actually be needed at some point this year.  But I make no claims BaseballGM, I bury my head in the sand this year on the boards when it comes to Wake.  I also grant you BaseballGM that tehre is a difference between your spelling snafu and the replacement of Regulated and Relegated.  Just wanted to bust your chops a little for busting 791's chops over that trifle.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]Albers had decent numbers in a tiny stint this year, but that's better than Wakefield. Wakefield has to go via DFA. He could pitch a little more in the NL. If they can get any prospect at all they shoudl pull the trigger. If not, they should release Wakefield if he elects not to retire and give him a chance to catch on in the NL as a FA. No reason to go through waivers, where it's unlikley any team would do more than just wait for his release. Paying his 2011 freight and giving him an opening day active roster spot is about as nice a retirement gift as most veterans will ever get.
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]


    This is what I was responding to.  You make no mention of a trade, you simply say he needs to be DFA'd and that there's no need to send him through waivers.  Perhaps you should investigate you're own credibility.....

    Edit:  While you do say that if they can any sort of prospect, they should pull the trigger, you then advocate for his immediate release.  This is akin to saying that Ells should be retained going forward, unless they get an offer that's too good to refuse.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]JB, you most certainly did say he needed to be waived to be traded: How exactly do you propose the Sox circumvent the waiver system ?  You do realize that once a player is DFA's, they have to go through waivers prior to their release right and that there is no downside to this process?
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    Additionally, in this quote you selected from me, I make no mention of trades.  Everything is spoken to with regards to being DFA'd.  You on the other hand said that he shouldn't be waived since it would just be a waste of time while he sat awaiting his release.  Not traded, released.  Let that sink in for a minute.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    No, JB, no need to wiggle like Clinton. It doesn't matter if I didn't mention a trade, even though it was implied. But it doesn't matter if it wasn't implied to you, your words are completely false on the waiver rules. The Red Sox have no waiver process to "get around". You don't know what you are talking about. It's easier to admit it than just squirm.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]No, JB, no need to wiggle like Clinton. It doesn't matter if I didn't mention a trade, even though it was implied. But it doesn't matter if it wasn't implied to you, your words are completely false on the waiver rules. The Red Sox have no waiver process to "get around". You don't know what you are talking about. It's easier to admit it than just squirm.
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    You claimed they should not place Wake on waivers in the process of DFA'ing him.  I'm saying that they should and that there is no reason not to.  Perhaps circumvent was a poor choice of words, but the fact remains, if any team is going to release any player, they should first be waived.

    Even in the example above, if no team was willing to trade anything for Wake, maybe a team would be willing to take Wake (and his contract) for nothing through the waiver system.  No reason not to send him through it.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    I do not hesitate to say that I can make no claims as to Wakefield's role.  I am not certain he should be on the roster.  My heart says keep him around.  But my brain says there are better options.  Right now it certainly seems like a retirement warm-up.  But there is this nagging feeling (maybe fear) that Wake will actually be needed at some point this year.  But I make no claims BaseballGM, I bury my head in the sand this year on the boards when it comes to Wake.  I also grant you BaseballGM that tehre is a difference between your spelling snafu and the replacement of Regulated and Relegated.  Just wanted to bust your chops a little for busting 791's chops over that trifle.

    Space, that's a really honest and well written post. I trust your opinion on the visceral issues. My approach to Wakefield is blunt and calculated to be blunt because I want as much attention brought to bear on my belief that he's a complete waste of a roster spot. The fact that your heart isn't with your head on this one is understandable. Who knows, you could be right, but I would define right as Wakefield replacing a DL'd starter and then going out and keeping his ERA down under 5. I think Wakefield, best case, should be DL'd as long as
    possible if they decide not to part ways with him.

    Space, what's your take on the vitriol toward DiceK and Oki, in relation to poor performance from Wakefield, Ellsbury, Lackey, etc.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]I do not hesitate to say that I can make no claims as to Wakefield's role.  I am not certain he should be on the roster.  My heart says keep him around.  But my brain says there are better options.  Right now it certainly seems like a retirement warm-up.  But there is this nagging feeling (maybe fear) that Wake will actually be needed at some point this year.  But I make no claims BaseballGM, I bury my head in the sand this year on the boards when it comes to Wake.  I also grant you BaseballGM that tehre is a difference between your spelling snafu and the replacement of Regulated and Relegated.  Just wanted to bust your chops a little for busting 791's chops over that trifle. Space, that's a really honest and well written post. I trust your opinion on the visceral issues. My approach to Wakefield is blunt and calculated to be blunt because I want as much attention brought to bear on my belief that he's a complete waste of a roster spot. The fact that your heart isn't with your head on this one is understandable. Who knows, you could be right, but I would define right as Wakefield replacing a DL'd starter and then going out and keeping his ERA down under 5. I think Wakefield, best case, should be DL'd as long as possible if they decide not to part ways with him. Space, what's your take on the vitriol toward DiceK and Oki, in relation to poor performance from Wakefield, Ellsbury, Lackey, etc.
    Posted by BaseballGM[/QUOTE]

    The vitriol towards Dice has always irked me.  But I understand that the starry expectations (and accompanying money outlay) and his maddening inconsistency has divorced people from their senses when it comes to the Dice-man.  I don't go the BaseballGM-length of atttributing to racism/prejudice against asians, but I do think he gets way too much criticism, given his actual performance over his Sox tenure.  Oki just gets trashed the way all players who struggle get trashed here.  Don't think he gets more or less his share.  
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team? : The vitriol towards Dice has always irked me.  But I understand that the starry expectations (and accompanying money outlay) and his maddening inconsistency has divorced people from their senses when it comes to the Dice-man.  I don't go the BaseballGM-length of atttributing to racism/prejudice against asians, but I do think he gets way too much criticism, given his actual performance over his Sox tenure.  Oki just gets trashed the way all players who struggle get trashed here.  Don't think he gets more or less his share.  
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]Well said. Dice K is JD Drew without the ALCS grand slam. Okajima actually had collateral from 2007 because by 2009 he was a glorfied left handed out specialist that was being used as a 3-6 reliever with bad results and there wasn't a peep about him.

    Back to Wake, at the moment Wakefield is pretty low on the RS check list. Getting Carl Crawford to hit, Lackey to pitch effectively, Salty in a comfort zone, Buchholz to keep the ball in the park are all much higher on the priority list IMO than the last guy in the bullpen.

    In the 4 man rotation era it was routine to carry someone with Wake's profile and honestly I just don't see the harm right now.

    And while it isn't a factor that overwhelms the long term interest of the team, casually DFAing Wakefield or sending him in a trade when he has forgone the FA market for years to stay in Boston could have a negative effect on the clubhouse.

    I am not saying that inmates should run the facility but until there is a more pressing need for the roster spot, why mess with it? It isn't fantasy baseball after all.

    Just my take 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    moon, how about Masterson? he successfully started a few games when the sox needed him and rather than replace wake in the rotation, they demoted him back to middle relief and then, traded him...i was irate at the time and thats where the "wakefield is francona's crack" tag line came from...he was expendable because wakefield was reserved a spot in that rotation...that was wrong then and it is wrong now that he is in the pen...his time is done and sad to say, he wont catch clemens now...retire him and bring in another lefty so that we have options when things heat up...
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: I guess this is Wakes role on the team?

    You claimed they should not place Wake on waivers in the process of DFA'ing him.  I'm saying that they should and that there is no reason not to.  Perhaps circumvent was a poor choice of words, but the fact remains, if any team is going to release any player, they should first be waived.

    Even in the example above, if no team was willing to trade anything for Wake, maybe a team would be willing to take Wake (and his contract) for nothing through the waiver system.  No reason not to send him through it

    No, I never claimed they should "not place Wake on waivers". I said there was no need to do it. You then falsely claimed it had to be done, and are now foolishly running for cover.

    Since you divert to a red herring, let's shoot that down, too. Waivers loses control over a process that can completely be controlled. There is no time constraint, so there is no need to use it. They can shop Wakefield and controll the process. Any team that might take his contract doesn't need to be discovered through waivers where it theoretically could result in a team that the Red Sox don't like for public relations reasons. But it matters not, as the process is utterly uneccessary and not required as you claimed it was.

    You claimed that waivers had to be used, and did so arrogantly with the flippant "you do realize".

    I realize one thing. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.


    How exactly do you propose the Sox circumvent the waiver system?  You do realize that once a player is DFA's, they have to go through waivers prior to their release right and that there is no downside to this process?
     

Share