Iglesias to Start for Game 6

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    Peavy pitched well in the ALDS.  Stunk in ALCS, but so did Bucholz.

    I agree, Iggy is good, but OK for the trade.  Sox are 1 win away from WS now.

    Bogaerts will be great for Sox too.

    Don't know about Iggy's batting though.

    I miss Iggy too, just like I miss HanRam.  But HanRam trade got Sox the WS ring in 07 with Beckett and Lowell.

    Interestingly enough, the pursuit to each of the last to WS started with trading away the beloved SS (Nomar and HanRam), and hoping that is true this year too with Iggy.

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    Not able to edit my posts...  the previous post should read "last two WS", not "last to WS"...

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    Yes, it may turn out to be a bad trade. 

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    I think Peavy was somewhat helpful to the Red Sox in a few of his good starts. With the status of Buchholz somewhat unknown at the time, this was sort of a panic move.

    Iglesias filled the hole at SS for Detroit in place of the cheating Perahlta. Detroit also made a move out of necessity , not knowing if the layoff would hurt Perahlta.

    If Buchholz stayed healthy and Perahlta wasn't a cheater, this trade doesn't get made.

    End result, the Red Sox are probably ahead in this series 3-2 no matter what. Iglesias has made some good defensive plays, Peavy has pitched so-so in postseason....neither is the difference between winning and losing the series.

    The beef I have with the trade is that it hurts Boston longterm, because I don't see Bogaerts as a SS , and this is a position in Boston's lineup that has been crying for stability since Nomar injured his wrist. We have seen rival teams like Baltimore (Ripken) and NY (Jeter) with superstars at this position, yet since the dyas of Petrocelli and Burleson, we have failed to even have a steady player at SS for more than one year, or in the case of Orlando Cabrera, even less.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gets his 4th Start in 6 ALCS Games

    Those of you spinning the trade as "Iglesias is a bench guy" don't know anything about baseball. This guys isn't going to be any "bench guy". The most talented defensive position player in MLB in a long time. Also handles the bat plenty well enough for a starting SS. 

    What is quite clear is the way nearly all overlook how talented his eyes and hands coordination is. He will be a good hitting SS by virtue of that, as he continues to gain experience. Red Sox made a huge mistake trading this career away. Would have been sit for many years with him at SS, with Bogaerts to 3B or LF. 

    No, Peavy wasn't worth it.

    [/QUOTE]

    One game away from the WS!

    Glad you are enjoying the ride.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gets his 4th Start in 6 ALCS Games

    Those of you spinning the trade as "Iglesias is a bench guy" don't know anything about baseball. This guys isn't going to be any "bench guy". The most talented defensive position player in MLB in a long time. Also handles the bat plenty well enough for a starting SS. 

    What is quite clear is the way nearly all overlook how talented his eyes and hands coordination is. He will be a good hitting SS by virtue of that, as he continues to gain experience. Red Sox made a huge mistake trading this career away. Would have been sit for many years with him at SS, with Bogaerts to 3B or LF. 

    No, Peavy wasn't worth it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Jim Leyland thinks he is a bench guy 33 percent of the time.

    I agree with Manager Jim.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Jim Leyland doesn't agree he's a bench guy 33% of the time, which will become quite clear in 2014 and beyond. 

    [/QUOTE]

    By your own post you show that Manager Jim thinks that Iggy is a bench guy 33 percent of the time.

    I agree with your post and with Manager Jim.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    You know who is really good though? Jackie Bradley Jr.

    the Red Sox really blew it this year by not having him start over Ells.

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    Hope he goes 0-4, and makes 2 errors.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yes, it may turn out to be a bad trade. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe someone should start a thread, about itSealedTongue Out

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Drew's been the 0-4 2012 and 2013 playoffs guy. As for the 2 errors, only chance of that at SS is if it's Drew and 2 errors in 1 game. 

    [/QUOTE]

    This is escpecially true because Manager Jim often benches Iggy, while Drew plays every day.

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Jim Leyland doesn't agree he's a bench guy 33% of the time, which will become quite clear in 2014 and beyond. 

    [/QUOTE]


    "Incompetent" Manager Jim?  That guy did not even realize he was supposed to intentionally walk Ortiz eith the bases loaded in Game 2....

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    The clown calls Salty a "part time profile", because he sits vs LHPs (about 33% of the games). Now he uses 33% in a 6 game sample size to show Iggy is a FT'er.

    Most "FT catchers" sit more than "FT SSs" dues to the high physical demands of the catching position.

    Only a clown can see things in reverse.

     

    Iggy is a great fielding SS, and I agree that a great fielding SS should play over a good to great hitting SS, but the fact is Peralta would be playing FT SS (or at least 66% of the time), if Peralta could not play LF, or if the Tigers had a LF'er with an .800+ OPS.

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Jim Leyland doesn't agree he's a bench guy 33% of the time, which will become quite clear in 2014 and beyond. 

    [/QUOTE]


    "Incompetent" Manager Jim?  That guy did not even realize he was supposed to intentionally walk Ortiz eith the bases loaded in Game 2....

    [/QUOTE]

    The clown thinks he did realize later it be equating Jim's statement, "should have pitched carefully to him" with intentionally walking him.

    The spin is never-ending.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    It could turn out to be a bad trade, but it will not turn out to be a disastrously bad trade.

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gets his 4th Start in 6 ALCS Games

    Those of you spinning the trade as "Iglesias is a bench guy" don't know anything about baseball. This guys isn't going to be any "bench guy". The most talented defensive position player in MLB in a long time. Also handles the bat plenty well enough for a starting SS. 

    What is quite clear is the way nearly all overlook how talented his eyes and hands coordination is. He will be a good hitting SS by virtue of that, as he continues to gain experience. Red Sox made a huge mistake trading this career away. Would have been sit for many years with him at SS, with Bogaerts to 3B or LF. 

    No, Peavy wasn't worth it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sox management loved Iggy and paid him $8M to play in the minors with the expectation he was the long term SS for Boston.  But he didn't hit spit in 2012, so they got a bridge SS, Drew, to give Iglesias more time.  When the Sox realized they had a shot at the postseason, Drew was working out well at SS, fielding and hitting, Bogaerts was ready for the bigs, and the rotation was in a hurt with Buch out, etc, they pulled the trigger on Iggy.  Entirely reasonable even though most of us, me included, wanted Iggy at SS.  Iggy not hitting in July eased our pain.  So did the fact that Drew hit well in August in September, Peavy pitched well, and the Sox won the ALDS, 3 games to 1, and are leading the Tigers 3-2 in the ALCS--all without Iggy.

    Long term Iggy might still be a great deal for Detroit and not so great for Boston.  But so far there is absolutely no evidence that losing Iggy has cost the Sox anything.  Last year 69 wins, this year 97 wins and maybe even the WS.   

    The Tigers and Leyland fell in love with Iggy as the full time SS.  When Peralta the regular SS came back from suspension for the ALDS, he went to LF to keep Iggy at SS. But a funny thing happened in those first four games.  Iggy couldn't hit Oakland pitching, Peralta could, and Iggy wasn't fielding many balls--half as many as Drew did, also in four games.  So Leyland benched Iggy for game 5.  Then he benched Iggy for games 2 and 3 against the Sox.  In game 2 Iggy went in for Peralta late for defensive purposes and committed a crucial error tha led to the winning, unearned run by Gomes.  Nevertheless, when the Tigers lost 1-0 without Iggy, Leyland decided to get him back out there at least for defense.  Good move, even though the Tigers split the next two games on their home field.

    Bottom line:  losing Iggy, while painful, was not a bad baseball move for this season, not if wins and losses mean anything.  The Sox have flourished without him.  The Tigers have done OK with him, but they have a little higher standard.  Last year, without Iggy, they got to the WS. 

    I entirely agree that long term we don't know how this will work out.  But I think the odds favor the Sox only because I believe hitting and pitching are they keys to winning and losing. 

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We have seen rival teams like Baltimore (Ripken) and NY (Jeter) with superstars at this position, yet since the dyas of Petrocelli and Burleson, we have failed to even have a steady player at SS for more than one year, or in the case of Orlando Cabrera, even less.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A little overstated because of Nomar. Out of curiosity, I looked up to see who started at SS for the Sox for at least two years since Petrocelli's first year. No point one way or another, just curious.

    However, I'm not sure what your point is. You mention two teams that developed HOF SS during the past quarter century or so. How many other teams have done that? So what's the big deal? And Baltimore didn't win anything with Ripken, while the Sox won two W.S.

    Here's the list:

    6 -- Garciaparra (would have been seven had it not been for the wrist injury, and it also doesn't include 2004, another year he missed time with injuries then was traded so it could have been eight.

    6 -- Petrocelli

    6 -- Burleson

    4 -- Valentin

    4 -- Rivera

    3 -- Hoffman

    2 -- Gutierrez

    2 -- Lugo

    2 -- Scutaro

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We have seen rival teams like Baltimore (Ripken) and NY (Jeter) with superstars at this position, yet since the dyas of Petrocelli and Burleson, we have failed to even have a steady player at SS for more than one year, or in the case of Orlando Cabrera, even less.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A little overstated because of Nomar. Out of curiosity, I looked up to see who started at SS for the Sox for at least two years since Petrocelli's first year. No point one way or another, just curious.

    However, I'm not sure what your point is. You mention two teams that developed HOF SS during the past quarter century or so. How many other teams have done that? So what's the big deal? And Baltimore didn't win anything with Ripken, while the Sox won two W.S.

    Here's the list:

    6 -- Garciaparra (would have been seven had it not been for the wrist injury, and it also doesn't include 2004, another year he missed time with injuries then was traded so it could have been eight.

    6 -- Petrocelli

    6 -- Burleson

    4 -- Valentin

    4 -- Rivera

    3 -- Hoffman

    2 -- Gutierrez

    2 -- Lugo

    2 -- Scutaro

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes. you have a very, very valid point.

    But, I am one of those people who believes shortstop is a position that shouldn't be a revolving door for so many years.

    At some point even the most incompetent of GMs has to accidently get a player at this important position that stays in the organization for more than a year or two.

    The position was a revolving door for years between Burleson and Nomar. After Nomar the revolving door seems to have spun even faster.

    By the way, you forgot Renteria. Possibly the most talented SS since Nomar that was shoved out the door rather quickly.

    With Iglesias , I was looking forward to a player who could add stability to an unstable position , maybe not an offensive force, but at least from a defensive standpoint. While Drew gives us a capable player, he's not young enough to be a starting SS for too many more seasons, Bogaerts doesn't strike me as a player who will be smooth enough to play SS at the MLB level as a starter. Peavy's a player for now, he doesn't figure into future plans. 5 years after Peavy retires , Iglesias will still be in his prime.

    But, this could all be senseless banter. Because , in this day and age in MLB , there is always a team looking to move a player for one reason or another.....not all these guys are bums, and you can fill the position by trade or by free agency. Even the small market teams remake their lineups year to year, I suppose I am looking for stability in an unstable industry.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to royf19's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    We have seen rival teams like Baltimore (Ripken) and NY (Jeter) with superstars at this position, yet since the dyas of Petrocelli and Burleson, we have failed to even have a steady player at SS for more than one year, or in the case of Orlando Cabrera, even less.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A little overstated because of Nomar. Out of curiosity, I looked up to see who started at SS for the Sox for at least two years since Petrocelli's first year. No point one way or another, just curious.

    However, I'm not sure what your point is. You mention two teams that developed HOF SS during the past quarter century or so. How many other teams have done that? So what's the big deal? And Baltimore didn't win anything with Ripken, while the Sox won two W.S.

    Here's the list:

    6 -- Garciaparra (would have been seven had it not been for the wrist injury, and it also doesn't include 2004, another year he missed time with injuries then was traded so it could have been eight.

    6 -- Petrocelli

    6 -- Burleson

    4 -- Valentin

    4 -- Rivera

    3 -- Hoffman

    2 -- Gutierrez

    2 -- Lugo

    2 -- Scutaro

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes. you have a very, very valid point.

    But, I am one of those people who believes shortstop is a position that shouldn't be a revolving door for so many years.

    At some point even the most incompetent of GMs has to accidently get a player at this important position that stays in the organization for more than a year or two.

    The position was a revolving door for years between Burleson and Nomar. After Nomar the revolving door seems to have spun even faster.

    By the way, you forgot Renteria. Possibly the most talented SS since Nomar that was shoved out the door rather quickly.

    With Iglesias , I was looking forward to a player who could add stability to an unstable position , maybe not an offensive force, but at least from a defensive standpoint. While Drew gives us a capable player, he's not young enough to be a starting SS for too many more seasons, Bogaerts doesn't strike me as a player who will be smooth enough to play SS at the MLB level as a starter. Peavy's a player for now, he doesn't figure into future plans. 5 years after Peavy retires , Iglesias will still be in his prime.

    But, this could all be senseless banter. Because , in this day and age in MLB , there is always a team looking to move a player for one reason or another.....not all these guys are bums, and you can fill the position by trade or by free agency. Even the small market teams remake their lineups year to year, I suppose I am looking for stability in an unstable industry.

    [/QUOTE]

    About Renteria -- I  just listed players with more than one year. If I included "one-year wonders" you could add Gonzalez, Owen, Renteria, Romero, Guerrero. Forgot to include Aparicio, who started for three yers.

    There has been an ebb and flow so to speak. There was some instability after Burleson left, but some of it was bad luck too. For instance, Tim Naehring was supposed to be the SS for a number of years but he kept getting injured as I recall. Then Valentin came along, which moved Naehring out of SS. Valentin would have lasted longer if it weren't for Nomar. After Nomar left, the revolving door returned.

    We'll see if Bogaerts can give stability for at least four years (or more). We'll also see what Iggy does in Detroit. If Iggy doesn't continue to develop as a hitter, he might end up being a UT player.

    The revolving door of the past decade, to me, was less of an issue than in the 1980s because A) the Sox won two W.S. and B) the Sox for the most part had decent players in there. The 1980s saw players like Hoffman, Romero and Spike Owen.

    But, this could all be senseless banter.

    Naahh. This is a much more interesting discussion than the same old discussions about Drew, Iggy and the trade that keep popping up.

     

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

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    First you can blame the Peavy trade on Bucholz. If Buch had been healthy, they woudln't have traded iggy. But it's true that the Sox place a higher value on offensive production at shortstop. 

    As for this: "What is quite clear is the way nearly all overlook how talented his eyes and hands coordination is."

    Sure. But - he was still the pop fly to end the game and I could see that happening again tonight. 

    Absent from your post is any sense of excitement that the Sox are one game away from the World Series. Grinding your axe about Iggy is more important to you. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Iglesias to Start for Game 6

    "No, Peavy wasn't worth it.

    [/QUOTE]BINGO !!!  Softy is right again.........  IGGY is worth the price of a ticket, for sure !!!!"

     

    If we win a World Series on the strength of another strong Peavy start (which his last start obviously wasn't) then the trade was worth it, and you and softy can sail off into Yahoo instant messenger together 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share