Re: In defense of Bill-806
posted at 3/12/2013 2:01 PM EDT
In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:
I like Bill and have always had a cordial and pleasant cyber-friendship with him here on this esteemed board. He doesn't take himself too seriously and doesn't expect people to take him seriously, so what is to take seriousy.
That being said, Bill, if you are out there and not licking your wounds over a sixer of Gansetts, the reasons for all the vitriol directed your way of late are two:
1. You post the same exact thing over and over (its not what you are saying, it is the redundant annoying way in which you keep saying it again and again and again)
2. You DO actually attack politically. Its a real wolf in sheeps clothing act.
Good post -- epsecially the bold point.
I used to defend bill and thought he was good for the board. But ever since September 2011, he's gone off the deep end.
And the OP, I have more issues with this defense of Bill:
Loyal fan? The way he turns on players -- heck, even the team -- at the first sign of trouble doesn't spell loyal fan to me. A loyal fan sticks with the team in good times and bad.
And he finds it troublesome that management rewards a past his prime injured DH for past performance: OK fine. But considering that Ortiz had the third-best OPS of his career before he got hurt kind of puts credibility issues on the past his prime comment, especially considering that Ortiz was in great shape last year by all accounts and hasn't really been injury prone in his career. His only other injury was a wrist injury.
Best 25 guys on the field: Again fine, but he's all over the map with this one. He was obnoxious in his posts that Rubby should be on the team this year after one or two outings. Rubby has got knocked around his last two outings -- hmm, bill has suddenly gone quiet. Maybe those of us who have said Rubby might not be ready yet are on to something. One thing Bill has NEVER grasped is that the best 25 guys on the field and the 25 guys with the most potential isn't the same thing. Matt Barnes or some other minor leaguer might have the best potential of any guy on the team, but that doesn't mean he's ready now. Bill just goes with which way the wind is blowing.
He doesn't care about management worrying about a rookie brought up too soon that his free agency clock starts running too soon: OK, fine, but that's how a 12-year-old thinks -- they only think in the moment. In the real world, I want a GM who not only thinks short term but also thinks in the long term and tries to balance the two needs. For instance, I've heard that if Bradley stays in the minors until the end of April then comes up, the Red Sox get that extra year with him before free agency. If that's the case, then keep in down until May. The long term gain of the extra year outweights the short term gain of having him for 20-something games in April. Isn't that is what's wrong with the country today in both business and politics -- too many thinking of the short team and not enough thinking of the long-term consequences? It's not a fault to have a GM who tries to balance short term and long term. In fact, isn't that the reason the Sox got into this mess. They started thinking of the short term splash, rather than the long term consquences.