"Likeable"

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

    "Likeable"

    I heard much over the past few years about how the Sox had become "unlikeable".

    I have no clue whether "likeable" or "unlikeable" translates into actual quality of game play. 

    But, from the point of Dodger trade to the dawn of 2013, Cherrington and the front office crew have completely altered the complexion of this club vis-a-vis likeability.

    This club is veteran grinders (albeit handsomely paid verteran grinders), guys hunting for redemption, guys who play with heart and have fun.  

    Now, that, to me, is easy to root for.

    And, as Club Metaphysician, I counseled the Fo that the platoon splits and extra 3 or 4 million above "market value" was well worth it just for the Aloha (much needed in Sox clubhouse) that Victorino will bring.

    But seriously, those whining about 80 wins, no ace, no superstar masher, etc. etc., these folks may have their day when all is said and done.  i really have no clue how this incarnation of Red Sox will perform.  Could be as bad as people make it out to be.  Could be much better.  Dunno.

    But in the meantime, I am going to have a blast rooting for Pedroia, the Flyin' Hawaian, long-hair wild-man Hanrahan, WMB, Lester and Buchholz in redemption now-or-never mode, nasty bullpen (break out the spoons), Gomes, Papi, grizzly Dempster.

    May not be many marquee names on this roster, but the competitive complexion is a drastic alteration form the country club look of recent past.  

    Underdogs with something to prove.  Far, far better than top dogs with everything to lose.

    Likeable.

     

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

    Re:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    I heard much over the past few years about how the Sox had become "unlikeable".

    I have no clue whether "likeable" or "unlikeable" translates into actual quality of game play. 

    But, from the point of Dodger trade to the dawn of 2013, Cherrington and the front office crew have completely altered the complexion of this club vis-a-vis likeability.

    This club is veteran grinders (albeit handsomely paid verteran grinders), guys hunting for redemption, guys who play with heart and have fun.  

    Now, that, to me, is easy to root for.

    And, as Club Metaphysician, I counseled the Fo that the platoon splits and extra 3 or 4 million above "market value" was well worth it just for the Aloha (much needed in Sox clubhouse) that Victorino will bring.

    But seriously, those whining about 80 wins, no ace, no superstar masher, etc. etc., these folks may have their day when all is said and done.  i really have no clue how this incarnation of Red Sox will perform.  Could be as bad as people make it out to be.  Could be much better.  Dunno.

    But in the meantime, I am going to have a blast rooting for Pedroia, the Flyin' Hawaian, long-hair wild-man Hanrahan, WMB, Lester and Buchholz in redemption now-or-never mode, nasty bullpen (break out the spoons), Gomes, Papi, grizzly Dempster.

    May not be many marquee names on this roster, but the competitive complexion is a drastic alteration form the country club look of recent past.  

    Underdogs with something to prove.  Far, far better than top dogs with everything to lose.

    Likeable.

     




    good post space! i feel the same way, win or lose i love the red sox and will enjoy watching them.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    I heard much over the past few years about how the Sox had become "unlikeable".

    I have no clue whether "likeable" or "unlikeable" translates into actual quality of game play. 

    But, from the point of Dodger trade to the dawn of 2013, Cherrington and the front office crew have completely altered the complexion of this club vis-a-vis likeability.

    This club is veteran grinders (albeit handsomely paid verteran grinders), guys hunting for redemption, guys who play with heart and have fun.  

    Now, that, to me, is easy to root for.

    And, as Club Metaphysician, I counseled the Fo that the platoon splits and extra 3 or 4 million above "market value" was well worth it just for the Aloha (much needed in Sox clubhouse) that Victorino will bring.

    But seriously, those whining about 80 wins, no ace, no superstar masher, etc. etc., these folks may have their day when all is said and done.  i really have no clue how this incarnation of Red Sox will perform.  Could be as bad as people make it out to be.  Could be much better.  Dunno.

    But in the meantime, I am going to have a blast rooting for Pedroia, the Flyin' Hawaian, long-hair wild-man Hanrahan, WMB, Lester and Buchholz in redemption now-or-never mode, nasty bullpen (break out the spoons), Gomes, Papi, grizzly Dempster.

    May not be many marquee names on this roster, but the competitive complexion is a drastic alteration form the country club look of recent past.  

    Underdogs with something to prove.  Far, far better than top dogs with everything to lose.

    Likeable.

     



    Couldn't agree with you more Space, and the most likeable change is in the manager's office.

    PS Bill Lee was very kind to my handicapped father-in-law at spring training last year; sat and talked with him for a good fifteen minutes. Today's players don't seem to have that likability.

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

    Re:

    Got to agree with OP, guys you can root for by and large, and I'm really glad Beckett is out of here; even if he goes on to win a cy young (doubtful but not impossible), I'll still be glad he's no longer on the Red Sox; and if Lester rebounds, you'd never convince me it isn't at least partially owing to Beckett's absence.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re:

    Great post Spaceman!! Farrell being back should give Lester and Buchholz a HUGE boost because of the familiarity with him.If Lackey comes out and pitches halfway decent,which he has been capable of in the past,the Sox might be in pretty good shape.The bullpen could be  nasty too.

    They're going to have a new attitude coming into spring training this year.Farrell will make a big difference.No place to go but up.

    Likeable.

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re:

     

    I like the Red Sox whether they are winning championships or eating fried chicken and drinking beer. 

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

    Re:

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

    I heard much over the past few years about how the Sox had become "unlikeable".

    I have no clue whether "likeable" or "unlikeable" translates into actual quality of game play. 

    But, from the point of Dodger trade to the dawn of 2013, Cherrington and the front office crew have completely altered the complexion of this club vis-a-vis likeability.

    This club is veteran grinders (albeit handsomely paid verteran grinders), guys hunting for redemption, guys who play with heart and have fun.  

    Now, that, to me, is easy to root for.

    And, as Club Metaphysician, I counseled the Fo that the platoon splits and extra 3 or 4 million above "market value" was well worth it just for the Aloha (much needed in Sox clubhouse) that Victorino will bring.

    But seriously, those whining about 80 wins, no ace, no superstar masher, etc. etc., these folks may have their day when all is said and done.  i really have no clue how this incarnation of Red Sox will perform.  Could be as bad as people make it out to be.  Could be much better.  Dunno.

    But in the meantime, I am going to have a blast rooting for Pedroia, the Flyin' Hawaian, long-hair wild-man Hanrahan, WMB, Lester and Buchholz in redemption now-or-never mode, nasty bullpen (break out the spoons), Gomes, Papi, grizzly Dempster.

    May not be many marquee names on this roster, but the competitive complexion is a drastic alteration form the country club look of recent past.  

    Underdogs with something to prove.  Far, far better than top dogs with everything to lose.

    Likeable.

     



    Like the post, Space.  Likeable.  :oD

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re:

    Likeable gives you more to root for than just laundry.

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

    Re:

    I agree with Softy that with our still massive payroll compared to small market teams the "underdog" card is not one I can see the Sox playing with much credibility. But where I am with you is that I don't need flashy free agent signings to root for a team. I want a team that plays their tails off and overachieves based on whatever their talent is. 

    That's enough for me next season. Obviously longer term planning you have to find more than just lunchpail guys if  you want to win, but next year, a cohesive team that plays really hard every game and leaves it all on the field will go a long way. 

    I honestly think we're a good (not Ace of the staff, but good) pitcher and one more good position player away from a pretty decent team. Maybe not a championship team but one entertaining to watch while other moves are being made. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re:

    Excellent post and well said OP.  One of the reasons why I enjoyed watching the SF Giants run in the playoffs last year was that they played as a team.  I don't care what their payroll was...they played hard, played the game right, enjoyed the city, embraced the city and looked like family out there.  It felt like a throwback to a time when baseball was BASEBALL.  To me this Sox team has a similar makeup.  Of course there is no idea how they will gell....but the talent IS there.  If they can play as a team and play the game hard and right....great things COULD happen.  Who knows....maybe they will be horrible, but I think we are back to having a baseball team with very likeable players again.....not a flashy sportscar that you can't do anything with......

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

    Re:

    I always like the Red Sox.

    I do like the underdog.  The last couple years the guy I rooted for the most was DMac.

    As a matter of fact I used to feel waaay more comfy with the team before they won the championship.  Don't get me wrong. I was wildly happy about it, but with that said there was something about the Red Sox that was gone forever when they won.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re:

    In response to Ben Cheringtom's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    I heard much over the past few years about how the Sox had become "unlikeable".

    I have no clue whether "likeable" or "unlikeable" translates into actual quality of game play. 

    But, from the point of Dodger trade to the dawn of 2013, Cherrington and the front office crew have completely altered the complexion of this club vis-a-vis likeability.

    This club is veteran grinders (albeit handsomely paid verteran grinders), guys hunting for redemption, guys who play with heart and have fun.  

    Now, that, to me, is easy to root for.

    And, as Club Metaphysician, I counseled the Fo that the platoon splits and extra 3 or 4 million above "market value" was well worth it just for the Aloha (much needed in Sox clubhouse) that Victorino will bring.

    But seriously, those whining about 80 wins, no ace, no superstar masher, etc. etc., these folks may have their day when all is said and done.  i really have no clue how this incarnation of Red Sox will perform.  Could be as bad as people make it out to be.  Could be much better.  Dunno.

    But in the meantime, I am going to have a blast rooting for Pedroia, the Flyin' Hawaian, long-hair wild-man Hanrahan, WMB, Lester and Buchholz in redemption now-or-never mode, nasty bullpen (break out the spoons), Gomes, Papi, grizzly Dempster.

    May not be many marquee names on this roster, but the competitive complexion is a drastic alteration form the country club look of recent past.  

    Underdogs with something to prove.  Far, far better than top dogs with everything to lose.

    Likeable.

     




     

     

     

    Just having that idiot Valentine out of there makes it better.



    Not to mention: Ross, Agon, CC, Beckett, Shoppach, and Aviles.

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

    Re:

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

    I always like the Red Sox.

    I do like the underdog.  The last couple years the guy I rooted for the most was DMac.

    As a matter of fact I used to feel waaay more comfy with the team before they won the championship.  Don't get me wrong. I was wildly happy about it, but with that said there was something about the Red Sox that was gone forever when they won.



    I used to tell my friends that for years pre-2004.  Not that I regret the Sox winning (twice), but there is pleasure from supporting underdogs, be they teams or individuals.  Who, for example, but the Red Sox of old could lose their division by a half game?!:

    Tm WLW-L%GB Detroit Tigers DET 86 70 .551 -- Boston Red Sox BOS 85 70 .548 0.5 Baltimore Orioles BAL 80 74 .519 5.0 New York Yankees NYY 79 76 .510 6.5 Cleveland Indians CLE 72 84 .462 14.0 Milwaukee Brewers MIL 65 91 .417 21.0                                                                               
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

    I always like the Red Sox.

    I do like the underdog.  The last couple years the guy I rooted for the most was DMac.

    As a matter of fact I used to feel waaay more comfy with the team before they won the championship.  Don't get me wrong. I was wildly happy about it, but with that said there was something about the Red Sox that was gone forever when they won.



    I used to tell my friends that for years pre-2004.  Not that I regret the Sox winning (twice), but there is pleasure from supporting underdogs, be they teams or individuals.  Who, for example, but the Red Sox of old could lose their division by a half game?!:

    Tm WLW-L%GB Detroit Tigers DET 86 70 .551 -- Boston Red Sox BOS 85 70 .548 0.5 Baltimore Orioles BAL 80 74 .519 5.0 New York Yankees NYY 79 76 .510 6.5 Cleveland Indians CLE 72 84 .462 14.0 Milwaukee Brewers MIL 65 91 .417 21.0                                                                               



    Coincidentally, that is the year I became a full fledged Red Sox fan. Only a Red Sox fan could understand how coming so close only to fall short could make you love a team. But that's what happened to me. Nice to see that many Sox fans don't get too worried about winning championships in order to stay interested and entertained by the team.

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

    Re:

    Have to agree with the OP....this team has guys who are easy to root for....and a binch of guys who are known for professional attitudes and playing hard everyday. It is also one of those rosters that could go either way....could end up with age and a lot of injuries showing....or if most guys stay healthy....and perform at 90%+ to their capabilities....then with a building of confidence in themselves(something clearly gone after the last two years).....they could make a run. Look forward to the upcoming season in any case.

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

    Re:

    In response to Alibiike's comment:

    In response to Ben Cheringtom's comment:

     

    Just having that idiot Valentine out of there makes it better.



    Not to mention: Ross, Agon, CC, Beckett, Shoppach, and Aviles.



    Yeah, because that team, pre-trade, were ready to turn things around, weren't they?

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

    Re:

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    May not be many marquee names on this roster, but the competitive complexion is a drastic alteration form the country club look of recent past.  

    Underdogs with something to prove.  Far, far better than top dogs with everything to lose.

    Seriously, I'm glad you are full of fun and optimism. That said, you have to be joking that another 150 million payroll isn't "country club", and "underdogs"? How many teams with a payroll over 150 million are "underdogs"?  But, hey, if that perception makes you happy, more power to you.



    Softy, while my stance certainly encompasses 'fun', I don't think i expressed any 'optimism'. I really don't know how this team will perform and I made no assertions that they would succeed.  I merely asserted that they will be more fun to root for than recent incarnations.

    As to the underdog notion, I agree with you that it is hard to call any team with a bloated payroll such as the Sox an underdog.  However, it is what it is.  With the Blue Jays doing their best 2011 Marlins imitation, the ascension of the Orioles, the consistent excellence of Tampa, and the Yankees coming off a playoff year ... and the Sox coming off one of the worst years EVER ... the Sox most certainly are the underdogs.  You can put alittle * next to that if you think payroll should equal success.  In fact, from now on, I will make sure to call them underdogs*.  But, make no mistake, this club is an underdog*.  Just ask Vegas.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    May not be many marquee names on this roster, but the competitive complexion is a drastic alteration form the country club look of recent past.  

    Underdogs with something to prove.  Far, far better than top dogs with everything to lose.

    Seriously, I'm glad you are full of fun and optimism. That said, you have to be joking that another 150 million payroll isn't "country club", and "underdogs"? How many teams with a payroll over 150 million are "underdogs"?  But, hey, if that perception makes you happy, more power to you.



    Softy, while my stance certainly encompasses 'fun', I don't think i expressed any 'optimism'. I really don't know how this team will perform and I made no assertions that they would succeed.  I merely asserted that they will be more fun to root for than recent incarnations.

    As to the underdog notion, I agree with you that it is hard to call any team with a bloated payroll such as the Sox an underdog.  However, it is what it is.  With the Blue Jays doing their best 2011 Marlins imitation, the ascension of the Orioles, the consistent excellence of Tampa, and the Yankees coming off a playoff year ... and the Sox coming off one of the worst years EVER ... the Sox most certainly are the underdogs.  You can put alittle * next to that if you think payroll should equal success.  In fact, from now on, I will make sure to call them underdogs*.  But, make no mistake, this club is an underdog*.  Just ask Vegas.

     



    The Sox have never been THE "top dog" in spending and they've never been "bottom feeders" either. They are what they are... A hybrid team. They use what resources they have available, whether that be sizeable payroll or good scouting. Can't fault them because they're polular. Softlaw, They're not the Rays. They'll NEVER be the Rays. You like how the Rays handle things, maybe you should be a Rays fan? Nothing wrong w/ that. 

     

    Good post Spaceman! 

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

    Re:

     

    The Sox have never been THE "top dog" in spending and they've never been "bottom feeders" either. They are what they are... A hybrid team. They use what resources they have available, whether that be sizeable payroll or good scouting. Can't fault them because they're polular. Softlaw, They're not the Rays. They'll NEVER be the Rays. You like how the Rays handle things, maybe you should be a Rays fan? Nothing wrong w/ that. 

     

    Aside from Dickie V, baby, can you name another Rays fan? You are asking Softlaw to talk to and argue with himself and the ultimate optimist, baby. 

    As crazy as Softy already is, this would earmark him for .... Arkham.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share