Re: NAVA: When does he get his due?
posted at 4/19/2013 11:56 PM EDT
You were the one who called Murphy a FT'er not me.
Wrong, I said Murphy was FT out of circumstance, and you foolishly pretended TX would make a trade for what amounted to a pipe dream.
You can't even remember back a few weeks.
You know I was a big supporter of getting Upton, but totally disagreed with your clownish suggested offer. My offer was more realsitic, but probably still not enough to get him.
Your stooge "suggested offer" was changed so often it was comical, once including Doubratn, with not one of them being realistic. My offer was to covert Ellsbury and the draft pick as trade currency and include up to 2 or 3 prospects of anyone on the farm except for Barnes Bradley and Bogearts, and only include Bogaerts if there was a better offer and there was not a better offer. You kept aping "the DBCACks don't want Ellsbury, despite the fact that Ellsbury and the draft pick was fluid trade currenccy that could have netted a bum like Prado.
I'd have said yes to your trade offer in a second if I was Ben, but the fact is AZ would have laughed at your offer. Yes, I did mention several different offers I'd have made, which is hardly any different than your Ellsbury plus anyone but Bradley drivel, which you later recanted the fact that Bogaerts was one player you'd have included.
I also wanted JBJ in CF, but you said he was better in LF, now recently I see you are saying he should be in CF.
In fact, I stated to deal Ellsbury and put Bradley in CF. When that didn't happen, All all along, I said Bradley was the best option for LF, since management wasn't going to move prima Donna Ellsbury.
You argued against my statement that JBJ should be in CF, and Ells in LF. Now, you flip and pretend you never said what you said.
You pumped up JBJ's offense based on a ST sample size. On and on you went about he is ready for MLB pitching. Now, anytime anyone brings up his struggles, you go off on Drew
A likely .385+ OBP with a Nava/Gomes platoon makes up for a lot of defense at a position that is not as important as others, especially with a big wall sheltering not so great fielding.
No, stooge, LF is a slugging position for profiles like Nava and Gomes and half the games aren't played in Fenway. And good OF defense is quite relevant in Fenway, where a lot more balls are going to driven by the slow footed Nava and Gomes. Bradley after 100 games tops these two old back bench profiiles.
LF is often a place MLb teams hide poor or average fielders. Fenway Park offers a unique opportunity to get away with less than great fielding for half a season's games, thereby minimizing the negative effect like no other park.
You, yourself, used the argument that Crawford's defensive skillset was wasted in Fenway, but now JBJ's defensive skillset is suddenly and urgently important.
You are a clown through and through