Poll

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

    Re: Poll

    In response to UnionFallsNY's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

            You have to admit that it is nice of Ben to worry about " player control " six years from now. I'm sure whoever the G.M. happens to be at that time , will thank Ben . Ben will probably be a " special assistant " in charge of player control with the Cubs by then.

     



    Bringing up prospects a few weeks later for financial reasons has been done many times by many teams. This is not Ben's invention. The rules were made to allow owners that option.

     



    I know , but that is what happens when dumb rules come into play. Why should 11 days in the minors equal another year of control. What sense does that make ?  I posted before that I can understand the Sox waiting until April 12 , to get that extra year.  I don't like it , but I understand it.  

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

    Re: Poll

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to UnionFallsNY's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

            You have to admit that it is nice of Ben to worry about " player control " six years from now. I'm sure whoever the G.M. happens to be at that time , will thank Ben . Ben will probably be a " special assistant " in charge of player control with the Cubs by then.

     



    Bringing up prospects a few weeks later for financial reasons has been done many times by many teams. This is not Ben's invention. The rules were made to allow owners that option.

     

     



    I know , but that is what happens when dumb rules come into play. Why should 11 days in the minors equal another year of control. What sense does that make ?  I posted before that I can understand the Sox waiting until April 12 , to get that extra year.  I don't like it , but I understand it.  

     



    those are the rules the league agreed on... it'd be silly to ignore it out of spite.

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

    Re: Poll

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    In response to UnionFallsNY's comment:

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

            You have to admit that it is nice of Ben to worry about " player control " six years from now. I'm sure whoever the G.M. happens to be at that time , will thank Ben . Ben will probably be a " special assistant " in charge of player control with the Cubs by then.

     



    Bringing up prospects a few weeks later for financial reasons has been done many times by many teams. This is not Ben's invention. The rules were made to allow owners that option.

     

     



    I know , but that is what happens when dumb rules come into play. Why should 11 days in the minors equal another year of control. What sense does that make ?  I posted before that I can understand the Sox waiting until April 12 , to get that extra year.  I don't like it , but I understand it.  

     

     



    those are the rules the league agreed on... it'd be silly to ignore it out of spite.

     




    If they ignored it , it would not be out of spite. It would be trying to win games by putting your best nine on the field.  Like I said , I fully understand why they would wait the 11 days. It makes sense in the long run.  However , the last thing we need is to get off to another lousy start.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Poll

    I vote for option Q.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Poll

    E

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

    Re: Poll

    In response to UnionFallsNY's comment:

    If a GM doesn't take advantage of saving $20 mil. by delaying to bring  up an AA player to the parent team for eleven days, should the owner fire the GM for imcompetence? That might be the subject of another poll thread. What would Billy Beane or Dan Duquette do in a similar situation. Of course, the owners would make the decision anyway. 




    Pretty sure Ben would check with the boss before making that call. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Poll

    Wow E ran alway with this. Democracy is great a write in candidate won big.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Poll

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Vote for one of the following choices:

    A. I want to see Bradley in the opening day starting lineup and not sent back to the minors so the Red Sox can try and save 2 or 3M a year over the next 7 years.

    B. I want Bradley to start the season in the minors so the Red Sox hopefully  save 2 or 3M a year over the next 7 years, and then call him up and start him after about 12 days or more in the minors

    C. I want Bradley in the opening day starting lineup, but I then want him sent down for at least 20 days early in the season to make sure the Red Sox hopefully save 2 or 3M a year over the next 7 years, and then call him back up and start him after 20 or more days in the minors

    I'll start:

    Softlaw votes for choice A

     



    B

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Poll

    e

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

    Re: Poll

    In response to ArtCarnie's comment:

    Ben Cherington outlined three criteria that will be taken into account with regard to Bradley.

    Will he play every day? Is he really ready for the majors? Does he make the Red Sox better?

    I say a resounding yes to all 3 !




    posted at 3/22/2013 8:42 AM EDT

    • 2004Idiot
    • Posts: 113
    • First: 3/12/2013
    • Last: 3/22/2013

    In response to carnie's comment:

    In response to ArtCarnie's comment:

     

    In response to ConanObrien's comment:

     

    spam

    and not even funny

     




     

    actually they're very funny.

     




    The only thing that's funny is that you actually think you might be fooling anyone.

     



    I repeat:
    Art Carney is regarded as one of the finest comic actors in television history.

     

    Comedy is very important in one's life. Art Carney is most remembered for the simple-minded, effusive, and charismatic character of Ed Norton who played a foil to Jackie Gleason's Ralph Kramden on the situation comedy The Honeymooners.

    I chose his name for my moniker in dedication to the smile he brought me and millions of fans of his.

    You are not Art Carney.

    Please do not confuse yourself with this great actor.

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

    Re: Poll

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Vote for one of the following choices:

    A. I want to see Bradley in the opening day starting lineup and not sent back to the minors so the Red Sox can try and save 2 or 3M a year over the next 7 years.

    B. I want Bradley to start the season in the minors so the Red Sox hopefully  save 2 or 3M a year over the next 7 years, and then call him up and start him after about 12 days or more in the minors

    C. I want Bradley in the opening day starting lineup, but I then want him sent down for at least 20 days early in the season to make sure the Red Sox hopefully save 2 or 3M a year over the next 7 years, and then call him back up and start him after 20 or more days in the minors

    I'll start:

    Softlaw votes for choice A

     


    A

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share