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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    The Strasburg Decision, eh?  Isn't that one of the events that led to World War II?  

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    What is the big deal--the question is:

    "Is JBJ one of the top 25 Sox players breaking camp?"

    If he is in the estimation of the GM,Mgr. and the coaches he is on the team...

    We are not talking five years down the line we are talking today. 

    If Boras and his agency are still in the picture for Bradley, like Ells, if he reaches FA deal with it then.  He may have been traded for some great player before he reaches FA--just like Ells might be traded before FA. Ells has had a few good arb years leading up to FA--if Bradley is good enough he will get the same treatment from the Sox. I don't know Bradley but I get the impression he is more of his own person. If he does well and the Sox offer him a contract like Pedroia's or Youk's or Lester's--he will be more inclined to take it especially as he sees Ells go through his final ST before FA.

    If the decision is made to send him to the PawSox or SeaDogs it will be made for all the right reasons as well. He is a nice talent and I for one would like to enjoy seeing him play ASAP.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas' comment:

    The Strasburg Decision, eh?  Isn't that one of the events that led to World War II?  



    Franco-Prussian War.

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    This is silly Strasburg was coming back from TJ. Unless they plan to hold Lackey back this year it does not relate to the Sox.

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to ArtCarnie's comment:

    Ask yourself, does JB make this club better? The answer is yes.

     



    How much bette does 25 weeks of Brsdley make the team as opposed to 23 weeks of Bradley? 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    If we had an urgent need for Bradley right now, I'd say forget the extra year down the line and do what's necessary. But I think we can make do with Gomes, Nava, Carp, etc. for a couple of weeks...despite the hysteria, calling Bradley up in mid-April as opposed to April 1st isn't going to make or break this team. (And for those who think it would...if Bradley is really that good, one would think it would be unwise to ignore the possibility of having him under team control for an extra year in exchange for just keeping him in the minors a couple of weeks longer.)

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to ArtCarnie's comment:

    Ask yourself, does JB make this club better? The answer is yes.

     




    As usual, your baseball acumen is off the charts Edith.

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas' comment:

     

    The Strasburg Decision, eh?  Isn't that one of the events that led to World War II?  

    Perhaps you meant the Strasbourg Decision ?

     



    Franco-Prussian War.

     




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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    Or maybe the Strat Borg decision , as in which strategery to employ when "Resistance Is Futile " ?

     

    Futile also expecting logic , clarity , or consistency from Geo , Softy, Bill008, et al.

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Geo is on the money.

    I'll take Bradley and Middlebrooks and Buch over anyone else on this team.

    Despite the claims, no position player for the Red Sox has had that many spring training PA and put up those numbers. While it doesn't mean he won't have an adjustment period in the majors, it does mean that he would join Middlebrooks and Buch as the most talented players on the team.

    It's ironic that expecations are so low, but Ellsbury is now one of the longest tenured Red Sox players.

    Bottom line, no one wants to see Ellsbury's act and the other tired old acts. Fans, correctly, want to see the new young leadership, and all eyes will be on Middlebrooks. Putting Bradley in the minors to bean count 7 years from now is complete incompetence. He provides team with new chemisty and new leadership. These old retreads are old loser acts discarded into dumpster ore getting ready to leave town.

    Anyone protesting 10M for one year of control of S. Drew? Of cousre not.

    The sooner the Red Sox owner put his best new face on the field with Middlebrooks, the sooner the loser aura and old retreat rerun act will give way to the excitement of one of the core member of the new Red Sox. Once management ran the white fllag up the pole in the middle of last season, it signified a half a decade of managment incompetence. Some of the old loser faces are still parasites on this team. The sooner they get a new OF face, the better.

    Making the 2013 opening day image those same old loser face retreats is an embarrassment. 150 million plus a year to roll that garbage back out.



    You were against Ellsbury when he was new and young and part of a WS champion. "Loser acts" Ellsbury and Victorino have WS rings.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to georom4's comment:

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/170547/postmortem-now-infamous-and-indefensible-decision-sit-stephen-strasburg#

    Lesson learned - Play your best players and take nothing for granted...there is no guarantee you will ever get back to where you think you should be, or will be.

    If the Sox team leaves their best player in Spring Training behind for "control" it will be a idiotic decision...The people who argued for Rizzo's decision last year were proved wrong (100 games won for what???) and this Bradley decision is a no brainer as well...the problem is that Ben has no brains and the sheep here will carry the water for no matter what...

     



    As always, you got the Strasbourg decision compleely wrong.

    Had they put Strasbourg on the playoff roster, he bumps off the SP with the worst ERA, which was Jackson.  Jackson pitched a shutout in the playoffs.

    So you're suggesting the Nats would've won the playoffs if they replaced a guy that pitched a shutout?

    Always fun to pick apart your opinions.

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    "So you're suggesting the Nats would've won the playoffs if they replaced a guy that pitched a shutout?

    Always fun to pick apart your opinions."

    Ha ha Joe go easy on him man - that was a quick and fast annihilation. 

     

    Geo I'm wondering if we can take this further and find a way to blame it on Francona? There must be a way....

     

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    "So you're suggesting the Nats would've won the playoffs if they replaced a guy that pitched a shutout?

    Always fun to pick apart your opinions."

    Ha ha Joe go easy on him man - that was a quick and fast annihilation. 

     

    Geo I'm wondering if we can take this further and find a way to blame it on Francona? There must be a way....

     



    Nah -- we're talking about pitchers.

    It was Beckett's fault.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    You were against Ellsbury when he was new and young and part of a WS champion. "Loser acts" Ellsbury and Victorino have WS rings.


    Ellsbury wasn't any starter or leader on the 2007 team. Lugo has a ring, too. Ever since they named that prima donna a season starter the Red Sox have been an embarrassment.

    As for Shane, he's in decline is a loser that his last two teams have had enough of. He needs to retire.




    Refresh my memory, who was actually starting in CF for the Red Sox during the 2007 playoffs?

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    Bradley had an 800 ops at AA last year with 8 steals.

    And he is the Red Sox best player.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

     

    "So you're suggesting the Nats would've won the playoffs if they replaced a guy that pitched a shutout?

    Always fun to pick apart your opinions."

    Ha ha Joe go easy on him man - that was a quick and fast annihilation. 

     

    Geo I'm wondering if we can take this further and find a way to blame it on Francona? There must be a way....

     

     



    Nah -- we're talking about pitchers.

     

    It was Beckett's fault.



    this actually made me laugh

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    "So you're suggesting the Nats would've won the playoffs if they replaced a guy that pitched a shutout?

    Always fun to pick apart your opinions."

    Ha ha Joe go easy on him man - that was a quick and fast annihilation. 

     

    Geo I'm wondering if we can take this further and find a way to blame it on Francona? There must be a way....

     



    There are certainly arguments for starting JBJ while Papi is on the DL.  None of us really know enough for that decision, but I'm in favor of it.

    I'd give you the reasons for it, but I'm amused by seeing Geo flounder around.

    Hint-The reason isn't that Strasbourg's replacement pitched a shutout in the playoffs.  That's actually the argument against starting JBJ.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

     

    I'd give you the reasons for it, but I'm amused by seeing Geo flounder around.

    Hint-The reason isn't that Strasbourg's replacement pitched a shutout in the playoffs.  That's actually the argument against starting JBJ.

    [/QUOTE]

    actually joey im certain of my decision...just as i argued that the nats would lose in the playoffs despite winning 100 games if they pulled this idiocy, and that middlebrooks should keep his job and send youk packing...

     

    you? argued against both moves....why would you be right about Bradley?

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    I'd give you the reasons for it, but I'm amused by seeing Geo flounder around.

    Hint-The reason isn't that Strasbourg's replacement pitched a shutout in the playoffs.  That's actually the argument against starting JBJ.



    actually joey im certain of my decision...just as i argued that the nats would lose in the playoffs despite winning 100 games if they pulled this idiocy, and that middlebrooks should keep his job and send youk packing...

     

    you? argued against both moves....why would you be right about Bradley?

    [/QUOTE]

    I was right on both decisions.

    Unless you can argue that Strasburg would've pitched better than Jackson's shutout, and unless you can argue against the laws of physics and that Strasburg would've been credited for two wins in he game that Jackson won, then you have no argument.  Unless the laws of physics cease to exist in your cranium.

    Middlebrooks did well, but what did that get us?  Is last place any more comfortable winning 69 instead of 68?

    And since you asked nicely about why I am right about Bradley, the reason why I'd start him is because there isn't much downside.  A minor leaguer is taking the #13 slot on offense either way.  So why not keep JBJ up for a couple of weeks to see what he can do and excite the crowds a bit.  And if does well, it means we don't have to rush Papi.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

     

    I'd give you the reasons for it, but I'm amused by seeing Geo flounder around.

    Hint-The reason isn't that Strasbourg's replacement pitched a shutout in the playoffs.  That's actually the argument against starting JBJ.

     



    actually joey im certain of my decision...just as i argued that the nats would lose in the playoffs despite winning 100 games if they pulled this idiocy, and that middlebrooks should keep his job and send youk packing...

     

     

    you? argued against both moves....why would you be right about Bradley?

     



    I was right on both decisions.

     

    Unless you can argue that Strasburg would've pitched better than Jackson's shutout, and unless you can argue against the laws of physics and that Strasburg would've been credited for two wins in he game that Jackson won, then you have no argument.  Unless the laws of physics cease to exist in your cranium.

    Middlebrooks did well, but what did that get us?  Is last place any more comfortable winning 69 instead of 68?

    And since you asked nicely about why I am right about Bradley, the reason why I'd start him is because there isn't much downside.  A minor leaguer is taking the #13 slot on offense either way.  So why not keep JBJ up for a couple of weeks to see what he can do and excite the crowds a bit.  And if does well, it means we don't have to rush Papi.

    [/QUOTE]

    joey, what effect do you think the nat players felt when they worked all season long and dominated only to realize that their ace (although i know Gio was as impressive if not more) was not going to pitch in the postseason? imagine the Marlins shutting down beckett in rookie year or the sox ditching schilling in 2004....would that be Ok with you?

    this is what you never get...the big picture...just like with beckett - oh its only chicken and beer they all do it...and then when the cancer spreads and affects the TEAM, you fall back on individual stats to try to explain it away....make no mistake about it - the nationals blew it by shutting down Strassburg (when is the last time the Sox won 100 games?) that was an epic choke (like the 2011 Sox) and the GM failed the team and the fans....

    JB situation certainly isnt as dire, and if the sox send him down for control, so be it - and if the sox were a contender and loaded at the position, that would make sense...but after a 69 win season and new guys having av avg age of 30something? forego the control, let him start and rip it up...

    btw, what logic are you talking about? were the nationals a better team with or without Strasburg playing?

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    The team owners worry about the health of young players because these are their future meal ticket.

    But, in case no one has noticed, older veterans are spending way too much time of the DL.....past players J.D. Drew, Matsuzaka. Ellsbury, Ortiz,Youkilis, Jeter, A-Rod, Lackey...this is small sample of the two teams we watch closest.

    Where is the concern about veterans health?....it is less of an issue because these are players on the way out. The teams have capitilaized on the talents of these players and now are hoping they go away and make room for younger, cheaper players.

    You know darn well the Yankees do not count on A-Rod to help them win anything. He is a loser. But, his celebrity factor sells tickets. He is a big name, a living, breathing soap opera in a human body.

    Drama and celebrity sells advertising and tickets. Nobody gives a damn about an exciting ballgame anymore.....well the real baseball fams do, but it is not about us anymore. It is about raking in enormous amounts of money by selling the game to the pedestrtian fan.

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

    Re: Remember the Strasburg Decision? How did that work out for the Nats?

    If they wait, as of one month later, no one will ever again care about or talk about the decision. If they don't wait, it will be talked about for 6 years, and will cost them even in terms of trade value if they ever decide to go that route (imagine if they could have sat Ellsbury for 9 games (that's what we're talking about, right? sheesh) at the beginning of his career and had his rights for another year).

     

    As long as they win at least 3 of the games, it's not even really debatable. Let's work backwards, though. What if it was only 8 games? 7? 6? 5? 4? 3? 2? 1? Where is your line? No line at all? Ridiculous.

     

    Meantime we'll have a few games to let the overpriced free agents show what they are capable of which can also be useful for the team as they make future roster decisions. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share