Standing Myth Debunking Thread

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

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    los  your "panama red" avatar would border on misdemeanor sin if it were actually a woman, but having now realized its you and you have not hit the gym in 10 years I can say it serves only as physical comedy.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from losmediasrojas. Show losmediasrojas's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    In Response to Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread:
    [QUOTE]los  your "panama red" avatar would border on sin if it were actually a woman, but having now realized its you and you have not hit the gym in 10 years I can say it serves only as physical comedy.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    You're still avoiding the question, BurritoT.  Did you, or did you not, hang up Yaz's jockstrap? 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    Nope, harness claimed the orioles were for real and were going to finish in 2nd place in the division.

    Not debunked, as this is true.

    Harness also guaranteed that AGon would be in a Padre uniform on opening day 2011.

    See the list, for my additional Harness claim, propaganda folllowed by many. This CERA claims was also debunked.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    No - the jock strap is a personal item - and because Yaz stood up the entire organization in the Spring of 1999 I only made sure his locker was kept ready.... I assume Yaz had his strap with him wherever he was.

    As it is told more than once, Yaz only shows up when he feels like it.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    I must have missed the whole jockstrap thing...sounds like an interesting story to tell..
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    1) Jake could not sustain a .340 OBP for a whole season. (debunked)

    As a reader of this board, long before my first post, that was never claimed on this board. What was claimed is that Bellsbury would be lucky to have a career OBP of .340, much less be the on-base machine that you said he would be.

    2) Jed has "no pop". (debunked)

    Lowrie has 16 career homers from 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Power includes all extra base hits. Pop is about home run power.

    Lowrie has Pop (debunked)

    3) Mauer would take $16-17M to play for MN. (debunked)

    No such claim was ever made. This is your false claim to cover your embarrassing claim that the Yankees deep pockets meant the Twins couldn't afford Mauer. That was debunked. Mauer had hometown connections and HOF'er Puckett's agent, as well as the new stadium and a solid hometown fanbase that I was intimately familiar with. No matter how many times one other poster explained that to you, you kept repeating the myth that the Twins couldn't afford Mauer. You are one of the dim bulbs on this Board, Schlep-Slav.

    4) Oki did not decline from 2007 to 2010. (debunked)

    Obviously Oki was not in decline in 2007. No one posted that Oki was the pitcher he was during that high stress impact integral part of a championship season that Wakefield has never had. "In decline" is a meaningless phrase that is used to say a player is washed up, like Wastefield is. Oki was not washed up.

    You claimed because he was "in decline" he would not be resigned for 2011. This was debunked. I have listed his performance log since coming off the DL in late summer last season, and it's a lot better than the squat spot Wakefield's 5 plus ERA performance. Had Wakefield been Japenese, he'd have been gone many years ago.

    You champion the anti-Japenese Red Sox fans, a majority, who make bigoted comments about how they are aloof and need to make an effort not to speak through translation. Your "in decline" comment is an example of your bigotry.

    No one is in greater decline that good ole boy Tim Wastefield. His 5 plus ERA since the last of 2009 is proof of that. If Oki had done that since 2009, he would have been shown the door in 2010. Not good guy Tim, the guy who isn't arrogant and who drinks beer and plays golf with people like most Red Sox fans.

    5) Dice-K was the right choice to start in the 4 games of May, 2010. (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made. You bitterly and hatefully attacked DiceK and claimed the following:

    Tim Wakefield should be in the rotation for the first half of 2010. (Debunked)

    DiceK was the correct choice, as Wakefield was horrible in 2010. You are still having a temper tantrum about that.

    6) Cutting Wake after 2007, because he was too old. (debunked)

    That can't be attributed to me, and can only be attributed to a few others who are vastly outnumbed by the Wastefield is valuable on the roster fan club.

    7) Cutting Wake after 2008, because he was too old. (debunked)

    Same response as 6

    8) Cutting Wake after 2010, because he is too fat and old. (debunked) 

    Wakefield deserves a roster spot after the back surgery (debunkued)

    Wakefield has been horrible since last half of 2009, and an isolated decent start here or there while putting up a big simple plus 5 ERA does not change how horrible good ole Timmy has been. 

    9) We don't need starter depth this year. (debunked)

    That statement wasn't made on this board.

    Wakefield deserves an active roster spot for 2010 (debunked)

    Wakefield deserves an active roster spot for 2011 ( ? )

    This year, Wakefield has been squatting with the de facto DL mop role you claim he is being "misused" in. Now that a starter DL has taken place, good ole Boy Timmy was the first guy back in the rotation to face the Cubs, after sitting for almost 2 weeks!

    5K admits that Wakefield has no useful role in the pen, and that when Lackey returns if Aceves is performing better than Wakefield (Aceves is doing so), Wakefield returns to the de facto DL wasting a roster spot. To claim that Atchison and other equal or better options (to a 45 year old pear) weren't available to face the terrible offense of the Mariners or most of the Cubs who haven't seen a lot of AL pitchers, that is nonsense.

    For your sanity, only, I've put a ? beside Wakefield deserving a 2011 roster spot. As the Rays will "go away", so, too, will Wakefield put up year long aggregate ERA numbers that would send almost any other pitcher packing.  

    10) Beckett was the reason we lost in 2010 and was "washed up". (debunked)

    Beckett and Slackey were the reason why the 2010 didn't make the playoffs.

    There has been no statement that Beckett was "washed up". In fact, the statements have been that his fat embarrassment of 2010 meant he needs to earn his money for a change. So far, he has shown up in better shape and is doing that.

    11) Theo should not have extended Beckett. (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made. The statement was that no extension offer of the current contract length and base should have been made at the beginning of the season. Had they waited they could have had Beckett signed to a fraction of the current cost on a very long deal for a power pitcher in his 30's. Beckett had not had an elite pitching performance year since 2007 and his market value would either stay the same as it was in the spring of 2010, or more likely go down because of the shape the guy was in. The now familiar photo did him justice, in early 2010.

    12) Lugo's .237 BA in 2007 helped us win a ring. (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made.

    Lugo was the wire to wire SS for 2007. If he was as bad as Wakefied has been and been the total waste of a roster spot you and most Red Sox fans claimed, it would have been impossible for him to play good enough defense at the most athletically difficult defensive position in baseball.

    13) Coco's 2 good years in Cleveland meant anything. (debunked)

    No statement was made that his 2 best years in Cleveland would translate to career averages for contract value in Boston. What was said is that Crisp had 2 back to back years of .300 hitting and 16 homer seasons that Bellsbury will never have. I said that Crisp should have started 2008 and because he started in the majors in his early 20's and was already beyond arbitration cost control yeras, he whould be traded at the end of 2008. I was right, Crisp had a better season than Bellsbury in 2008, despite being put in the doghouse where Red Sox fan disliked looking players who are not performiing at a high league level are frequently put.

    14) Management's decision to use Wake as "mop up" proves he is washed up, but the same management's decision to put Oki on waivers doesn't mean anything. (debunked)

    Not debunked. Hard to claim that Oki was washed up with the list of outings he has had since the late summer of last year. What Theo tried to do was get another team to swap a decent pen lefty player and pay Oki's frieght. When the GM's assumed Oki would become a FA and decline a minor league assignment, and Oki would get paid twice, Theo ended up going through with his new lefty reject, anyway. 

    Are you submitting that Oki is "washed up"?
       
    15) Papi should be sent to AAA on a "fake DL/rehab" move in May of 2009. (debunked)

    No such statement was made. What was stated was that if Ortiz continued to struggle through the month of June, that should be the course of action.

    You claimed he was "washed up" and needed to be moved down in the batting order and if he didn't start hitting he should be DFA.

    Of course, you also perpetuated the myth that Ortiz can't hit Lefty pitching anymore. (Debunked)

    16) SD would not want Kelly and Rizzo for AGon. (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made. Who was on the table and who SD preferred amongst arbitration cost controlled current MLB profiles and farm talent has never been nor will it ever be revealed for a very long time because that's not how baseball business is done.

    What was said by one poster is that the Padres would solicit offers and sell AGon to the highest bidders, with the Red Sox likely to be the highest bidder for 2011. It was stated by one poster that AGon was 100% going to be traded to the highest bidder, last winter. You stated that he might be traded but supported almost the entire board by saying that the Padres might wait until the 2011 trade deadline to see if they could sell tickets and make another post season run like they did in 2010 and missed out on the last day of the season.

    You supported an idiot on this board named "ballgirl", and another idiot on this board named "harnut", who claimed:

    1. Ballgirl -  "Agon will remain a Padre and will be retained to sell 2011 tickets"

    2. Harness - "I guarantee AGon will be a Padre on opening day 2011"

    notin and Softlaw and a few others were the only baseball minds that have a clue about the business and the game. You most certainly don't.

    17) AGon would not be extended in the first few weeks of the 2011 season (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made. It was claimed that the deal was done. A statement was made that the Red Sox were hedging and no deal was done as they were going to wait and see if AGon's shoulder held up. They had exposure because AGon and his agent could have ditched the negotiating parameters and demanded more by the Red Sox shirking the risk.

    The agent stated that the Red Sox wanted to first see if Agon was health, and he didn't blame them for it. AGon turned out to be a better man than Theo, because he should have turned the screws on Theo for hedging.

    The statement was made that, like Beckett 2010, it was a done deal that was just waiting to be signed right after the CBA capture date on opening day. (debunked)

    The deal was not signed until after weeks of AGon having to prove that he was healthy enough after shoulder surgery.

    One poster claimed that the shoulder surgery increased the chances AGon would be dealt, and was all the more reason for the Red Sox to do the essential last winter deal that was obvious they had to do to lock down the next superstar franchise face. This same poster said not to sign Mark Tex and said the Yankees would sign him if the Red Sox tried to. That poster was correct on all accounts.

    The board claimed the shoulder surgery meant that AGon would not and should not be traded for last winter. (debunked)

    18) AGon would get $17M/year on an extension. (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made. A poster said that this was the beginning point of the negotiation, with Miggy as the comparative market value to use, not Tex. This poster was correct as the 6M first year is wrapped in front of a 7 year extension that makes the deal less than Tex and almost exactly the same base as Miggy. It can't be measured without amortizing the 6M because Agon did not have to agree to include that in the extension agreement. He could have demanded 7 year extension for more than Tex's 8 year base, to make up and insure he was paid what Tex was paid. Had he done so, Theo would have had to capitulate, and he would have.

    I have more respect for Agon than Theo, by far.

    19) Crawford can play RF. (debunked by himself by saying he cant even play LF well)

    No such statement was ever made. Crawford, when he doesn't mail it in, can play any OF position more than adquately. He has little value in LF, on the defensive side of the ball. Going forward, a Kemp or J. Upton should take over the LF spot, with Crawford's speed being utilized in RF. Frankly, unless he puts in several years of solid CF duty, his 142M contract value is even more laughable. That's a superstar contract cost. Crawford is no superstar, nor will he ever be. I've said, over and over, Crawford will likely return to around his career average ranges by year end, but that doesn't make this contract any less of a big mistake.
    20) VTek handles the pitchers no better than VMart. (debunked)

    Not debunked. Buch and VMart debunk that, for a catcher who was brought in where he had to deal with some anal retentive pitchers like Beckett. The Angels manager had it right, it's like a caddy. It's more adjusting to a new face and personality than anything else.

    VTEk "handles" is meaningless. Pitchers pitch, Varitek doesn't "Handle" anything.

    New catchers require an adjustment from old pitchers, and personalities create some good marriages and bad marriages. Ultimately, a catcher must understand that it is the pitcher who is pitching, and the catcher must do everything possible to stay out of the hot buttons on any pitcher and stay out of the pitchers way. "Hand holding" like mother is required from some pitchers, through ups and downs, other pitchers simply want Varitek to shut up. Aceves is one of those veteran pitchers, with Buch, who simply wants Varitek to shut up.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    You really took the time to undebunk the debunk from Moon?  You need to get out more.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    Beckett's 2009 season was every bit as 'elite' as Burnett's 2008 season, the one that yielded him the 5 year, 82.5 million deal.  If Beckett had pitched to his potential in 2010 like he is this year he could have been in line for a Cliff Lee deal.  To suggest that he could have been signed for a 'fraction of the current cost' is ludicrous.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    What's ludicrous is how stupid you are. If a frog had winds he could fly. There is no way Beckett was getting any Cliff Lee deal, as his career potential was consistently inconsistent. His deal was capped at where it ended up, on the 2010 market, and the odds were that his market value would go down. He would have been signed to a fraction of the cost had Theo simply waited. 

    Long way to go this season, and I consider Lester and Buch to be the superior pitchers. The good news is that Beckett has been earning his money, this year. He owes money back, from last year.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    Let me try this debunking myths.

    This is one of the most idiotic threads on this board. (De ...

    I guess I'm not as good as others. I can't debunk it.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    In Response to Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread:
    [QUOTE]What's ludicrous is how stupid you are. If a frog had winds he could fly. There is no way Beckett was getting any Cliff Lee deal, as his career potential was consistently inconsistent. His deal was capped at where it ended up, on the 2010 market, and the odds were that his market value would go down. He would have been signed to a fraction of the cost had Theo simply waited.  Long way to go this season, and I consider Lester and Buch to be the superior pitchers. The good news is that Beckett has been earning his money, this year. He owes money back, from last year.
    Posted by SoxSoldRed[/QUOTE]

    More opinion stated as fact.  Had Theo waited, Josh may have decided to pitch for his next deal instead of signing.  Even off a mediocre 2010, he would have gotten a nice deal because of the need for starting pitching.  Theo showed loyalty because of Lester's deal.  It was the perfect move which is why Theo runs the team and you do not.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    I think Jim's post of you taking the time to undebunk Moon's debunked is a classic.
    So, this thread does have a chance to clear the v-omit bag.
    What's humiliating is starting a thread to justify UR stance on several issues - then making statements: No such statement was ever made.
    Your posts have and will continue to be banned, so this is all futilely repetitive.

    For the record, CERA voo-doo was debunked, canned, and sent packing for the Charles river. The data is over-whelming. So is UR lack of knowledge in this area.

    I said the O's were my dark horse. At 43-1, they are a great bet to
    1) finish 2nd, and/or
    2) finish ahead of NY, and/or
    3) win 90 games.

    Do I need to explain what a dark horse projection is?
    I predicted they will be major contenders. You said they are pretenders.
    So far, they are at .500 in the best division on the planet. They are 3 games out. And they have yet to hit or reap the benefits of their projected #2 starter, who has been hurt.

    My projection of AGONE was right. The timing was wrong. I took that stance to show you are cowardly UR's  50/50 stance. No guts.

    I said the Sox would win 100 games in 2009. I was wrong. Does it matter?
    I said the 2010 team would end up with the best road record in a decade. I was wrong. Does it matter? Do I have to start threads like this or post after post to show where I was wrong or right?

    I said the team would go after CC hard. You said they would not go after him. Should I start a thread about this? What you don't understand - what you will never  understand - is that going to such lengths to preserve perceived credibility only results in diminishing it.

    You parade around this board like a fool bashing players who are doing well: Pointing fingers of prejudice to deter from the fact you backed the wrong horse time and time again.

    I got a news flash for ya: I've backed more wrong horses in my lifetime than anyone here. All that matters is enjoying the ride...And backing the few that matter.


    To those who missed the great Yaz jockstrap debate, it was a true classic, made funnier by Burrito's serious stance.

    On Burrito's behalf, his posts lately have been pretty good. He only regresses when he falls back into his PRIVATE FORUM fetish - or backs the Softone, who he knows is coming loose with his own personal vendetta against the world. But if it's sprouts from seeds of empathy, then I understand.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    In Response to Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread:
    [QUOTE]I think Jim's post of you taking the time to undebunk Moon's debunked is a classic. So, this thread does have a chance to clear the v-omit bag. What's humiliating is starting a thread to justify UR stance on several issues - then making statements: No such statement was ever made . Your posts have and will continue to be banned, so this is all futilely repetitive. For the record, CERA voo-doo was debunked, canned, and sent packing for the Charles river. The data is over-whelming. So is UR lack of knowledge in this area. I said the O's were my dark horse . At 43-1, they are a great bet to 1) finish 2nd, and/or 2) finish ahead of NY, and/or 3) win 90 games. Do I need to explain what a dark horse projection is? I predicted they will be major contenders. You said they are pretenders. So far, they are at .500 in the best division on the planet . They are 3 games out. And they have yet to hit or reap the benefits of their projected #2 starter, who has been hurt. My projection of AGONE was right. The timing was wrong. I took that stance to show you are cowardly UR's  50/50 stance. No guts. I said the Sox would win 100 games in 2009. I was wrong. Does it matter? I said the 2010 team would end up with the best road record in a decade. I was wrong. Does it matter? Do I have to start threads like this or post after post to show where I was wrong or right? I said the team would go after CC hard. You said they would not go after him. Should I start a thread about this? What you don't understand - what you will never   understand - is that going to such lengths to preserve perceived credibility only results in diminishing it. You parade around this board like a fool bashing players who are doing well: Pointing fingers of prejudice to deter from the fact you backed the wrong horse time and time again. I got a news flash for ya: I've backed more wrong horses in my lifetime than anyone here. All that matters is enjoying the ride...And backing the few that matter . To those who missed the great Yaz jockstrap debate, it was a true classic, made funnier by Burrito's serious stance. On Burrito's behalf, his posts lately have been pretty good. He only regresses when he falls back into his PRIVATE FORUM fetish - or backs the  Softone , who he knows is coming loose with his own personal vendetta against the world. But if it's sprouts from seeds of empathy, then I understand.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Thanks Harness.  I think all of this is in vain in regards to Softy.  Others feel the need to be right.  JD Drew is my example.  Some like the guy, most don't.  I understand that and accept it.  I root hard for him and hope he proves those who don't like him wrong.  What that usually does is make them like him even less.  The part I don't get is that people WISH he fails so they can bash him rather than being happy he contributed.  Softy does this in regards to Jacoby and Lowrie.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    In Response to Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread : Thanks Harness.  I think all of this is in vain in regards to Softy.  Others feel the need to be right.  JD Drew is my example.  Some like the guy, most don't.  I understand that and accept it.  I root hard for him and hope he proves those who don't like him wrong.  What that usually does is make them like him even less.  The part I don't get is that people WISH he fails so they can bash him rather than being happy he contributed.  Softy does this in regards to Jacoby and Lowrie.
    Posted by jimdavis[/QUOTE]

    Softone's reason for this is high-lighted, Jim.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    In Response to Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread:
    [QUOTE]I must have missed the whole jockstrap thing...sounds like an interesting story to tell..
    Posted by southpaw777[/QUOTE]


    I was trying to use my time working for the RS as a weapon to make a point and instead had it flipped back on me and .... well a year later some still bring it back up.

    I could tell the story I tried talking to Byun-Hyung Kim over the phone while he was on rehab in Ft. Myers.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from canetime. Show canetime's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    In Response to Standing Myth Debunking Thread:
    [QUOTE]1. The O's are for real (Debunked) 2. The Rays aren't going away and will contend until the last game (?) 3. Ortiz can't hit LHP anymore (Debunked) 4. Ellsbury is the next Ted Williams (Debunked) 5. Ellsbury is the next Ichiro (Debunked) 6. Ellsbury is an On-Base Machine (Debunked) 7. Ellsbury is a gold glove defensive CFer (Debunked) 8. Twins cant afford Joe Mauer (Debunked) 9. Lowrie is an elite MLB SS ( ? ) 10.AGon will be selling tickets as a Padre on opening day 2011 (Debunked) 11. DiceK will have Tommy John surgery & Red Sox career over ( ? ) 12.Wakefield is a quality starting pitcher and innings eater (Debunked) 13.Lowrie is a steady and solid defensive SS (Debunked) 14.Lackey was solid ##2 or #3 starter FA signing (1.2 Year bust & ?) 15.Varitek can play 2 or 3 more years ( ? ) 16.Crawford is a #3 hitter (Debunked) 17.Crawford was a smart contract offer at 142M because he was the best available on the market and the Red Sox needed another OF ( ? ) OBP currently under .300 BA  18.April 30 hysteria that Red Sox are in trouble and won't make the payoffs (Debunked) 19.Bard needs to be the 2011 closer, over Papelbon (Debunked) 20.Santana to the Red Sox (Debunked) 21.Red Sox favorites for Tex (Debunked) 22.CERA is proximated cause of Pitching performance (Debunked)  
    Posted by SoxSoldRed[/QUOTE]
    WAKE makes afool out of you again,ha ha ha ha ha Cool
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    In Response to Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread : I was trying to use my time working for the RS as a weapon to make a point and instead had it flipped back on me and .... well a year later some still bring it back up. I could tell the story I tried talking to Byun-Hyung Kim over the phone while he was on rehab in Ft. Myers.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    Please do. It's a slow night. But warn me if I'm gonna need an interpreter.
     
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    Yep, looks like #12 about Wakefield has been fully re-bunked.  Two straight high-quality wins with about 14 total innings eaten. Laughing
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    Yup, Wake officially undebunked #12.  Softy is left with nothing.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from losmediasrojas. Show losmediasrojas's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    We're all awaiting the Lee J. Softlaw breakdown post. 

    http://youtu.be/s83RoxfwPFg

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

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    As much as seeing Lee J. Softlaw coming apart at the seams would satisfy the multitudes, I have resorted to what Paul Newman said upon learning that he finally won his over-due oscar: I'm tired.

    I'm tired of seeing the same strip-tease act - regardless of who's actually doing stripping.

    I'm tired of the cyberspace world according to the guy we know as "Softlaw".
    I'm tired of reading about one who constantly has to bring all this attention to himself - and will do anything  to get it.

    I'm tired of not only seeing the same thing in all his threads and posts - but in those directed at him which fulfill the same purpose.

    But mostly, I'm tired of watching the regression of a one-time decent poster become nothing more than a bore - a shadow of himself. I'm as guilty of contributing to it as anybody here. It's just getting old.

    There has to be more to the board than this. The team is playing well, but on this forum, they are playing 2nd fiddle to a master baiter.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    In Response to Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread:
    [QUOTE]As much as seeing Lee J. Softlaw coming apart at the seams would satisfy the multitudes, I have resorted to what Paul Newman said upon learning that he finally won his over-due oscar: I'm tired. I'm tired of seeing the same strip-tease act - regardless of who's actually doing stripping. I'm tired of the cyberspace world according to the guy we know as "Softlaw". I'm tired of reading about one who constantly has to bring all this attention to himself - and will do anything   to get it. I'm tired of not only seeing the same thing in all his threads and posts - but in those directed at him which fulfill the same purpose. But mostly, I'm tired of watching the regression of a one-time decent poster become nothing more than a bore - a shadow of himself. I'm as guilty of contributing to it as anybody here. It's just getting old. There has to be more to the board than this. The team is playing well, but on this forum, they are playing 2nd fiddle to a master baiter.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]The is an ancedote for this exhaustion with cronic trolling Harness. See below



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

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    I know Katz. I never thought I'd be so close to putting the banned messiah on IGGY, but the non-iggy IGGY isn't working.

    We've become addicted to his baiting. I think a forum half-way house is in order.
    We can call it the IG - a place to dry out: a clinic offering cyberspace morphine.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    Wow, a long passionate response from someone who claims he isn't softy.
    SRS is not softy (debunked)

    1) Jake could not sustain a .340 OBP for a whole season. (debunked)

    As a reader of this board, long before my first post, that was never claimed on this board. What was claimed is that Bellsbury would be lucky to have a career OBP of .340, much less be the on-base machine that you said he would be.

    Moving goalposts again. You started out saying Jake could not sustain a .330 OBP for 2009, then moved it to .340, then moved to career numbers after you were proven wrong, again.

    2) Jed has "no pop". (debunked)

    Lowrie has 16 career homers from 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Power includes all extra base hits. Pop is about home run power.

    Lowrie has Pop (debunked)

    You did not coin the word "pop". You may think you did, and your ego takes over. Jed has more extra base hits than per AB than almost anyone else on the team....yes, CAREER! (many PAs with a hurt wrist)

    3) Mauer would take $16-17M to play for MN. (debunked)

    No such claim was ever made. This is your false claim to cover your embarrassing claim that the Yankees deep pockets meant the Twins couldn't afford Mauer. That was debunked. Mauer had hometown connections and HOF'er Puckett's agent, as well as the new stadium and a solid hometown fanbase that I was intimately familiar with. No matter how many times one other poster explained that to you, you kept repeating the myth that the Twins couldn't afford Mauer. You are one of the dim bulbs on this Board, Schlep-Slav.

    So, you want us to believe you are nnot softy, but yet you read all of softy's posts that are now erased, and never made a post until recently? A bsag of wind like you staying slient for months? (Debunked again duded) Softy said Mn would sign him for $17M max. He was way off and now his alter ego is pretending to defend his other personality. This is getting twisted.

    4) Oki did not decline from 2007 to 2010. (debunked)

    Obviously Oki was not in decline in 2007.

    Try reading comprehension 1A.

    No one posted that Oki was the pitcher he was during that high stress impact integral part of a championship season that Wakefield has never had. "In decline" is a meaningless phrase that is used to say a player is washed up, like Wastefield is. Oki was not washed up.

    I never said he was washed up, harness did. I wanted Oki back and you called me a racist because I used ytour own criteria (ERA) to say he declined from 2007 to 2010. Your lies are getting so plentiful, i wonder if you even can ytell the truth about the weather.

    You claimed because he was "in decline" he would not be resigned for 2011.

    Unlike yours, my posts are not banned or erased. Find where I said that. You are a liar.

    This was debunked. I have listed his performance log since coming off the DL in late summer last season, and it's a lot better than the squat spot Wakefield's 5 plus ERA performance. Had Wakefield been Japenese, he'd have been gone many years ago.

    More racist drivel.

    You champion the anti-Japenese Red Sox fans, a majority, who make bigoted comments about how they are aloof and need to make an effort not to speak through translation. Your "in decline" comment is an example of your bigotry.

    Bare faced liar. I like Oki and wanted him back. You use ERA as your only tool to judge pitchers. I pointed out that OKI's ERA went down every year from 2007 to 2010, and somehow that is racism to you. Yes, there are people here who hate Oki and Dice because of their race and mixed loyalties. I have never taken that side and find it repugnant.

    No one is in greater decline that good ole boy Tim Wastefield. His 5 plus ERA since the last of 2009 is proof of that. If Oki had done that since 2009, he would have been shown the door in 2010. Not good guy Tim, the guy who isn't arrogant and who drinks beer and plays golf with people like most Red Sox fans

    You cherry pick the timeframe. You said Wake should retire after 2007: he then had his best 50 start stretch of his life. (again you were debunked)

    5) Dice-K was the right choice to start in the 4 games of May, 2010. (debunked)

    A 7.89 ERA was not the right choice. Dice was coming off an injury with too little rehab. That was my position, and Dice got lit up in games that counted instead of in rehab.

    No such statement was ever made. You bitterly and hatefully attacked DiceK and claimed the following:

    Tim Wakefield should be in the rotation for the first half of 2010. (Debunked)

    Lies. Funny, how now you have even changed your lie. A few months ago, you swore I said I wanted Wake to start all year, now you can't even remember your lies correctly.

    DiceK was the correct choice, as Wakefield was horrible in 2010. You are still having a temper tantrum about that.

    6) Cutting Wake after 2007, because he was too old. (debunked)

    That can't be attributed to me, and can only be attributed to a few others who are vastly outnumbed by the Wastefield is valuable on the roster fan club.

    Softy is not SRS (debunked)

    7) Cutting Wake after 2008, because he was too old. (debunked)

    Same response as 6 (Yes, same softy)

    8) Cutting Wake after 2010, because he is too fat and old. (debunked)
     

    Wakefield deserves a roster spot after the back surgery (debunkued)

    Wakefield has been horrible since last half of 2009, and an isolated decent start here or there while putting up a big simple plus 5 ERA does not change how horrible good ole Timmy has been. 

    So, it's back to only ERA? Apply ERA criteria to Miller, the guy you want starting now. Clown debunked.

    9) We don't need starter depth this year. (debunked)

    That statement wasn't made on this board.

    Wakefield deserves an active roster spot for 2010 (debunked)

    Wakefield deserves an active roster spot for 2011 ( ? )

    This year, Wakefield has been squatting with the de facto DL mop role you claim he is being "misused" in. Now that a starter DL has taken place, good ole Boy Timmy was the first guy back in the rotation to face the Cubs, after sitting for almost 2 weeks!

    5K admits that Wakefield has no useful role in the pen, and that when Lackey returns if Aceves is performing better than Wakefield (Aceves is doing so), Wakefield returns to the de facto DL wasting a roster spot. To claim that Atchison and other equal or better options (to a 45 year old pear) weren't available to face the terrible offense of the Mariners or most of the Cubs who haven't seen a lot of AL pitchers, that is nonsense.

    For your sanity, only, I've put a ? beside Wakefield deserving a 2011 roster spot. As the Rays will "go away", so, too, will Wakefield put up year long aggregate ERA numbers that would send almost any other pitcher packing.  

    Others had options, now we find out we have needed everyone. Having "17 not 19 pitchers is a good idea" (debunked)

    10) Beckett was the reason we lost in 2010 and was "washed up". (debunked)

    Beckett and Slackey were the reason why the 2010 didn't make the playoffs.

    There has been no statement that Beckett was "washed up". In fact, the statements have been that his fat embarrassment of 2010 meant he needs to earn his money for a change. So far, he has shown up in better shape and is doing that.

    11) Theo should not have extended Beckett. (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made. The statement was that no extension offer of the current contract length and base should have been made at the beginning of the season. Had they waited they could have had Beckett signed to a fraction of the current cost on a very long deal for a power pitcher in his 30's. Beckett had not had an elite pitching performance year since 2007 and his market value would either stay the same as it was in the spring of 2010, or more likely go down because of the shape the guy was in. The now familiar photo did him justice, in early 2010.

    You weren't here, but your buddy softy said he should never be extended clear as day. He called him fat and lazy. He blamed him and "slackey" for the team's loss last year. He singled out the same players you do. Hmm.... Now his alter ego lies and distorts more than ever.

    12) Lugo's .237 BA in 2007 helped us win a ring. (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made.

    Lugo was the wire to wire SS for 2007. If he was as bad as Wakefied has been and been the total waste of a roster spot you and most Red Sox fans claimed, it would have been impossible for him to play good enough defense at the most athletically difficult defensive position in baseball.

    You should be cited for plagiarism. Your worse than Biden. "Wire to wire" was softy's bizarre comment. He was wrong then and now you are too. We won despite Lugo, not because of him. He did his best and tried hard, but his production almost kept us from even making the playoffs.

    13) Coco's 2 good years in Cleveland meant anything. (debunked)

    No statement was made that his 2 best years in Cleveland would translate to career averages for contract value in Boston.

    Again, you ASS-ume I said something I never did. You (softy) said Jake had less potential than Coco, because Crisp had already had 2 "big years" in Cleveland and had "proved what he can do". He never did it again. He never came close. He was 10 times the fielder jake can even dream of being, and that we agreed on, but you clearly said Crisp would do better offensively than Jake. Over and over and over again. Those years in Cleveland meant nothing...just like I said. Just like Jete's 5 GGs mean nothing, except to clowns.

    What was said is that Crisp had 2 back to back years of .300 hitting and 16 homer seasons that Bellsbury will never have. I said that Crisp should have started 2008 and because he started in the majors in his early 20's and was already beyond arbitration cost control yeras, he whould be traded at the end of 2008. I was right, Crisp had a better season than Bellsbury in 2008, despite being put in the doghouse where Red Sox fan disliked looking players who are not performiing at a high league level are frequently put.

    Yes, you did say they should trade Crisp. You keep lumping me with those who lied about that one part of your record. I have never disputed you saying the Sox should keep jake and trade Crisp, but about a week later your non-stop trade Jake rants began, so what the H3LL.


    14) Management's decision to use Wake as "mop up" proves he is washed up, but the same management's decision to put Oki on waivers doesn't mean anything. (debunked)

    Not debunked. Hard to claim that Oki was washed up with the list of outings he has had since the late summer of last year. 

    Back to the 2 game sample sizes when it suits you. Again, you repeat lies. I never said Oki was washed up and wanted him here this year. I still want him on the roster and think he will be back this year to save some of Wake's games.

    What Theo tried to do was get another team to swap a decent pen lefty player and pay Oki's frieght. When the GM's assumed Oki would become a FA and decline a minor league assignment, and Oki would get paid twice, Theo ended up going through with his new lefty reject, anyway. 

    Are you submitting that Oki is "washed up"?

    No, I mearly was pointing out that by your criteria and faulty logic, you claimed Wake was washed up because management only used him in a mop
    role, and so I tried to show you how twisted you logic is, by saying that management obviously thinks less of Oki to put him on waivers and send him to AAA. Why not give Oki the mop up role?  You've been "stumbling" so long now, you don't know what stability is anymore. 

    15) Papi should be sent to AAA on a "fake DL/rehab" move in May of 2009. (debunked)

    No such statement was made. What was stated was that if Ortiz continued to struggle through the month of June, that should be the course of action.

    More bare-faced lies, but again a slight change in your lie from

    before. You said it, then tried to say I said it as you totally denied saying anything like it, and now this half admission of your bizarre positions. Now you pretend to be Papi's alltime best supporter. What a clown!

    You claimed he was "washed up" and needed to be moved down in the batting order and if he didn't start hitting he should be DFA.

    Total lie. I said he should be moved down: he was, and that is when he started hitting and hasn't looked back since. You said moving him down would be an insult, then tried to defend sending him to AAA as less of an insult.

    Of course, you also perpetuated the myth that Ortiz can't hit Lefty pitching anymore. (Debunked)

    You going by a 1/4 season sample size now? Those goalposts must be made out of Balsa wood.

    16) SD would not want Kelly and Rizzo for AGon. (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made. Who was on the table and who SD preferred amongst arbitration cost controlled current MLB profiles and farm talent has never been nor will it ever be revealed for a very long time because that's not how baseball business is done.

    You said Jake and Jed. I said Kelly and Rizzo, and when the deal went down, instead of admitting you were wrong and I was dead-on right, you said the SD GM was an idiot for not asking and demanding they take your package. Clown logic debunked again.

    What was said by one poster is that the Padres would solicit offers and sell AGon to the highest bidders, with the Red Sox likely to be the highest bidder for 2011.

    You said it was a 50-50 chance he would even be traded at all this winter. I said he'd be traded before the 2010 season was even over. You tried to say I said what others said. Your statements were debunked then as they are agin now under your new name.

    It was stated by one poster that AGon was 100% going to be traded to the highest bidder, last winter. You stated that he might be traded but supported almost the entire board by saying that the Padres might wait until the 2011 trade deadline to see if they could sell tickets and make another post season run like they did in 2010 and missed out on the last day of the season.

    Show me where I said that. I said the whole season ticket sales thing was a myth, because the fans knew AGon would be traded. I named teh exact names that would be dealt and the timing. I named the exact timing of the extension. You were wrong, wrong, and wrong, and now try to spin a web of deceit. We all know we tried for weeks to get you off your "50-50" fence last year. You never budged until reports came out the deal was in the works: you then said it was a 50-50 chance he'd be traded to Boston, not traded at all. Classic post moving nonsense...debunked then and now.

    You supported an idiot on this board named "ballgirl", and another idiot on this board named "harnut", who claimed:

    1. Ballgirl -  "Agon will remain a Padre and will be retained to sell 2011 tickets"

    2. Harness - "I guarantee AGon will be a Padre on opening day 2011"

    notin and Softlaw and a few others were the only baseball minds that have a clue about the business and the game. You most certainly don't.
     
    Just because I agree with harness on CERA does not mean we have never disagreed. My comments are still archived...look on the realistic thread around mid to late September last year. I was saying SD might trade AGon since the winter before, but we both agreed it was not a fit at that time, and that the next winter was ripe for the deal. You know that was always my position or you are going senile.

    17) AGon would not be extended in the first few weeks of the 2011 season (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made. It was claimed that the deal was done. A statement was made that the Red Sox were hedging and no deal was done as they were going to wait and see if AGon's shoulder held up. They had exposure because AGon and his agent could have ditched the negotiating parameters and demanded more by the Red Sox shirking the risk.

    The agent stated that the Red Sox wanted to first see if Agon was health, and he didn't blame them for it. AGon turned out to be a better man than Theo, because he should have turned the screws on Theo for hedging.

    The statement was made that, like Beckett 2010, it was a done deal that was just waiting to be signed right after the CBA capture date on opening day. (debunked)

    The deal was not signed until after weeks of AGon having to prove that he was healthy enough after shoulder surgery.

    One poster claimed that the shoulder surgery increased the chances AGon would be dealt, and was all the more reason for the Red Sox to do the essential last winter deal that was obvious they had to do to lock down the next superstar franchise face. This same poster said not to sign Mark Tex and said the Yankees would sign him if the Red Sox tried to. That poster was correct on all accounts.

    The board claimed the shoulder surgery meant that AGon would not and should not be traded for last winter. (debunked)

    I never mentioned any shoulder surgery, and was dead right on the timing of the deal.

    18) AGon would get $17M/year on an extension. (debunked)

    No such statement was ever made. A poster said that this was the beginning point of the negotiation, with Miggy as the comparative market value to use, not Tex. This poster was correct as the 6M first year is wrapped in front of a 7 year extension that makes the deal less than Tex and almost exactly the same base as Miggy. It can't be measured without amortizing the 6M because Agon did not have to agree to include that in the extension agreement. He could have demanded 7 year extension for more than Tex's 8 year base, to make up and insure he was paid what Tex was paid. Had he done so, Theo would have had to capitulate, and he would have.

    I have more respect for Agon than Theo, by far.

    You moved the goalposts after the deal was made. You never once said count the already signed year in the formula when we debated it last year. Nobody ever counts the year under contract when they talk about what the extension is. You are trying to change the vernacular of baseball to suit your ever-changing psoitions and continued wrong calls. Every time a player is extended in any sport, they list the dollars and years of the extension-they never include the current year(s) of the old deal. You are silly to think anyone is buying this attempt at slight of hand.

    19) Crawford can play RF. (debunked by himself by saying he cant even play LF well)


    No such statement was ever made. Crawford, when he doesn't mail it in, can play any OF position more than adquately. He has little value in LF, on the defensive side of the ball. Going forward, a Kemp or J. Upton should take over the LF spot, with Crawford's speed being utilized in RF. Frankly, unless he puts in several years of solid CF duty, his 142M contract value is even more laughable. That's a superstar contract cost. Crawford is no superstar, nor will he ever be. I've said, over and over, Crawford will likely return to around his career average ranges by year end, but that doesn't make this contract any less of a big mistake.

    You and Ram and Boom went on for days and days about this issue. They said he never played a day in RF, while Jake had. You claimed he'd be a good RF'er, but now you are saying he stinks as a LF'er. Talk about changing in mid-stream.

    20) VTek handles the pitchers no better than VMart. (debunked)

    Not debunked. Buch and VMart debunk that, for a catcher who was brought in where he had to deal with some anal retentive pitchers like Beckett. The Angels manager had it right, it's like a caddy. It's more adjusting to a new face and personality than anything else.

    VTEk "handles" is meaningless. Pitchers pitch, Varitek doesn't "Handle" anything.

    New catchers require an adjustment from old pitchers, and personalities create some good marriages and bad marriages. Ultimately, a catcher must understand that it is the pitcher who is pitching, and the catcher must do everything possible to stay out of the hot buttons on any pitcher and stay out of the pitchers way. "Hand holding" like mother is required from some pitchers, through ups and downs, other pitchers simply want Varitek to shut up. Aceves is one of those veteran pitchers, with Buch, who simply wants Varitek to shut up.
     
    You still don't even get what CERA is. Your ignorance is shining bright.

    In closing, I think it is ironic that the person who had to change his moniker almost every week, was always proud to let everyone know he was still the same old softy. Now, after nearly every position he has held is blowing up in his face as we speak, suddenly he creates new monnikers and denies he was that person, so he can disavow the clown positions as not being his. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Standing Myth Debunking Thread

    You really took the time to undebunk the debunk from Moon?  You need to get out more.

    He must really think highly of this "softy" guy, huh?
     

Share