Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

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

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    You called me an idiot when I said TB could replace these players with minimal loss, and that they could gain at other positions, I was wrong. I admit it. They are actually doing better than the players they are replacing.

    It's June, the Rays have the same lousy record as the lousy 2009 Rays had. They are not "doing better than the players they are replacing". Get a life.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Without a doubt Mauer will sign for $17-18M.

    (Look, loser, you claimed the Twins couldn't afford him. No poster on this board ever stated precisely what Mauer would sign for. One poster named Softlaw said the Twins could afford him and would sign him, going as high as they needed to go to sign him. When you are loser who claims the Twins couldnt' afford him, the need for making things up is understood.

    I was right on the money, wrong on teh fact that the Twins could not afford him. You keep acting like I have denied I was wrong. Now, try admitting you were way off on the numbers, and hence your claim that the Twins could afford Mauer, at your percieved offer of $17-18M was equally wrong. You never said Mn could afford anywhere near what he ended up getting, so how were you "right"?

    Without a doubt AGon will not sign in early April.

    Without a doubt there was never any deal in place waiting to be signed as soon as the CBT capture opening day date passed. The deal was signed weeks after Beckett's, as Theo hedged and wanted to see AGon play more than just opening day. AGon and his agent could have ended Theo's GM career, and it's too bad they didn't. They are a class act, which is something I can't see for InEpstein.

    You specifically said AGon would not be resigned in April. He was and at exactly the amount that was mentioned in pre-talks during the contract talks at teh time of the deal. We were right-you were wrong. You just can't admit it.

    Without a doubt AGon will be extended at only $18M/year.

    Without a doubt AGon will get a deal that is almost exactly the same deal as Miggy got. AGon didn't have to sign any extension unless his final Padre deal year was upped. The deal includes this year in the average annual base and almost exactly the same base as Miggy. You are such a clueless mind. You were talking about Pujols and Howard and 25M a year.

    No, that was boom. Stop the lies. You pathetically backpedaled to include the current year to downgrade the yearly amount of the extension to get closer to your absurd salary projection. You try and change long-standing baseball terminology to suit your flimsy position. When a player signs an extension, nobody ever includes the current year when the deal and amount is included. This was one of you most absurd goalpost movements of all... and there have been some doosies.

    Without a doubt a 50-50 call means 100% chance AGon will be dealt this past winter.

    Without a doubt, 50-50 to the Red Sox and 100% sold out San Diego this winter was correct.

    Another bare-faced lie. (I see you have discarded you lie to cover other leis about you not being softy) Last summer, you said it was 50-50 that he would be traded at all. We continously prodded you to get off the fence. You never did. I even playfully said I'd take 51% he'd be dealt. You clung to 50-50.

    Ballgirld and Harness were in left field with you, claiming that the Padres and selling tickets and waiting until this summer was the way it would go down.

    They are not me, but I can see how a twisted mind can mix things up.

    In your case, you never said he would be 100% sold by the Padres this winter, instead claiming your pre-season comment about "if we get AGon and he might go" was some kind of worthy comment on the subject. You were out to lunch like you always are.

    My statements are no washed out by bannings like yours. They are still there. I even reprinted them for you several times... cricketts. Before the season ended I clearly said the season ticketselling  argument was a farse and that AGon would be dealt this past winter. I said the Sox were the best match and that SD would not take jake and Jed, but rather would want Kelly and Rizzo or and Kelly, Anderson and Bowden. I was almost exactly right. You were way off with your self-fulfilling fantasy dream of reidding the Sox of Jake and Jed.

    Without a doubt SD will ask for and get Jed and Jake for AGon.

    Without a doubt SD did ask for Lowrie and/or Bellsbury. It was leaked from a beat guy, true or not, that Bellsbury was on the table and was pulled off.

    So, now you take the word of "beat reporters" after bashing them years? Even if true, who "pulled it off" the table? You claimed the SD GM erred when he didn't demand your two percieved evil twins. Instead of admitting you were way off, you tried to claim the GM was "way off" and that you were actually right.

    Their is no way the Padres and the team needs didn't ask about those guys, but Theo, as I said, might not put them on the table. He should have, as he could have saved one or more of the 3 high level farm prospects he cut loose.

    "Their" is no way... ?
    Maybe you didn't (couldn't) get into Stanford and that's why you hate Jed.


    I called the deal almost exactly as it was, at the exact time it took place, and the extension at the exact amount and the date well within the timeframe I said would happen. You said a deal at all this past winter was 50-50, you said SD would get Jed and Jake, you said AGon would get an $18M extension, and you claimed he would not extend in April and would become a FA after this season. After all this, you still cling to the notion that I was wrong and you were right? The absurdity never ends with you, does it?

    Without a doubt BHall should have been resigned and Jed traded.

    True. Hall should have been resigned to the same role as 2010, Utility bench guy, as Scutaro money was already spent and Iggy was quality depth both before and after roster expansion. Lowrie could have been sold high as a slugging SS, for a solid RH young OF'er or catcher. Instead, the entire baseball world now knows that Lowrie is a butcher at SS who is a weak hitter v. RHP and has the constitution of Chinese auto glass.

    You contradict yourself within just one paragraph. I agree, the whole league knows Lowrie is a butcher at SS. They and I knew that all along. Why then would they give a "solid" OF'er or catcher for him? Someone not even as good as the recently released BHall would bring value in a trade?

    What a joke!

    Without a doubt Ellsbury would hit at his career average as he enters prime years.

    At or near, loser, no poster is going to say to the point what a player is going to end up from year to year. It's called career averages median and standard deviation, not that Bellsbury's numbers aren't almost exactly the same as his career averages. "Enters prime years" is another one of your meaningless phrases, along with "aren't going away". He's declined in relation to 2007 snipet, and he's declines this year against LHP.

    2011  BA .291  Career BA .291 (Same)
    2011 OBP .346 Career OBP .355 (Near)
    2011 SLG .445 Career SLG .411 (Up slightly, but declining since the early swing for the fences approach was ordered to stop because his early 4 homers came at the cost of the Mendoza line)

    Funny, how just a week ago, you said the year's sample size was too small, but now suddenly it is large enough to compare to 2007. The kid had 127 PAs in 2007. He had a great month, and yet you set that as the point to decline from? You bashed me for saying Oki declined from his first year, at least his first year was a legitimate sample size.

    Besides, the data shows most players follow an "S-Curve" not a "Bell Curve" as many assume, maybe you missed that. Most players start out at a certain level, then dip slightly the 2nd or 3rd year, then begin to rise into their prime, then level off, andthen fall off into their "wheelchair" years, if they were good enough to hang on past prime.

    Jacoby's OPS has followed the S-Curve very closely (not counting small sample size injury 2010 year):
    .902 (small sample size 2007)
    .729 (2008)
    .770 (2009)
    .819 (2011 small sample size)
    He should improve towards .850 or so through ages 28-32, then drop off. He may end up having just slightly better career numbers than he has now, depending on how long his career lasts and how much his latter years bring down his numbers, but there are very high odds he does better the next 3-4 years than he has done in 2009 and thus far this year.

    His OB% has gone up from .336('08) to .355 to .362 (2011).
    His Slg% has risen from .394('08) to .415 to .457 (2011)
    His OPS: .729 />.770 />.819
    Looks like an upwards trend to me.

    2011 v. LHP BA .233 OBP .299 SLG .350 (Way down from career averages)

    Now you are using small sample splits to make a point? You never cease to amaze me with your clown logic.

    His career UZR is well below average.

    I have never said Jacoby is even an average fielding CF'er.

    This guy is the same overhyped prima donna he will be until management runs out of time`on the arbitration clock.

    With all the money mortgaged on Crawford, his days are numbered as the Red Sox need a solid young RH Of'er and the economy continues to free fall despite smoke and mirrors and excluding gas from the CPI (printing money and debt is why gas is way up)

    It's nice you have joined me on the wastefulness of the CC deal.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Hellickson's ERA is now down to 2.64.

    He is now 7-3!

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

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    So what. Where is Tampa, in early June...................

    Hellickson hasn't pitched enough times to prove anything. Let's see where he is at year end and in the next year or two.

    If the Rays "go away", I suggest you go away.

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

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Just remember come October, you called Hellickson a " longshot" at ever doing as well as Garza.

    You said Farnsworth could never come "close to Soriano numbers".

    You called CC the most "overrated player in MLB", the said TB could not ever replace him and would be "hurt badly by his loss".

    You called Pena a key player that could "not be replaced" easily. His numbers were horrid in 2010. Almost any ML 1Bman could beat his 2010 numbers.

    You said Joyce was a "loser" and would never "amount to anything".

    Too bad all your posts are erased. I'm sure you will deny it all come October.

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

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Helleckson was clearly a stud prospect even last year. Softy just didn't see it coming.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    ...and Matt Joyce had 10 Hrs in 216 ABs last year and an .837 OPS at age 25. For this, he called him a "loser".
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Maybe he called Matt Joyce a "loser" because he went to the great "good ole boy" liberal bastion of Florida Southern College.

    There seems to be a patter of anti-intellectualism by the clown.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Maybe you and the Rays are big losers, with bad memories.

    Rays pen implodes, the absurdity of claiming that the Rays could lose the season Crawford and Soriano had and "do better", according to you. The Rays do not have the luxery of a slow start. They are in big trouble, already.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Back to single game sample sizes again...brilliant.

    I never said TB would be better.

    I said they could replace the players lost at "minimal loss". I never said better.

    I said "maybe" they could improve at other positions and would be "in it to the end". I gave a specific projection of wins (90-92). That is not"better than last year".  Look it up..."do the math".

    Your lies never end.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    In Response to Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3:
    Maybe you and the Rays are big losers, with bad memories. Rays pen implodes, the absurdity of claiming that the Rays could lose the season Crawford and Soriano had and "do better", according to you. The Rays do not have the luxery of a slow start. They are in big trouble, already.
    Posted by SoxSoldRed

    With Sunday's win over the Rays, my humble Seattle Mariners have taken a series from each of the five AL East teams this season (despite being swept at Baltimore).

    The Mariners might not finish .500 this season, but the M's are not headed for their third 101-loss season in four years.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Whiney wimpers, Moonslow, that's about all that last comment was. When it's your sample size, such as a few weeks in the season, it's important. When it's the last 10 games or more, it's "a one game sample". Give it up, old man.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    It was you who said the sample size was too small, but 4 games later, now the sample size is enough.

    I'm starting to understand how clown logic works now.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Good. Please explain it to me.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    It has to do with assuming the opposite of what is logical.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Still waiting for softy to defend his "Joyce is a loser" position.

    I suppose he will now deny ever saying it.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Tampa is a loser, I've never ready any post that Joyce is a loser. Is he Crawford in 2010? No he is not.

    I did ready a comment that Lowrie has been a loser his entire career. He was hyped at Stanford, and they would get beat in the post season.

    Both you and Tampa are nice match. Two losers who have a big emtpy space when it comes to meaningful work.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    You wrote the post that Joyce was a loser: I predicted a denial, and here it is.

    "Ready" this: you are a liar and a scammer.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Hell, Moon, that's common knowledge.
    Of course he's a liar. Of course he's a scammer.
    I was expecting clown logic to be some kinda revelation.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    I never wrote anything of the kind. I did write that Lowrie is the face of a loser.

    Ready for this:

    Moonslow, you are a liar and a scammer.

    Your board bully tactics won't work with me, old man.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3



    Why, I nevah wrote dat!

    I'm innocent!!!

    It was dat dang Softlaw fellah...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Why I never guaranteed that AGon would be a Padre for opening day 2011. Alright, I did, but I lied about it. Well, maybe I did, but Varitik has give up 18 runs in his last two pitching starts. That's a small sample, though, a big sample is the tear that Varitik has been on at the plate and in the nightclubs.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    CERA 3.35 to 4.80...about what VTek's lead over VMart was.

    Funny how voodoo is so consistent.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxSoldRed. Show SoxSoldRed's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Funny who voodoo is 44 runs in his last 8 "starts".
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Tampa Bay is Not Going Away: Part 3

    Funny how you can't count and that even with so many runs over his last 8 starts, he's still a run and a half up on Salty in the bigger sample size.

    8 game sample size or VTek but not Wake? For Wake the timeframe has to be sepcifically from mid 2009 to present. For Jake and Jed: career will only do. For BHall: just 2010. For Coco: just 2 seasons from long ago. For Dice-K and Oki: we must only look at 2007-2008; it i forbidden to look at 2009-2011 like we must for Wake.

    Funny ho you don't even see this as goalpost moving.

    Funny how you are now saying that my projection of TB wins this year of 90-92 is saying that I said they would "improve" from 96 wins of 2010.

    I knew they coulkd improve on Pena's numbers: you doubted it. I knew Joyce would hold his own: you called him a "loser", presumably because he went to college. I never said Farnsworth would do as well as Soriano did in 2010, but said as a group, the replacement players couldhold it to a "minimal loss" and that "maybe" the rest of the team could step it up. Iprojected a 4-6 game "decline", but said that because of increased AL balance, 92 games might win the WC, meaning TB will be "in it to the end" and "not go away". You projected 2-3 less wins and call me an idiot for daring to project slightly higher than you.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share