Why remove Wake?

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    " And, for the record, Varitek has trouble catching the ball, period, not just Wakefield's goofball." Time to put Softy on ignore. It's the double identity thing (very condescending to all of us who know you are the same person) that has pushed me over the edge.  That and the Wakefield broken record thing. I'm not sure you're wrong about Wake but the amount of times you trollishly hammer your views on this has become trollishly unbearable. Too bad, as I'll miss some of your sharper insights but this is just too much.  I'll check back on you in six months or so and see if you've become less redundant.
    Posted by BostonTrollSpanker


    Then put him on ignore. This is about the 5th time you've said that.
    There is no way Wakefield will ever get the record. Maybe he is dillusional. If we remember how selfish he got last year with the same role, he's probably sits in the bullpen hoping for one of the other starters to get injured or to become incompetent.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Wakefield turns 45 in a few months.

    The team is down 4-0 in late innings. Not quite a meaningless situation, but not exactly a close game at the time. Management has no confidence in him other than a blowout or big margin game. They are wasting a roster spot to keep him as starting pitching depth. Given what Wakefield is, this is GM malpractice on the use of an active roster spot.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Even when the goofball is working, every batter can still easily run the bases with every Wakefield pitch with 2 strikes. In the pen, Wakefield is a total waste of a roster spot. Holding him as the #9 (doubrant, Aceves, Miller & Bowden & Atchison) starter depth is complete GM malpractice and "good guy" homerism.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from REDSOX-11. Show REDSOX-11's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    When it's a close game leave it to the little league manager to make the wrong choice. He is an expert at it.


    In Response to Why remove Wake?:
    He had the easiest of 1-2-3 innings. I said this when I saw Bard warming up. Would he have removed any other reliever after such an easy, low-pitch inning? Does Tito share in Softlaw's bias against Wake?
    Posted by harness

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Natick-Ned. Show Natick-Ned's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Both GM and Softlaw detest "Ad Hominem" insults to their narcissism and ego. Leave them alone. Let both of them establish a forum identity with hatred of half of their team and especially Jake and Jed. It is their fragile attempt at establishing a forum identity. Let them be.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    To Joel49: I'm glad you mentioned that. Posting these thoughts on the game thread allows a poster to make this point ahead of time. That's the beauty of the game thread.

    Unfortunately, I don't get involved in them (superstition). But I had three reasons for starting this thread:

    1) The flow of the game is an intangible. The proper move can often be felt  because you become as one with the pulse of the game. I didn't think about roles or Bard's heat.
    I saw how the O's hitters reacted to Wake. He was pitching effortlessly. 13 pitches. To me, you bring him back. If someone gets on, have someone ready in the pen to come in. (BTW: Tek was handling Wake flawlessly. He had one passed ball with Bard, and quickly retrieved it to get the key out at the plate.
    The other was a mix-up on signals. I'm willing to bet Bard forgot the signals changed once that guy got to 2nd base). 

    Now, if I thought about it beyond the flow of the game, of course it makes perfect sense to go with Bard. A good manager has to know when to go by the book, and when to go by his gut.

    2) Defining players by their roles is becoming a farce, and it's being structured by salary more often than not. That's a real shame. And it has obvious drawbacks.

    3) Tito is deploying a 193-game winner in janitorial service. Would another manager have done that to Clemens or Cy Young at the end of their careers?
    Atchison was lucky to make the team last year. By August, he worked himself into setting up games and even closing some out.
    Would Tito ever give Wake that opportunity if he performed as admirably as Atchison did last year?


    I guarantee you that any one of the other pitchers in the pen, from Aceves to Albers, would pitch more meaningful innings once they got into Tito's good graces.
    Roles are still interchangeable if performance/situation dictates.

    But not for Wake.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from kbev97. Show kbev97's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    Both GM and Softlaw detest "Ad Hominem" insults to their narcissism and ego. Leave them alone. Let both of them establish a forum identity with hatred of half of their team and especially Jake and Jed. It is their fragile attempt at establishing a forum identity. Let them be.
    Posted by Natick-Ned



    Ad Hominen, I remember it well. So the old fool finally changed his moniker. I am surprised. Is he still the forum designated basher of Ellsbury and are the regulars still taking the bait as usual?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Do we get 4 more of these copy/paste posts?
    Or can we expect 6 threads ?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaffyDan. Show DaffyDan's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I don't believe this thread is still going on...

    Wake did his job.

    Bard didn't. 

    Todays game they might get another chance. Then again, they might not. 

    It really is that simple. 

    -Daf. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    No, Daf. It's not as simple as that.
    Read this thread.
    It's all about role playing and bias.
     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    No, Daf . It's not as simple as that. Read this thread. It's all about role playing and bias.
    Posted by harness

    I did read it.

    It's a bunch of overthink and personal insults, but you're entitled to your opinion :)

    -Daf. 

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

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Oh. I see, Pike. One should never question "the plan".
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    Oh. I see. One should never question "the plan".
    Posted by harness


    harness, I was fine with bringing Bard in, but I like threads like this.  Nothing wrong with some analysis. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from kbev97. Show kbev97's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Anything new on the prospects at Pawtucket and Portland?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    I think many posters are so channelled by second-guessing, they assume every thread will follow suit. I'm glad you see this for what it is, Hfxsoxnut.

    Managers are supposed to follow protocol set forth by the FO.
    The accepted is now to go with 5-man rotations and have defined BP roles. And while the evidence to limiting pitch count is valid, adopting this practice for all has many drawbacks. It's like an office worker not daring to buck policy, even though he would be more productive doing things his own way.

    The game has clearly evolved, but there are some elements to it that haven't changed. Relievers are being asked to be effective from pitch one. It doesn't work that way.
    Anybody who has ever gripped the seams knows this to be true.
    Relievers have little to no margin for adjustment. The demands on them are great when the game is in the balance.

    Sooner or later, some manager/GM is going to have the balls to challenge this system. And that will open the door to other forms of approach.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from eggplants. Show eggplants's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

                            If anyone in Baltimore last night was so not ready for a tying 3-run HR it was "T". He already threw in the towel by bringing in "Wake". He had no vision at all he'd have a shot at winning that game. Now he has to do what he gets paid to do, manage! Instead he can't read what "Wake" just did as a positive, he looks at the score board, sees it's the 8th inning, and Bard's name flies into his head. This is Bard's inning. Let's play along with "T's" thinking on this. Instead of rushing to get Bard in, let "Wake" pitch to the first batter in the bottom of the 8th. That gives Bard more time to warmup and get ready. After Bard is ready then you bring him in. Instead "T" rushes Bard in, he ( Bard ) gives up 3 consecutive hits, and a run which proved to be the winner. Was there another option after Bard if Bard falters? If there was, I didn't see him warming up. This is classic "T" managing, he has the uncanny ability of being able to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.                                                                      I'm watching tonights game. How about pinch hitting McDonald, maybe the best bunter on the team, for Scutaro and getting Lowrie into the game? Not a bad idea you say? This idea never crossed his mind. Why? Games like this are not his cup of tea. But wait , JE just blooped a single to centerfield to extend the Sox lead to 6-2, thats more like it , watch "T" go now. Think we can hold on for a W?                        
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    This isn't about one win or one loss.
    It's about managers' bias.

    It's about managers not having free reign to defy the conventional. The system is becoming more stringent than ever.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    In Response to Re: Why remove Wake?:
    I'm watching tonights game. How about pinch hitting McDonald, maybe the best bunter on the team, for Scutaro and getting Lowrie into the game? Not a bad idea you say? This idea never crossed his mind. Why? Games like this are not his cup of tea. But wait , JE just blooped a single to centerfield to extend the Sox lead to 6-2, thats more like it , watch "T" go now. Think we can hold on for a W?                        
    Posted by eggplants


    You're pretty harsh.  I admit I was thinking about McDonald too, but we already pinch hit Cam for Drew, so if you do this you burn your last outfielder and that could be a problem in a game you already have the edge in.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from kbev97. Show kbev97's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Did you ever eat the Eggplant Parnesian at Momma Leone's in New york City. It is out of this world and the antipasta and Chianti were superb. You really need to try it the next time that you are in the Big Apple. Tell Maria Signetelli that I sent you there.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    This argument is a non-starter.  Bard will very likely prove to be a much better pitcher over almost any period of time.  Oki had a nice 1/3 of an IP in his last outing, but that doesn't mean he comes in in the 9th.

    Bard was the best setup in BB last year.  You don't pull him from that role just because Wake had a good inning.

    Maybe if Wake has another good inning, we can give him Paps' job.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from kbev97. Show kbev97's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Last year's CERA thread was like the EverReady battery - it never runs out. This thread has a dead battery. Dottie send this thread to the the cooler.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?



    Unfortunately for Wakefield, I think the FO is sending him a clear message....right or wrong.

    Because of the iconic reputation Wakefield has in New England, the FO won't do anything to tarnish it's reputation.  They will just choose for Wakefield to quietly disappear.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    Well AMP, I can think of better ways to put such a valued player for so many years out of his misery.


    Joe: Try to look beyond role playing. If your car is working fine on cheap gas, do you feel the need to put in high-test?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChrisHouse. Show ChrisHouse's posts

    Re: Why remove Wake?

    This thread has a contrarian flavor to it. Softlaw got beat to the punch.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share