Yankees Expect a Bidding War over Elite WAR Ratings for 2012 FA Tim Wakefield

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Yes, Burrito, dim wits always make my case.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    Yes, Burrito, dim wits always make my case.
    Posted by softylaw


    "Wastefield" is currently the "#3" starter on this team - a team contending for a world title.

    You and UR dupe are contending for basket case of the year.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Are we still doing this? Perhaps if Ells hits .400 we can still do it for him as well.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from HankukSox. Show HankukSox's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    Are we still doing this? Perhaps if Ells hits .400 we can still do it for him as well.
    Posted by nhsteven


    We are still doing this because softybylaw, has no understanding that there are some players that every team needs based purely on economic facts.  The Sox stack up where they can.  Because it has proven effective and reliable, they go with a 6th starter who doesn't suck.   But, softyandcoleslaw can't see beyond his own nose, and can't reason beyond...  Well..  Simply can't reason.  Those like softcraw can't figure out why a team would keep someone who isn't an ace, because they feel that all the team's money should be spend securing five aces.  The rest should be spent buying their h***** a few hundred shots of blow.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    Hey imagine if you all decided to avoid the thread, what then? Think about it dumb-dumbs.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from HankukSox. Show HankukSox's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    Hey imagine if you all decided to avoid the thread, what then? Think about dumb-dumbs.
    Posted by BurritoT


    You have a good oint there Burrito...  A reallly good point.  I let myself be dragged in by moldslaws ranting.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    Hey imagine if you all decided to avoid the thread, what then? Think about it dumb-dumbs.
    Posted by BurritoT


    Hey, many people like to have a good argument.  Don't you?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield : "Wastefield" is currently the "#3" starter on this team - a team contending for a world title. You and UR dupe are contending for basket case of the year.
    Posted by harness


    harness,

    Do you make up everything you post?  Lackey is our #4 at the moment behind Bedard and Wake #5.  Here is more proof for you to ignore that again proves you wrong.  Scroll down to where it says depth chart, then come back and twist what you originally said around to make it look like we didn't understand you again.

    http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/player/tim-wakefield/84940
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    craze4sox you have my undivided allegiance any time you school Mr. Insomnia.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    We're not talking about 2008/2009

    You used 2011 to "prove" Wake wasn't hurt in 2010. I don't see why one can't use 2007-2009 numbers to "prove" 2010 was an injury and injury-recovering year
    ...
    We are discussing 2010/2011. Wake's ERA/WHIP from last year to this aren't vastly different. At least, not like they were when he was pitching hurt after the 2009 AS game through the end of the season

    And you wont accept the massive decline in Lackey's numbers from 2005-2008 and 2010-2011...Every stat, not just ERA..

    If he hadn't been shuffled back and forth last year and poorly deployed, I'm betting his 2010 numbers would equal his current ones, minus W/L record.

    He was limping and clearly in pain in the latter half of 2009. He talked about it often. I've not seen or heard him say one word about being in pain in 2010 or 2011. You are only assuming

    He was limping in 2010...noticably. Just becazuse he doesnt whine and pout like lackey, doesn't mean he wasnt hurt. Besides, being on the DL does not prove Lackey was hurt. When he came back, you discounted his bad games,e ven though he was playing-you wont do the same for Wake.
    .

    You are also assuming Theo's expectations about Lackey. How the hell do you know what he thinks? 

    Because they had Lackey ahead of Wake in the rotation (Wake actually not in it). You are kidding yourself if you really think Theo/Henry and Tito expected this.

    What if it was Henry's decision and Theo fought it but lost?

    Again, reaching for straws
    .
    SLOT numbers are for slot players. It's about performance, not who's projected where. Was Josh projected to have a 5+ ERA last year?

    Yea and No, but he was clearly hurt and he has been up and down his whole career
    .
    Was Buch projected to sit out the 2011 PO's?

    I don't see the connection.


    UR perception of Lackey's under-performance is based on: 
    1) Him pitching hurt in April/May. He was DL'ed. That's why he had the cort. shots in his elbow

    No, it is based on his overall numbers vs what I expected.
    .
    2) Your misconception of the kind of pitcher he is. He's the same pitcher he was in CA once adjustments are made. Just as AGONE is from his Petco numbers translating to Fenway

    Prove it. How do you know he hasn't declined on his own?

    His WHIP since then is in line with his 2010 numbers, which are in line with his CA numbers once adjusted. His ERA is skewed by one outing. Otherwise, it's similar to 2010

    They are not. 

    They are way off, and you are counting lackey's first 2 years in LA. Look at lackey's 2005-2010 numbers, his age, and that is more like what to expect ( before park adjustments).

      "Being blinded by one stat (ERA) is not an excuse"
                                                                  
    Moonslav59

    Being blinded to every stat being in steep decline is uneasonable.


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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    softylaw love how you set the thread trap and they all come pouring in with their hatchets out, nicely done.
    Posted by BurritoT

    Love how you defend the village idiot.

    The fact is, it is softy who jumps at the chance to bash Wake, Jake and half the team.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    Yes, Burrito, dim wits always make my case.
    Posted by softylaw

    Name calling?

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield : Prove it. The April/May numbers with Lackey this year vastly differ from his time since returning from the DL. Wake's pct. of giving up 3 ER or less last year are close to this year. Wake was never on the D.L. His record was due to poor BP choices by Tito. That and the constant roller-coaster ride to the pen and back. Lackey lost many games last year due to the BP. Lackey's expectations of being a #3/4 starter is a matter of perception , not performance.
    Posted by harness


    I'll throw this nugget out there...what if John Lackey looked like he does, was as tall, and everything about him including his statistics in every year was the exact same as it is now. Nothing statistically changed...but the only difference was he was Tim Wakefield's younger brother and threw the knuckleball (think Joe and Phil Niekro). Tell me moon, and tell me harness, who would you rather have in October? A guy who in his last 3 starts gave up 20 baserunners in 21 IP total in hits/walks (less than 1 whip) or Lackey? It's all about people's fears of the knuckleball. And the funny thing is in that argument is if I'm reading these posts right, moon is defending a pitcher he's not really all that in love with, and harness is doing the same when I've seen harness totally defend Wakefield the last few years. moon has been clear about his overall non-confidence in Wake in the postseason despite the numbers still showing Tim being overall more effective than the "injured" Lackey.

    (I have made a long post or two about the wait factor that Wakefield had in the postseason. He has to sit 2 to 3 weeks before throwing, and he's almost always rusty to poor when he has to sit that long. That's why he's better off throwing in a game 2 of a series not a game 4).

    My point is that Wakefield's 45 and I think it's really about people worried about the world crashing down fast when he throws. I must be the only guy who has never once worried about that factor.

    And I guess when push comes to shove, Wakefield could throw another 5 straight starts with this type of effectiveness, but Lackey would probably get the playoff start and Tim left off the playoff roster. Because I feel Tito/Theo are thinking precisely the same way. They enjoy what Wake is doing, but have no plans for him to pitch an "important" postseason game if they don't have to throw him, something that my guess a high percentage of all Sox fans agree with. This is just the regular season, so it's ok for Tim to throw in the pennant race, just not the postseason anymore. That is why the No. 6 starter thing got coined. It's part of the Sox PR machine, and a way to show Tim the door for the postseason. He wasn't in the plans, we're glad he fills in admirably, we gave him a job, he's a good soldier, but we are frankly afraid he will get bombed in a potential playoff game. That's the mindsight, and it's because of the knuckleball. It's the only thing that can be distinguished as the problem. Wakefield is healthy, he is 45, he is a professional, and he's a veteran of the wars, and I think he is just as capable of throwing a 2003 gem now as he was then.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    Wake wasn't anymore healthy in 2010 as Lackey was in May this year. Wake had just had back surgery. He wasn't supposed to be ready to pitch until May or June in 2010. Wake is the 6th starter. His expectations are lower. Lackey is a 3/4 starter. His expectations are higher. I have more faith in Lackey this October than Wake, even though Wake has a better 3 ER or less percent over the last 2 years.
    Posted by moonslav59


    moon, before you answer as I know you have been statistically speaking the best defender of Wakefield (more so than I in that department). I never am to sure about you on this subject. Is this sarcasm, or I think it's how you feel, right? You still have more confidence in Lackey based on...pedigree? Recent postseason success? (Lackey threw well v. Sox in 2009 and of course a hero of 2002, and Lackey generally throws good games v. the Yankees (so does Tim).)
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    I think I can safely say I'm the only crackpot here who would not hesitate to throw Wakefield in a playoff game. If he is throwing this effectively, I throw him in a heartbeat, in a NY minute.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    I do think that 2010 was a wasted season for Tim. Whether he was completely healthy (he felt he was) or not and he needed rest time to get to be the better version in 2011, it's clear that it's the more he pitches frequently in a long stretch of rotation starts, that he becomes a better pitcher. When he is limited to spot starts or goes longer stretches without pitching at all, he is less effective. Now, I'm not statistically sure about this statement, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. He is actually a workhorse. I'm still trying to see where the 180 to 200 innings is too much for him. If people stopped worrying about the pitch and his age, none of this argument would be necessary.

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    now if Tim was an American Indian....:-)
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    The only thing we know for sure about softylaw is that he never, ever changes his mind.  When he announces an opinion, he is always speaking ex cathedra.  It becomes doctrine the moment he writes it.  

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    I'll throw this nugget out there...what if John Lackey looked like he does, was as tall, and everything about him including his statistics in every year was the exact same as it is now. Nothing statistically changed...but the only difference was he was Tim Wakefield's younger brother and threw the knuckleball (think Joe and Phil Niekro). Tell me moon, and tell me harness, who would you rather have in October? A guy who in his last 3 starts gave up 20 baserunners in 21 IP total in hits/walks (less than 1 whip) or Lackey? It's all about people's fears of the knuckleball. And the funny thing is in that argument is if I'm reading these posts right, moon is defending a pitcher he's not really all that in love with, and harness is doing the same when I've seen harness totally defend Wakefield the last few years. moon has been clear about his overall non-confidence in Wake in the postseason despite the numbers still showing Tim being overall more effective than the "injured" Lackey

    For me, it is not about lack of faith in Wake because it is a playoff game or because he throws a knuckleball. I base my diminsihed faith on the fact that the Sox continually overpitch Wake over the season and "burn him out" by September October. Maybe the cooler air has an effect as well.

    Put it this way, if Wake was well rested, and just pitched 3 very good games in a row before the end of the season, and pitched better than Lackey: I'd go with Wake. I do not see that happening (the rest part), hence my statements about late-season. This is not a new position for me. The Sox, out of need, admitted they overused Wake in 2008. He had a great streak of quality starts during the summer. He hit the wall later. In 2009, I wanted Wake to start in April and then get a break in June or July. He got hurt and missed much of 2009 and had back surgery afterwards. In 2010, I wanted him to start for a stretch, then be rested, and then maybe go back to starting again. Instead, he was jerked from starter to relief 10 times and had several stretches of inactivity, which rendered him as a low confidence late season pitcher. We missed out of the playoffs anyways, so...

    If Wake has over 160-170 IP and has pitched for a long stretch before the playoffs, I will have my doubts.

    (I have made a long post or two about the wait factor that Wakefield had in the postseason. He has to sit 2 to 3 weeks before throwing, and he's almost always rusty to poor when he has to sit that long. That's why he's better off throwing in a game 2 of a series not a game 4)

    I agree 100%, Wake's knuckleball is so much about being in a groove.

    My point is that Wakefield's 45 and I think it's really about people worried about the world crashing down fast when he throws. I must be the only guy who has never once worried about that factor

    I am the second person then. Wake's post 41 years are his best of his career..

    And I guess when push comes to shove, Wakefield could throw another 5 straight starts with this type of effectiveness, but Lackey would probably get the playoff start and Tim left off the playoff roster. Because I feel Tito/Theo are thinking precisely the same way. They enjoy what Wake is doing, but have no plans for him to pitch an "important" postseason game if they don't have to throw him, something that my guess a high percentage of all Sox fans agree with. This is just the regular season, so it's ok for Tim to throw in the pennant race, just not the postseason anymore. That is why the No. 6 starter thing got coined. It's part of the Sox PR machine, and a way to show Tim the door for the postseason. He wasn't in the plans, we're glad he fills in admirably, we gave him a job, he's a good soldier, but we are frankly afraid he will get bombed in a potential playoff game. That's the mindsight, and it's because of the knuckleball. It's the only thing that can be distinguished as the problem. Wakefield is healthy, he is 45, he is a professional, and he's a veteran of the wars, and I think he is just as capable of throwing a 2003 gem now as he was then

    Many see the knuckleball as a circus act. The fact that catchers have a hard time catching it is evidence of how hard it must be to hit...
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    moon, before you answer as I know you have been statistically speaking the best defender of Wakefield (more so than I in that department). I never am to sure about you on this subject. Is this sarcasm, or I think it's how you feel, right? You still have more confidence in Lackey based on...pedigree? Recent postseason success? (Lackey threw well v. Sox in 2009 and of course a hero of 2002, and Lackey generally throws good games v. the Yankees (so does Tim).)

    (see above)

    I should have qualified my statement. If Wake is under 160 IP, pitches on 4-6 days rest, and has been pitching regularly before the season ends, I'd go with the current Wake over the current Lackey. However, I don't see that happeneing. They'd have to shut Wake down now (we need him too much now to do that), and then get him back into a regular groove in September.

    I know we disagree with this point, danny. Myposition is not based on something I think Wake lacks in drive and his ability to thrive under pressure. It has to do with his durability and the fact that Tito has left him in games too long all year to "save the pen" for the next day. Tito has, in effect, sacrificed Wake's playoff effectiveness to win make sure we make the playoffs. He did the same in 2008. He was doing the same in 2009.  I don't have a big issue with the strategy. Making the playoffs comes first, and the 4th/5th starter in the playoffs is usually not a big factor.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    thanks, moon, I appreciate your responses...I know I have been hard on poor crazee4, but his recent posts on Wakefield is actually a prime example of what fans do when they don't want to deal with the facts in front of them. The easy thing to do is rip on Wakefield for the usual suspect reasons--trick pitch, batting practice, 60 MPH, hard to catch, implodes fast, afraid he will not get out of a jam, afraid he will give up a homer, afraid people will run on him, afraid he will walk the house, afraid his very pitching means the Sox have to score 25 runs, etc...It's so easy, and so, so very wrong. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    The only thing we know for sure about softylaw is that he never, ever changes his mind.  When he announces an opinion, he is always speaking ex cathedra.  It becomes doctrine the moment he writes it.    
    Posted by maxbialystock


    He changes his mind all the time: he just denies it.

    He said Mauer would sign for $16-18M with the Twins. Later, he said he had said it would be for much higher.

    He said there was a 50-50 chance AGon would be traded this past winter. Later, he said it was 100%, but 50-50 to the Red Sox.

    He said Ellsbury could never sustain a .330 OBP for a full season. He changed that position about 4 times, and denied each previous position over and over.

    He said there was no way the Sox would sign CC. Now he denies ever saying it.

    He said AGon would not sign an extension in April, 2011. He denies it now.

    He said Ellsbury and lowrie would be traded for AGon. later he claimed he said Kelly & Rizzo.

    The list goes on and on..

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

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    moon, i think soft relishes that you bring up his contradictions. In a way, you egg him on. now, fiver can use the "it is what it is" because it really applies to the softer.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    True, danny, true.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield

    In Response to Re: Red Sox will not resign Wakefield:
    moon, i think soft relishes that you bring up his contradictions. In a way, you egg him on. now, fiver can use the "it is what it is" because it really applies to the softer.
    Posted by dannycater

    Yeah it's amazing that this thread has 120 plus posts.  The guy is just trolling.  Obviously the Red Sox are going to sign Wake for another year.  In todays market what Wakefield makes is peanuts.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share