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

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    [Quote]Moon...I think the point is Manny isn't on the team anymore. The situation has been static for 8 months. At this point everyone has their opinion. Mine in fact is in tune with ypurs. But since there is nothing new to talk about it becomes tedious.

    bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Moony,

    My stats are meaningless, yet yours aren't. Nice! At least you admit you never expected anything much from Lugo. Too bad you can't take away the fact that he was the wire to wire SS on the first division winning and title team we've had since the early 20th cenury. He is what he is, and he's not a bust compared to all these other weak hitting union vet SS's. Some numbers are higher some lower. Get a reality check.

    Oh, and Manny's not coming back, except reincarnated as a tanking slug.[/Quote]

    I know Manny is gone. I'm not the only one talkin Manny, everyone, even you, keeps on going and going and going. I'm over it, really, I am, but when someone tries to minimize his contributions to the rings, I am going to speak out on the side of truth and reality. I have said countless times, Manny is a jerk, but even jerks can be damn good players.

    You have your own view of what the word "bust" means. To you, a player who bats .100 but plays all year for a winning team, can not be a bust, cause they won, right? You have never answered what you would call a bust even if the team wins it all despite how much he sucks.
    He's getting paid way more than most SSs, he has not earned his union pay. He is a bust. Not from high expectations, but from near total failure in all areas except speed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    [Quote] You'll be hearing from me if "the talent" of Jake results in another year of low OBP and lower BA and OBP than Crisp. I doubt you'll be here, fool.[/Quote]

    I know I have mentioned this months ago, but Ellsbury's career OBP is better than Crisp's best OBP (2005). Ellsbury's 50 SB last year are equal to Crisp's best TWO seasons (2006-2007). Look, I like Crisp, and I hope he does well in KC, but don't discount Ellsbury. If you don't see the talent, and see what many scouts see, then maybe you should open your eyes a little more.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxman16. Show soxman16's posts

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    I agree that Lugo gets SS to start the year. He looks good right now and actually stronger than usual. Lowrie has never impressed me from day 1 and still has not shown me much. Go Lugo and Go SOX.. I still think SS is up for grabs between these two but for now I believe you start Lugo and take it from there unless Lowrie just catches fire somehow..

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

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    Hey softhead, You now only have Lugo now that your precious Coco is gone. All your marbles into the Lugo basket makes you an idiot. If you cant see that he doesnt understand the game and is a bust I pity you. Yes he will start. He plays only shortstop and makes 9 million a year numbnuts. Lowrie made him look stupid last year even when Lugo was healthy. I like a shortstop who makes the routine plays. Lugo didnt perform last year his stats prove it. Ells and Lowrie outperformed Lugo and Crisp and you cant deal with it. Coco is gone and Lugo would be too if we could have got a bag of balls in return. How dumb are you? Sorry to be you. Watch some games and get back with me.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    [Quote]

    As far as jed goes, he may not be the next Nomar, but, if Lugo is improved enough to be a reliable #9 hitter and less-error-prone SS, I really really like the thought of Lowrie in the utility role. He plays a nails 3B to go with his SS and hits decent. Thats a weapon we need and haven;t had (I love Cora, but seriously).[/Quote]

    And I see it differently.

    In fact, if Lugo is the starter, I think the Sox need a utility infielder. I see no reason why Jed Lowrie should be sitting on the Boston bench, getting about 30 at-bats over the first 2 months of the season, while 30yo career minor leaguer Gil Velasquez is getting actual playing time in Pawtucket.

    I do agree Lowrie is a solid 3b with a great arm, and that is probably where his future is. The Sox don't have a 3b between Lowell and Middlebrooks right now, unless you count Lowrie. Popular consenus seems to be Youkilis moving to 3b to accomodate Anderson, but there might be other openings by the time Anderson gets here.

    If Lugo is the starter, get a decent utility infielder. REally, you only need a guy who can fill in for one day. If one of the starting infielders goes down, Lowrie is a bus trip away.

    There are no reasonable utility guys left, but players like that are not all that tough to acquire...
     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    [Quote]

    And I see it differently.

    In fact, if Lugo is the starter, I think the Sox need a utility infielder. I see no reason why Jed Lowrie should be sitting on the Boston bench, getting about 30 at-bats over the first 2 months of the season, while 30yo career minor leaguer Gil Velasquez is getting actual playing time in Pawtucket.

    I do agree Lowrie is a solid 3b with a great arm, and that is probably where his future is. The Sox don't have a 3b between Lowell and Middlebrooks right now, unless you count Lowrie. Popular consenus seems to be Youkilis moving to 3b to accomodate Anderson, but there might be other openings by the time Anderson gets here.

    If Lugo is the starter, get a decent utility infielder. REally, you only need a guy who can fill in for one day. If one of the starting infielders goes down, Lowrie is a bus trip away.

    There are no reasonable utility guys left, but players like that are not all that tough to acquire...
    [/Quote]

    I understand what you are saying, but I doubt Lowrie gets only 30 AB in the first couple of months as a utility player. He very well might play twice a week at both short and third, and possibly a game or two during the first two months to give Pedroia a day off. So I can see him getting 120 AB early, and that is with no injuries, just to give Lugo and Lowell more time to heal and not push them too much. I think this is what the Sox envision.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    [Quote]
    To you, a player who bats .100 but plays all year for a winning team, can not be a bust, cause they won, right?

    Hyperbole does nothing but undercut your position. Lugo's near career high levels in RBI's undercuts your claim that he's a total near failure "in all areas but speed". You know that's not true, and you also are familiar with his career averages.
    While a guy hitting .100 isn't going to be on the field in a major league uniform, anytime a team has a starter member go wire to wire and wins the division and a title, no such player is a "bust". The problem with most baseball geeks is they play this little pretend game where they think they are junior GM's. They don't know a frickin' thing about the details, other than how to look at the stat book and use hindsight to make claims of who is the best fantasy team player.

    I'm interested in winners in a team sport, and only look up stats to expose the childish games that fantasy code pink punks like to worship to disaffect certain players for the latest season.
    [/Quote]

    criticizing horrible moves by a GM is not pretending to be a GM, it is discussing reality.

    i chose hyperbole to try to get an answer from you, and you still never have answered.

    what would it take for you to call Lugo a bust? .150, .180, .200, .220?

    you claim just because he started "wire to wire" that shows he cant be a bust.

    i asked a valid question. of course .100 wouldn't play all year... duh!

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

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    [Quote]Like him or not, soon to be gone or not, Lugo was a wire to wire starter on a division and WS title team who will always be a winner on that team. And, yes, Manny was a member, as well. Big difference is that Lugo isn't a quitter like Manny, when he doesn't get what he wants.[/Quote]

    bigger difference is, we could have still won with any and all other ML SS's, we couldn't have won with just any other LF'er.

    you really have no clue.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    Moonslav, we also wouldnt have won a 2004 WS without Derek Lowe. But thats for a different thread.

    This round goes to Moonslav AGAIN. As he continues to lay down objective and reasonable thought.

    Softlaw, when youre trying to make any hard conviction and really analyze you need to neutralize as many other variables as possible. If you are judging a player purely on team performance, you are failing to do this. There are just too many variables that go into winning a WS, and therefore the correlation between WS rings and talent of starting ss isnt as strong of a correlation as you seem to imply. If you judge individuals purely on team results, your logic will also suggest things like: Trent Dilfer is a better QB than Dan Marino (1 superbowl to 0), Pat Burell is a better outfielder than Jason Bay (1 WS ring to 0), Jamie Moyer is a better pitcher than Brandon Webb....

    The point is you need to look deeper than team results because it accounts for too many variables to make any hard convictions on specifics. You need to neutralize variables, and yes, individual performance (stats) do this far better than team results.

    Playing for a winning team is not always the best gage of individual success, as many chumps have won championships and many HOF's never have.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harv53. Show harv53's posts

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    I hope he fails! (oh wait, that's Obama).
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    [Quote]Playing for a winning team is not always the best gage of individual success, as many chumps have won championships and many HOF's never have.

    What you and many baseball geeks fail to understand is, there is no individual success that is more important than team success. The HOF is a collection of a lot of very good players and a few players that were great. It's a subjective contest that any true champion would trade with a role player for another or just one championship.

    Dan Marino was a one dimensional player who threw too many times. It was all about Marino. Joe Montana was the superior player, because he made his team better and winners. Marino's perception will always be as a loser, just like Nomas. HOF isn't a team sport. Most don't understand team sports, which is why there are a lot of losers who don't make their teams better as a team. You can play fantasy games with the record books all day long, but the litmus test in team sports is whether the team wins.

    Charley Barclay is a loser, who never made his team better.

    Baseball is a sport where people place more value on individual stats than they do on winning in team sports. I'm not one of those people, and, fortunately, our management is not one of those organizations.[/Quote]

    Stick to baseball softy.

    Newsflash: QBs are all about one dimension: Passing. (Only a very select few, have other skilss that elevate them to overcome passing weaknesses and still win). Most marginal QBs with rings, won with a great team around them, Marino never had a team with "D".
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    [Quote]Playing for a winning team is not always the best gage of individual success, as many chumps have won championships and many HOF's never have.

    What you and many baseball geeks fail to understand is, there is no individual success that is more important than team success. The HOF is a collection of a lot of very good players and a few players that were great. It's a subjective contest that any true champion would trade with a role player for another or just one championship.

    Dan Marino was a one dimensional player who threw too many times. It was all about Marino. Joe Montana was the superior player, because he made his team better and winners. Marino's perception will always be as a loser, just like Nomas. HOF isn't a team sport. Most don't understand team sports, which is why there are a lot of losers who don't make their teams better as a team. You can play fantasy games with the record books all day long, but the litmus test in team sports is whether the team wins.

    Charley Barclay is a loser, who never made his team better.

    Baseball is a sport where people place more value on individual stats than they do on winning in team sports. I'm not one of those people, and, fortunately, our management is not one of those organizations.[/Quote]

    Soft, I am not down on Lugo as many against you here are. I do disagree where it comes to Marino and Barkley. Marino never had a really good running back...Montana did, Aikman did. In that era, the teams with balance won. Barkley played during the Jordan era. Mike so dominated that Barkley and Ewing had little chance to win it all. That didn't make either losers. I think the term loser is a bit harsh for any of those guys.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    [Quote]Charley Barclay... hahaha... Albert Pujhols... or is it Puhols??.. Let's hear more racism directed at Ellsbury about "Jim Thorp" hahaha

    I'm know there were a bunch of crummy SS's in the league in '07 who could have come here, hit .237 w/ a .294 OBP in the 9-hole, played MUCH better defense, lucked into the same high RBI total b/c the great lineup they were hitting in always had men on 3rd w/ less than 2 outs, even stolen only half the 30 bases and STILL won a WS...

    Lugo was a guy just showing up and doing a below average job that entire season... he had little to do with the wins, it was the great team around him... he did enough to be serviceable and that is all... classifying him as a "winner" as compared to other SS's who have not won a world series is silly...comparing him to superstars in other sports who never won is idiotic[/Quote]

    That is your opinion. You have no way to know how a different player would have affected the Sox in 2007. Remember, this is real baseball, not fantacy. I am not saying that the Sox would NOT have won with someone else at ss, but to state it as fact that they would have makes no sense either.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    [Quote]

    I understand what you are saying, but I doubt Lowrie gets only 30 AB in the first couple of months as a utility player. He very well might play twice a week at both short and third, and possibly a game or two during the first two months to give Pedroia a day off. So I can see him getting 120 AB early, and that is with no injuries, just to give Lugo and Lowell more time to heal and not push them too much. I think this is what the Sox envision.[/Quote]

    Good job. Nice to see some rational back and forth debating amidst all the blabbering nonsense and personal attacks on this thread. Kudos to notin, carolina, and you, fizsh. Keep on trying to set the tone, don't give up the good fight.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Lugo sharp, Likely Starter

    Softy: still waiting on an answer to the question I asked 10 times. What would it take for you to call a "wire-to-wire" World Series winning SS, a bust? A .100 avg? .150? 180? .200? Is there any number you'd call a bust?
     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share