Tweet 12/29
bismotwitter
It was a privilege to root for you & I wish you much success with NYM.
bismotwitter
old LF with shaky defense a 4 or 5 year deal for big money.
bismotwitter
Theo to get big bat. Run prevention is great, but scoring is nice too.
bismotwitter
picks. Net gain is 2 supplementals, plus better picks in 1st & 2nd rd.
bismotwitter
healthy, lineup is pretty good, but they need starting pitchers.
S/B 954RR
"bismotwitter" <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6h4lj5dod4tpg5hio...@4ax.com...
S/B 954RR
"bismotwitter" <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:6h4lj5dod4tpg5hio...@4ax.com...
> Run prevention is great,
Not when Theo is preventing the Sox from scoring. He's got an NL mind.
S/B 954RR
"bismotwitter" <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:d95lj5lrb541a1pm4...@4ax.com...
> # No shocker, but looks like Mets will also sign Benji Molina. **IF**
> healthy, lineup is pretty good, but they need starting pitchers.
Why are the Sox only getting a number two from the Mets?
Gary
wrote:
Because the Mets suck, they get a second round pick from the Mets plus
a sandwich pick that doesn't come from any team.
S/B 954RR
"Gary" <golfe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3k9lj5l7bb4o6piaf...@4ax.com...
I know about the sandwich pick, I'm just looking for an explanation why we
aren't getting the Mets first round pick. It isn't as if Minaya has a use
for it.
Ray Garraty
> # I don't begrudge Theo for letting Bay go. It's tough to give 31 yr
> old LF with shaky defense a 4 or 5 year deal for big money.
As far as defense, Matt Holliday makes Bay look like Paul Blair.
mario in victoria
So Bay's the better defender?
mario in victoria
--
grammar or wrong universe?
Throws like Mary
> # Thank you, Jason Bay, for your class and productivity with Boston.
> It was a privilege to root for you & I wish you much success with NYM.
This is why I'm not on Twitter.
Gary
I don't think so.
Dano
"S/B 954RR" <jtib...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7pvnom...@mid.individual.net...
I don't know, but do they still have one? I'm not sure how it works
exactly, but have they lost any already? Or picked up any from someone
else? A team obviously only has one of their own to lose. If they sign two
type A FA's they can't lose two first rounders unless one came from someone
who signed one or more of theirs right?
Gary
wrote:
>
>
>"Gary" <golfe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:3k9lj5l7bb4o6piaf...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:46:10 -0500, "S/B 954RR" <jtib...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"bismotwitter" <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>news:d95lj5lrb541a1pm4...@4ax.com...
>>>> # No shocker, but looks like Mets will also sign Benji Molina. **IF**
>>>> healthy, lineup is pretty good, but they need starting pitchers.
>>>
>>>Why are the Sox only getting a number two from the Mets?
>>
>>
>> Because the Mets suck, they get a second round pick from the Mets plus
>> a sandwich pick that doesn't come from any team.
>
>I know about the sandwich pick, I'm just looking for an explanation why we
>aren't getting the Mets first round pick. It isn't as if Minaya has a use
>for it.
As I said, because the Mets sucked last year, they don't lose their
first round pick.
Gary
wrote:
>
>I don't know, but do they still have one? I'm not sure how it works
>exactly, but have they lost any already? Or picked up any from someone
>else? A team obviously only has one of their own to lose. If they sign two
>type A FA's they can't lose two first rounders unless one came from someone
>who signed one or more of theirs right?
>
a team can only lose their own first round pick. For example, the Sox
lost their pick when they signed Lackey, but got a first round pick
for Wagner. Even if they sign, for example, Holliday, they don't lose
that pick, but their own second round pick. In other words,
compensation picks are theirs to keep.
PaulH
Gary's "Because the Mets suck" is the key here. The top 15 draft picks
are protected -- i.e., can't be lost as compensation to to another team.
The Mets' 70-92 record places them comfortably among the worst 15
teams*, hence a protected first-round pick in the 2010 draft. Had the
Sox lost Bay to a better team, they would have received that team's
first-round pick.
*Drafting 7th, according to this source:
<http://www.baseballrumormill.com/2009/10/2010-mlb-draft-order/>
--Paul
S/B 954RR
"Gary" <golfe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:67glj59f1rtt80an2...@4ax.com...
Yeah but the Mets didn't sign anyone else. Are the rules that the bottom
teams can't lose a first rounder?
S/B 954RR
"PaulH" <pa...@nothirdavspam.com> wrote in message
news:6_2dnfJr6_MqWafW...@supernews.com...
Thanks Paul, that's what I was looking for. I figured it from Gary's 'Mets
suck' line but wanted something a bit more concrete.
McDuck
wrote:
>
>
I believe it is because they are already gettting a pick for losing
Billy Wagner to the Braves.
S/B 954RR
"McDuck" <wallyDELE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:leklj5pajl6g2g84g...@4ax.com...
I don't know if that is it but they were certainly lucky to get that.
Gary
That has nothing to do with it, I believe.
Wayback1918
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:08:23 -0500, McDuck
>
> >On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:46:10 -0500, "S/B 954RR" <jtibb...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>"bismotwitter" <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >>news:d95lj5lrb541a1pm4...@4ax.com...
> >>> # No shocker, but looks like Mets will also sign Benji Molina. **IF**
> >>> healthy, lineup is pretty good, but they need starting pitchers.
>
> >>Why are the Sox only getting a number two from the Mets?
>
> >I believe it is because they are already gettting a pick for losing
> >Billy Wagner to the Braves.
>
> That has nothing to do with it, I believe.
When a team loses a Type A free agent, they receive the signing team’s
first-round draft pick and a supplemental first-round pick in the
following year’s draft unless the signing team is picking in the first
half of the first round , in which case the team losing the player
receives a supplemental pick plus the signing team’s second-round
draft pick.
So the answer "...because the Met's suck" is correct.....as far as it
goes.
Wayback1918
>
> - Show quoted text -
Some draftees from the top 7 picks in the 2nd round since 1995:
Jarrod Washburn
Mark Bellhorn
Milton Bradley
Scott Linebrink
Adam Dunn
Gerald Laird
Carl Crawford
Brandon Phillips
Kelly Shopach
Joey Votto
Tony Gwynn
There were plenty other good players picked after that.....but this is
about the caliber of player a team should plan for when factoring a
high 2nd round pick as compensation.
Of course that is the high side of the players chosen as most do not
even make the major leagues.
McDuck
wrote:
Yes, you are right and I was confused. I had not realized the Mets
were in the bottom 15.
bismotwitter
he's a better fielder than Bay. Neither could shine Blair's shoes.
Ray Garraty
> @ Ray: Holliday made that AWFUL error at a terrible time, but I think
> he's a better fielder than Bay. Neither could shine Blair's shoes.
I respectfully disagree; completely. I'm not talking about one play,
I've watched many Rockies games over the last few seasons he was
there....there is no way anyone can convince me Holliday is a better
fielder than Bay; based on what I saw.
Wayback1918
Looks like we have another 'Stat Geek' vs 'Observationalist' dilemma.
Bay is awful statistically.
UZR/150
2006 +3.0
2007 -11.4
2008 -18.2
2009 -11.2
Holliday is good....actually very good
URZ/150
2006 -5.5
2007 +14.7
2008 +10.9
2009 + 6.0
If you saw Holliday and Bay in 2006 you'de be right....but since then
Holliday has steadily improved and Bay digressed.
Bill James and the Fielding Bible
Ranking among all LF
Holliday
2006 32nd
2007 13th
2008 5th
2009 3rd
Bay
2006 5th
2007 31st
2008 29th
2009 23rd
Both systems clearly indicate two players fielding abillities going in
opposite directions. The Hardball Times RZR & OOZ system shows
similar results.
I do remember thinking in the 2007 WS that Holliday looked stiff and
un-athletic in the field, but it is important to remember when judging
LF that most of them are out there for a reason.....their bats Hence
the old joke "The National League has the DH too....they just call it
leftfield"
I really can't see any way that Bay is a better fielder than
Holliday.
Ray Garraty
It's hard to argue with those numbers, but from observation I find
them hard to believe although I'm sure they are valid. I'll admit I
didn't see Holliday play hardly at all in 2009, but did in 2006-2008
quite a bit. Another thing I'll say is Holliday can 'look' shaky
making routine plays at times.
I did hear Olney say on ESPN radio today that Bays defensive
shortcomings tend to overstated, whatever that means. I guess
everyone has an opinion.
Wayback1918
>
> - Show quoted text -
What the 'observationalist' misses in judging a player defensively is
context.
Holliday is in all probability not a great fielder....maybe not even a
good fielder.....but he's likely to be one of the best leftfielders in
the game right now.
The top UZR/150 LF were Crawford, Dejesus, Rivera, Ibanez and
Holliday. Other than Crawford none those names are synomynous with
great leather to me.
bismotwitter
LF may not be that spectacular & +5 guy might really just be average.
bismotwitter
don't know if he's as bad as the UZRs imply, but I think he's subpar.
bismotwitter
Bay--but I think he's adequate. Surprised his UZRs are that high.
Gnork
> Ray Garraty wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 4:35 pm, bismotwitter <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> # I don't begrudge Theo for letting Bay go. It's tough to give 31 yr
> >> old LF with shaky defense a 4 or 5 year deal for big money.
>
> > As far as defense, Matt Holliday makes Bay look like Paul Blair.
>
> So Bay's the better defender?
Not necessarily. I checked. Paul Blair is now 65 years old.
>
> mario in victoria
> --
> grammar or wrong universe?
He didn't say when.
Gnork
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:46:10 -0500, "S/B 954RR" <jtibb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"bismotwitter" <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:d95lj5lrb541a1pm4...@4ax.com...
> >> # No shocker, but looks like Mets will also sign Benji Molina. **IF**
> >> healthy, lineup is pretty good, but they need starting pitchers.
>
> >Why are the Sox only getting a number two from the Mets?
>
> I believe it is because they are already gettting a pick for losing
> Billy Wagner to the Braves.
Wrong, mule-ears@!
Gnork
> On Dec 30, 8:56 pm, Ray Garraty <idahosha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 5:25 pm, bismotwitter <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > @ Ray: Holliday made that AWFUL error at a terrible time, but I think
> > > he's a better fielder than Bay. Neither could shine Blair's shoes.
>
> > I respectfully disagree; completely. I'm not talking about one play,
> > I've watched many Rockies games over the last few seasons he was
> > there....there is no way anyone can convince me Holliday is a better
> > fielder than Bay; based on what I saw.
>
> Looks like we have another 'Stat Geek' vs 'Observationalist' dilemma.
>
> Bay is awful statistically.
>
> UZR/150
> 2006 +3.0
> 2007 -11.4
> 2008 -18.2
> 2009 -11.2
>
> Holliday is good....actually very good
>
> URZ/150
> 2006 -5.5
> 2007 +14.7
> 2008 +10.9
> 2009 + 6.0
>
> If you saw Holliday and Bay in 2006 you'de be right....but since then
> Holliday has steadily improved and Bay digressed.
Digressed or regressed?
You could look it up. But I digress.
Perhaps your brain regressed. ^~~^
S/B 954RR
"bismotwitter" <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1l6oj5lsq19p7ibc0...@4ax.com...
> @ Wayback: Good point on the lack of good LFs. My take is that a +20
> LF may not be that spectacular & +5 guy might really just be average.
Manny was a stud out there!
S/B 954RR
"bismotwitter" <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pv6oj5le85s5cmfpg...@4ax.com...
> @ Ray: I think Bay gets really poor jumps and is way too tentative. I
> don't know if he's as bad as the UZRs imply, but I think he's subpar.
I don't know enough about UZR but my gut keeps telling me that Fenway will
mess with LF/CF UZR ratings.
mario in victoria
Okay.
Wrong universe.
mario in victoria
--
feel better?
Wayback1918
Yup....wooden and 16" on center
Wayback1918
LF is tough to judge.
UZR only goes back to 2002
The only players who have any significant innings in LF since then are
Manny and Bay. Neither would be expected to get high UZR. (Bay's
UZR had already slipped into the minus when he was in Pittsburgh)
The only other two players with at least 300+ innings in front the
monster are Rickey Henderson in 2002 and Ellsbury in 2008....both had
positive UZR/150.
Henderson 2002 IN 378.1 UZR/150 +13.5
Ellsbury 2008 IN 346.0 UZR/150 +30.3
My guess is that its quite possible that LF in Fenway may distort
defensive numbers.....a little. Its not going to turn a great
fielder....or even an average fielder..... into one of the worst in
the league. They have to do that on their own.
And of course LF in Fenway distorts stats almost every game.....Hits,
2B, HR, RBI, BA, SLG, OPS.... but no one disputes the validity of
those numbers.
Ray Garraty
I'll guess we will find out if Fenway distorts numbers after judging
what Cameron stats look like in this formula with a full season in
Fenway.
Then again, I don't know where he ranks now, but I think he is one of
the better outfielders I have seen; what I have seen of him.
He's looks good on TV anyway, very graceful and seems to get an
incredible jump on the ball.
Wayback1918
>
> - Show quoted text -
The UZR and RZR systems love him....best in the NL last year (about 3
or 4 overall. The best CF are in the AL)
The Fielding Bible not so much.....anywhere from 7th (overall) to the
middle of the pack over the last few years.
.......no extra points for being graceful
bismotwitter
Stats fell in 2006-07 for some reason, but otherwise are very good.
McDuck
wrote:
You are the mule-eared one. My statement above is 100% correct, or was
at the time I made it. No longer correct, of course, as I noted
elsewhere in this thread.
bismotwitter
valuable Lackey, yet winds up with better 1st rounder and bonus pick.
bismotwitter
picks. Sign 2/lose 1: lose a pick. Sign 0/lose 2: get 2 picks, etc.
McDuck
wrote:
>@ McDuck: I would go by net Type As signed/lost. Sign 1/lose 1: no
>picks. Sign 2/lose 1: lose a pick. Sign 0/lose 2: get 2 picks, etc.
Yes, that is how I once thought it worked, just by reasoning from
inadequate information <g>. So I have to agree it is more logical and
fairer. NYY should have lost picks for a few years for what they did
last year, signing 3 top FAs. THAT would be a decent substitute for a
salary cap.
Dano
"McDuck" <wallyDELE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vd6sj55lsnjfnl6h2...@4ax.com...
They should also allow trading picks.
Steve Robbins
I fully agree on this. The intent that teams that were crappy get the
best pick fell through when the dollars went up and low spending teams
just bypassed the good players.
What I would rather see though (or in addition to), is capping what
players coming out of the draft can sign for. If you are going to have
teams with varying budgets (I know some don't spend for wrong reasons,
but budgets vary anyway), then I think it would be good to make all
draft eligible players affordable. I know I have said this before and
the reply is that a player should be able to get all the money they can.
If that is so, then why do teams have a 6 year stranglehold on a
player once they make the majors? If the players should be able to
maximize their dollars, then why not eliminate the 6 year wait? Then we
can make the poorer teams worse off and the richer teams can but more of
the superstars as they enter their primes. Hmm. Went off on a tangent
there a bit. :-)
While I am ranting, throw the international players into the draft too.
If the teams with money sign a top notch international player, they
basically just got another first round pick by paying for it.
There. That should stir the pot a little.
--
The Unofficial a.s.b.b-r Reference Page
http://redsox.robbins-ut.com/index.html
bismotwitter
replied to). All of these measures are logical & IMHO big improvement.
bismotwitter
multiple Type A's in same year, 'cause you only lose one #1 pick.
Dano
> Dano wrote:
>> "McDuck" <wallyDELE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:vd6sj55lsnjfnl6h2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:45:59 -0500, bismotwitter
>>> <bi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @ McDuck: I would go by net Type As signed/lost. Sign 1/lose 1: no
>>>> picks. Sign 2/lose 1: lose a pick. Sign 0/lose 2: get 2 picks,
>>>> etc.
>>> Yes, that is how I once thought it worked, just by reasoning from
>>> inadequate information <g>. So I have to agree it is more logical
>>> and fairer. NYY should have lost picks for a few years for what
>>> they did last year, signing 3 top FAs. THAT would be a decent
>>> substitute for a salary cap.
>>
>> They should also allow trading picks.
>
> I fully agree on this. The intent that teams that were crappy get
> the best pick fell through when the dollars went up and low spending
> teams just bypassed the good players.
>
To elaborate just a bit more...I'd like to see teams allowed to trade picks
for other reasons. Smart (and/or lucky) scouting can help an organization
rebuild a team by parlaying a top pick (or even combining them with players
or prospects as well) into a good chance at finding a few gems lower in the
draft, or acquire other players even...like teams do in the NFL. There are
many teams that could get better that way, than simply taking one
great...and costly, top blue chip prospect. It also can help teams get
value at positions of need and not simply take the best SS or pitching
prospect available. This is NOT simply letting the richer teams take
advantage of the lower revenue teams. I really can't see the negatives.
I'll be expecting SOMEONE to come up with something however. :)
Gnork
Not me. I favor letting teams trade draft picks. A possible down point
would be agents would demand through the roof bonuses for top picks
hoping their client's rights would be traded to the Yankees, who would
then pay the outrageous amounts. There might need to be some limits
put on teams acquiring top 5 picks. Say no more than one trade to the
same team in a 3 year period or something like that.
McDuck
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 3:48�pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, if we want to introduce a note of realism, we need to take
account of what the players would agree to. They were willing to
negotiate "away" the FA rights of new players in part b/c they are not
as important in the union and in part b/c they were starting with the
reserve clause, which bound players for life. The union is not stupid
--- they want a good minor league system, and that only happens if the
teams can benefit from the players they bring up (or trade).
Limiting the rights of FA is a v. different matter. If the point is to
limit salaries, for get it --- the players will strongly object, as
they should. If the point is to improve competitive balance, then
there is a point for negotiations b/c, all else equal, the players
union is likely to favor a system in which more teams have a chance to
win.
The initial point of banning the trading of draft picks, as I
understand it, was to prevent the good teams from stockpiling. Bad for
the players as well as competitive balance. How would you like to be a
NYY minor league 3rd baseman stuck behind ARod, for example? But, as
Biz and others have noted, the "no trade" rule has not worked well
because the signing bonuses are unlimited, which means that the
financially weak teams cannot afford to sign the top picks.
But just allowing a trade of picks is not much of a fix. The no-trade
rule does have some effect on limiting signing bonuses. A few guys
with "proven" value can fall down in the list, available for the rich
teams. But only a few players can get the big bucks. if trades were
possible, more would get the big bucks. Not clear how this works in a
semi-free market, since the increased supply might tend to drive down
prices. That is, the RS and NYY are not going to sign 6 or 7 top guys,
and they will not compete so fiercely if they each can get the 2 or 3
guys they want (or a reasonable substitute).
Not that I oppose a repeal of the no-trade rule. I just think it needs
to be part of systemic change that would promote competitive balance
without great cost to the players in lower salaries (needed to get
player cooperation, and, also good on fairness grounds). Football gets
MOST of its competitive balance from revenue sharing, not from the
cap, but revenue sharing at the NFL level is pretty much impossible in
baseball, due to the local nature of baseball.
Anyway, not a lot of easy solutions. Even including international
players in the draft, which I support, has some serious complications.
Gnork
One of your better posts, McDuck. I think there is a good chance the
union would be okay with the removal of the no trade rule even if it
were accompanied by a limited restriction on how many times a single
team can acquire an elite draft pick. I hope it would be good for
competition. Fans of all teams should at least be able to hope that
once in a while their team will be good enough to make the playoffs
and advance. While we like to dump on the Yankees for their enormous
spending appetite, the fact is that the Red Sox, to a somewhat smaller
extent, do the same thing. Recent Red Sox successes are tied more to
their economic power than to Theo's brain power. And if they were tied
to Francona's brain power the team would be in the toilet more often
than not.
Theo likely would have been fired long ago from any mid or small
market team. How many times can you pay a fortune to various players
NOT to play shortstop for you? How many Smoltz and Penny fiascoes can
you survive? How many teams will put up with a series of legacy
contracts for a catcher who can't hit, run, throw, or even catch the
ball well anymore? (What is Gary Allenson doing)? How many team want a
Gandhi look alike for manager? One who more only slightly more often
than an earthquake and who normally is no more animated than Bostonian
Steven Wright?
The team who use someone capable of thinking with his head more than
his checkbook. Thisfranchise has the financial wherewithall to recover
from the repeated gaffes, but they do have a budget that could have
been much better utilized. Where are the inexpensive acquisitions that
do really well? There are many every year in baseball. The Red Sox
have not done well in this arena.
So, are you going to re-gift that nose hair trimmer you got for
Christmas?
McDuck
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 8:22�am, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 21:50:39 -0800 (PST), Gnork <gn...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Anyway, not a lot of easy solutions. Even including international
>> players in the draft, which I support, has some serious complications.
>
>One of your better posts, McDuck. I think there is a good chance the
>union would be okay with the removal of the no trade rule even if it
>were accompanied by a limited restriction on how many times a single
>team can acquire an elite draft pick. I hope it would be good for
>competition.
The union tends to be protective of NYY --- in the sense that they
want NYY available to drive up player salaries. But they have shown
some flexibility on the issue with the lux tax, so yes, they would not
reject your plan out of hand. They might want something else to recoup
their revenue loss, but that is how negotiations work.
>Fans of all teams should at least be able to hope that
>once in a while their team will be good enough to make the playoffs
>and advance. While we like to dump on the Yankees for their enormous
>spending appetite, the fact is that the Red Sox, to a somewhat smaller
>extent, do the same thing. Recent Red Sox successes are tied more to
>their economic power than to Theo's brain power. And if they were tied
>to Francona's brain power the team would be in the toilet more often
>than not.
A mix of both. The Mets also have money, so we know it takes more than
money.
>
>Theo likely would have been fired long ago from any mid or small
>market team. How many times can you pay a fortune to various players
>NOT to play shortstop for you? How many Smoltz and Penny fiascoes can
>you survive?
Theo would have behaved differently if his owners had more limited
funds. Smoltz is relatively low risk for the RS but a high risk for
the Pirates. Theo is right to use the money of the RS to try to fix
stuff and then discard his mistakes, as with Lugo. Lugo was a major
mistake in part b/c he never came back fully from his leg injury,
which he got trying to beat out a hit. I liked Lugo, but I was v. glad
to see him go in the end.
>How many teams will put up with a series of legacy
>contracts for a catcher who can't hit, run, throw, or even catch the
>ball well anymore? (What is Gary Allenson doing)? How many team want a
>Gandhi look alike for manager? One who more only slightly more often
>than an earthquake and who normally is no more animated than Bostonian
>Steven Wright?
Actually, Theo did pretty well with Varitek, at least from a financial
perspective. He got him on the cheap when Varitek refused arbitration
--- Tek would have gotten a good pay check, perhaps $10 m, in
arbitration b/c he had been good and was well regarded. Yes, Tek fell
off the train in the last half of last season and was about the worst
hitter in the AL. But he was really cheap for a starting catcher. I
realize you would like to see him cut, and I understand your point,
but there is a reasonable possibility that Tek will be an adequate
backup catcher. If he returns to the form of the second half of last
year, he has a small contract ($3 m) and can be cut.
And remember, Theo got Victor --- he is not unaware of Tek's
limitations.
>The team who use someone capable of thinking with his head more than
>his checkbook. Thisfranchise has the financial wherewithall to recover
>from the repeated gaffes, but they do have a budget that could have
>been much better utilized. Where are the inexpensive acquisitions that
>do really well? There are many every year in baseball. The Red Sox
>have not done well in this arena.
Really? Pedroia, Jacoby, Lester, Buchholz all were cheap, although
some got decent contracts to make them relatively cheap in the future.
If by "acquisitions" you mean people from outside the organization,
well Big Papi was cheap when they acquired him, Greene was cheap,
Saito was fairly cheap.
>
>So, are you going to re-gift that nose hair trimmer you got for
>Christmas?
Sure. What's your address?
Gnork
Funny, I didn't like Lugo but I thought they should have given him
more starting time before disguarding him. It was not like they had a
good replacement available.
>
> >How many teams will put up with a series of legacy
> >contracts for a catcher who can't hit, run, throw, or even catch the
> >ball well anymore? (What is Gary Allenson doing)? How many team want a
> >Gandhi look alike for manager? One who moves only slightly more often
> >than an earthquake and who normally is no more animated than Bostonian
> >Steven Wright?
>
> Actually, Theo did pretty well with Varitek, at least from a financial
> perspective. He got him on the cheap when Varitek refused arbitration
> --- Tek would have gotten a good pay check, perhaps $10 m, in
> arbitration b/c he had been good and was well regarded. Yes, Tek fell
> off the train in the last half of last season and was about the worst
> hitter in the AL. But he was really cheap for a starting catcher. I
> realize you would like to see him cut, and I understand your point,
> but there is a reasonable possibility that Tek will be an adequate
> backup catcher. If he returns to the form of the second half of last
> year, he has a small contract ($3 m) and can be cut.
I NEVER would have offered him a 2009 contract. No way, no how. He
turned out to be the worst player in baseball with over 300 PA IMO. I
think there is a more reasonable possibility that he will struggle to
hit .185. I think the team will need a paramedic ready if he ever
throws out a baserunner that doesn't stumble and fall en route. That
is because seeing Varitek actually throw out a runner could cause
multiple heart attacks. I think he may be the worst MLB player since
Lou Gerhig's last season. Lou spared his team by retiring early. Theo
did awful.
>
> And remember, Theo got Victor --- he is not unaware of Tek's
> limitations.
Faint praise indeed. He would have to be brain dead or some sparsely
posting bimbo to not be aware of that.
>
> >The team who use someone capable of thinking with his head more than
> >his checkbook. This franchise has the financial wherewithall to recover
> >from the repeated gaffes, but they do have a budget that could have
> >been much better utilized. Where are the inexpensive acquisitions that
> >do really well? There are many every year in baseball. The Red Sox
> >have not done well in this arena.
>
> Really? Pedroia, Jacoby, Lester, Buchholz all were cheap, although
> some got decent contracts to make them relatively cheap in the future.
>
> If by "acquisitions" you mean people from outside the organization,
> well Big Papi was cheap when they acquired him, Greene was cheap,
> Saito was fairly cheap.
Yes, I mean from outside the organization. Ortiz was a long time ago.
Saito was reasonable. I wish they had kept him. Who is "Greene"? I
know Green was cheap and for a good reason.
>
>
>
> >So, are you going to re-gift that nose hair trimmer you got for
> >Christmas?
>
> Sure. What's your address?
Gosh, thanks! I was dropping hints, but nobody got one for me. Is
yours the deluxe model with the storage compartment and the musical
tunes playing when it is on? (Theme song from "Hair"). No offense, but
it would need to be in its original packaging. Aw, hell, I guess I
could run it through the dishwasher before i use it. You never used it
to trim your dog's nose hair, did you? How big a dog? How often? Does
it also play Johnny Mathis' "it's Snot for me to Say"? Did Karl Malden
ever use it?
Gnork
Steve Robbins
> could run it through the dishwasher before i use it. You never used it
> to trim your dog's nose hair, did you?
You are probably asking about the wrong end.
McDuck
wrote:
I swear to Terry Francona that I never used it, but I suspect it has
been re-gifted multiple times before it got to me. It came from a
student I give a D; go figure.
Wayback1918
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seems like a waste of time trimming his nose if he is just going to
let the back hair grow out like that.