SOX NEW LF
Michael LeDuc
I personnally would love to see the Red Sox make a huge play for Greg Vaughn
the cousin of Mo Vaughn as a free agent this season. He is a very good left
fielder defensivly and be perfect batting fifth behind Mo and Canseco. I doubt
they will do it. It looks like they have Will Cordero pegged for LF next
season. If they could somehow dump Canseco, I would be pleased.
Jason Kolman
Michael LeDuc (mle...@tiac.com) wrote:
: I personnally would love to see the Red Sox make a huge play for Greg Vaughn
This wouldn't be that good of a move, and I doubt that Duquette would do
it. First of all, and most importantly, Vaughn is past the age where he
should be improving (I think he's 29 or 30); the rest of his career should
be a slow decline. Secondly, you never want to acquire a player after his
best year; Vaughn hasn't been this good in previous years, so it's
doubtful whether he'll repeat it. I don't really like the idea of Cordero
in LF; as a middle infielder he'd be a great hitter, but as a corner
outfielder he'd be average at best. If he's healthy, I'd try him at 2B in
winter ball and hope for the best. I also was upset by Canseco's comments,
but he's still a great hitter, and this back operation may make him even
stronger. If he feels that good, maybe he should be tried at RF or LF, and
if not, he's still a hell of a DH.
What I'd love to see, however, is for the Sox to get Barry Bonds. I know
it's a pipe dream, but what about some package of Sele, Jefferson,
O'Leary, Hasselman? It probably wouldn't work, but the Giants are so bad
right now that they just might want a bunch of bodies.
MattKiss
Troy O'Leary is a good player. He is pretty good in RF, and he is a great
RBI guy (over 80 while only hitting .260).
Reggie Jefferson has been one of the best hitters in the AL this year. He
hits lefties and righties, and is a good player. Bill Haselman is hands
down the best back-up catcher in baseball. He would be an outstanding
starting catcher, too. I am not impressed with Aaron Sele, but why get
rid of a future solid starter, a great hitter for average, a great hitter
for RBI's, and a great catcher who can hit as well for an over-rated
asshole?
Mike Ewert (U 102)
Why not Sele, Greenwell, and O'leary or Jefferson for Bonds? But then the
Sox will need to get another starter so should Sele be included in any
package? He should be given more than one year to come back.
Pat Johnston
Greenwell is a free agent, so he can't be traded.
Niraj Agarwalla
If Duquette offered this deal to the Giants they would laugh in his face,
and probably send him off to the funny farm, or something. Greenwell,
for all intents and purposes, is a free-agent. O'Leary and Jefferson are
having career years. If they want anything are probably are best prospects
like Trot Nixon, Nomar, McKeel, etc. We already traded good prospects
for no reason like Bagwell, Anderson, Rodriguez, etc.
--
Niraj Agarwalla - University of Massachusetts Lowell - naga...@cs.uml.edu
Lo0neYtOoN
Greenwell is a free agent isnt he?? Maybe we could trade the Giants Jim
Rice and Freddy Lynn also, maybe we could pick up Juan Marichal for them.
I just dont see the Sox getting Bonds unless they offer prospects, and a
whole lot of them for Bonds. He IS that good.
Niraj Agarwalla
Lo0neYtOoN <lo0ne...@aol.com> wrote:
I would like to add something to this lunacy. If people hate loud-mouths
so much, then why trade for Bonds? He is the biggest loud-mouth around.
SoxFan9418
In article <54g3ih$o...@ulowell.uml.edu>, naga...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu
(Niraj Agarwalla) writes:
>We already traded good prospects
>for no reason like Bagwell, Anderson, Rodriguez, etc.
Au contraire.
The Sox traded all of the above for very good reasons...to try to win
soon. Now I vehemently opposed the trading of Frank Rodriguez, and still
think it was a bad move. I didn't oppose the Bagwell move cause I'd never
heard of him at that point but it was a bad move in retrospect. When we
got Larry Anderson he wasn't yet a free agent, please remember that.
The deal that sent Brady Anderson and Curt Schilling to Baltimore for Mike
Boddicker was a good deal and I will defend that one forever. The Sox
were clearly in a position to win and Mike Boddicker helped put them over
the top for a couple division titles.
Gregory Lynn
----Sox in 96
Er, 97? Hpw 'bout them prospects? :)
Lo0neYtOoN
>I would like to add something to this lunacy. If people hate loud-mouths
Well, BONDS is only the best Left fielder in the game (ok, maybe Belle)
and I dont care if he shoots his mouth off if he can 40/40. As for my
lunacy, I was responding to another stupid post.
Mike Ewert (U 102)
I guess I've been living in a cave. I did not know that greenwell was a
free agent. I thought he was on the trading block. He's too valueable to
be let go on the free agent market. If they are going to get rid of him
they should at least trade him in a package deal. Keep Clemens though.
That is a must.
Niraj Agarwalla
SoxFan9418 <soxfa...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <54g3ih$o...@ulowell.uml.edu>, naga...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu
>(Niraj Agarwalla) writes:
>
>>We already traded good prospects
>>for no reason like Bagwell, Anderson, Rodriguez, etc.
>
>Au contraire.
>
>The Sox traded all of the above for very good reasons...to try to win
>soon. Now I vehemently opposed the trading of Frank Rodriguez, and still
>think it was a bad move. I didn't oppose the Bagwell move cause I'd never
>heard of him at that point but it was a bad move in retrospect. When we
>got Larry Anderson he wasn't yet a free agent, please remember that.
This is not so. People were raving about Bagwell back then; and I clearly
remember the outrage when people found about about the trade. We had
Anderson for a couple of years and he eventually left. Fortunately, we
have Mo Vaughn, but he still could of been either a DH/RF.
>The deal that sent Brady Anderson and Curt Schilling to Baltimore for Mike
>Boddicker was a good deal and I will defend that one forever. The Sox
>were clearly in a position to win and Mike Boddicker helped put them over
>the top for a couple division titles.
I don't understand this mentality? Why do a lot of Red Sox fan only think
of the short-term. Boddicker was only good for a couple of years, and then
he left for Kansas City as a free-agent. Anderson is having hell of a run
in Baltimore.
SoxFan9418
In article <54k7ec$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lo0ne...@aol.com
(Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
>Well, BONDS is only the best Left fielder in the game (ok, maybe Belle)
>and I dont care if he shoots his mouth off if he can 40/40. As for my
>lunacy, I was responding to another stupid post.
Lunacy is implying that Belle is in any way, shape or form, remotely close
to being the kind of player that bonds is. Nobody is denying the man can
hit, but his fielding . . .
SoxFan9418
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.961023...@acad.umm.maine.edu>,
That cave must be pretty deep. Greenwell's contract was up at the end of
the season. Duquette offered to bring him back as a part time player and
Greenwell told him to shove it. Greenwell has since been designated for
assignment, has refused the assignment, and opted for free agency which
means he can sign with another team now. Rumor has it he's been offered a
three million dollar deal from Japan.
Mark Bureau
soxfa...@aol.com (SoxFan9418) wrote:
>That cave must be pretty deep. Greenwell's contract was up at the end of
>the season. Duquette offered to bring him back as a part time player and
>Greenwell told him to shove it. Greenwell has since been designated for
>assignment, has refused the assignment, and opted for free agency which
>means he can sign with another team now. Rumor has it he's been offered a
>three million dollar deal from Japan.
Let's see:
Williams .341 520 1939-1960 23 years (give or take 5)
Yaz .280+ 453 1961-1983 23 years
Rice .298 382 1974-1990 17 years
Greenwell .??? 100 1986-1996 11 year from star-mediocre-role
player-Japan
Now that should make the ghosts of leftfielders past very proud.
Greenwell - n
***************************************************************
Mark R. Bureau mr...@worldnet.att.net
Home Page:http://www.inter-link.net/~maribu/bureau.htm
Internet Prayer Network:http://www.inter-link.net/~maribu/bu-pray.htm
*** "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" **
**************************************************************
Niraj Agarwalla
Mike Ewert (U 102) (mew...@acad.umm.maine.edu) wrote:
: I guess I've been living in a cave. I did not know that greenwell was a
: free agent. I thought he was on the trading block. He's too valueable to
: be let go on the free agent market. If they are going to get rid of him
: they should at least trade him in a package deal. Keep Clemens though.
: That is a must.
He is not worth $3+ million a year. I see no point in signing him just to
trade him. Hell, if the Red Sox thought they could move him, we would seen
him gone long ago.
Lo0neYtOoN
>Lunacy is implying that Belle is in any way, shape or form, remotely
close
>to being the kind of player that bonds is. Nobody is denying the man can
>hit, but his fielding . . .
WELL, ANYTIME a player hits .350 with 48 homers and 120 or so RBI's I put
him in Bonds class. Belle has done that 2 years straight, and is posting
great numbers. Granted BELLE is not the defensive player Bonds is, but
its not like the SOX are a defensive team. I would say that Belle is AS
GOOD as Bonds or EVEN better OFFENSIVELY. Defensively, does it matter in
the AL where you play 50 10-8 games a year??
Jesse Carbone
Jason Kolman (jko...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
I agree with the points about Greg Vaughn, and I also think the idea of
landing Bonds is great. The problem is they would probably have to give up
4 guys like Pavano, O'Leary, Jefferson and Valentine. Granted it is alot,
but Bonds will do more for the club than any two outfielders they sign.
Steve Baker
soxfa...@aol.com (SoxFan9418) wrote:
>In article <54k7ec$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lo0ne...@aol.com
>(Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
>>Well, BONDS is only the best Left fielder in the game (ok, maybe Belle)
>>and I dont care if he shoots his mouth off if he can 40/40. As for my
>>lunacy, I was responding to another stupid post.
>Lunacy is implying that Belle is in any way, shape or form, remotely close
>to being the kind of player that bonds is. Nobody is denying the man can
>hit, but his fielding . . .
Other than catching the ball and throwing it, Alberts' not that bad of an
outfielder. He goes out there when they tell him to, he stands where they
tell him to, and mostly he tries to catch it and throw it when he's supposed
to.
2 3/4 out of 5... well, I guess that *is* pretty bad.
Never mind,
Steve Baker
lo0ne...@aol.com
Well, Belle is a better Left Fielder than anyone currently roaming the
green monster right now, and a FREE AGENT, so why not make a run at him??
Like the SOX rely on defense?????
jbagnall
In article <54mbrl$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
lo0ne...@aol.com (Lo0neYtOoN) wrote:
>Lunacy is implying that Belle is in any way, shape or form, remotely
close
>to being the kind of player that bonds is. Nobody is denying the man can
>hit, but his fielding . . .
WELL, ANYTIME a player hits .350 with 48 homers and 120 or so RBI's I put
him in Bonds class. Belle has done that 2 years straight, and is posting
great numbers. Granted BELLE is not the defensive player Bonds is, but
its not like the SOX are a defensive team. I would say that Belle is AS
GOOD as Bonds or EVEN better OFFENSIVELY. Defensively, does it matter in
the AL where you play 50 10-8 games a year??
>>>Bonds is a much better player than Belle. Defence counts no matter where
you play, AL, NL, little league, and what ever the score. A run saved
is the same as a run scored. Because you state that the Sox are poor
defensive team, all the more reason to acquire a good defensive player. If
you eliminate the park biases of the Jake vs. 3-Com (or whatever they call it
now), Bonds is the better offensive player too. Bonds may be the best player
of all time.
JB
SoxFan9418
In article <19961025175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lo0ne...@aol.com writes:
>Well, Belle is a better Left Fielder than anyone currently roaming the
>green monster right now, and a FREE AGENT, so why not make a run at him??
Because he's one of the top half dozen embarrassments in all of baseball.
Lets see . . . . .
#1) The leadership vacuum
#2) Marge Schott
#3) Albert Belle
#4) The umpires
#5) the Pittsburgh Pirates
Did I miss anything?
SoxFan9418
In article <54l9bp$p...@ulowell.uml.edu>, naga...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu
(Niraj Agarwalla) writes:
I don't think only in the short term. For proof, see my posts regarding
the trading of Garciaparra and the trading for Bonds. However, when you
are one or two players away from winning it, short term thinking is not a
bad thing. Let me put it this way...if the Sox had five solid starting
pitchers, a deep and effective bullpen, an infield that could field as
well as it can hit, left and right fielders who produced and weren't
stonefingers. Say the Red Sox had all that. All we're missing is the
vacuum cleaning centerfielder. Then say Marquis Grissom or Kenny Lofton
were on the trading block. Are you telling me that you wouldn't trade a
prospect...even a top prospect...to get the final piece to the puzzle?
Niraj Agarwalla
SoxFan9418 <soxfa...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <19961025175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>lo0ne...@aol.com writes:
>
>>Well, Belle is a better Left Fielder than anyone currently roaming the
>>green monster right now, and a FREE AGENT, so why not make a run at him??
>
>
>
>Because he's one of the top half dozen embarrassments in all of baseball.
>
>Lets see . . . . .
>
>#1) The leadership vacuum
>#2) Marge Schott
>#3) Albert Belle
>#4) The umpires
>#5) the Pittsburgh Pirates
>
Who cares. He can sure smack that ball. I say take a stab at him.
MattKiss
No way in hell is Bonds the best player of all time. He has speed,
hitting, and defense, but he is not the best player of all time. Good
players do not bring down the mentality of the rest of the team. Good
players don't bitch and moan about being on a loser club. Good players
care about the fans, the sport, and themselves, in that order.
Wait a sec, am I talking about Wade Boggs or Barry Bonds?
Lo0neYtOoN
>Well, Belle is a better Left Fielder than anyone currently roaming the
>green monster right now, and a FREE AGENT, so why not make a run at him??
Because he's one of the top half dozen embarrassments in all of baseball.
Lets see . . . . .
#1) The leadership vacuum
#2) Marge Schott
#3) Albert Belle
#4) The umpires
#5) the Pittsburgh Pirates
Did I miss anything?
Gregory Lynn
ITS NO WONDER WHY the Sox havent won the WORLD SERIES in 90 years. You
call yourself a fan, you should be the GM of the Sox, cause you seem to be
as clueless as you think DD is. I can't see ANY reason NOT to bring a
TALENT like Belle to BOSTON, especially with the gaping HOLE out there
now. And, considering he is a FREE AGENT, if you sign him, you dont have
to TRADE for him, which means NO PROSPECTS LOST!!! Granted, Belle makes
himself look bad at times (an understatement there), but if you can find
anyone ELSE who is a FREE AGENT and can hit 48 homers, drive in 125 runs,
then lets sign them, but UNTIL that day happens, anyone who thinks that
the SOX shouldnt sign Belle is just plain stupid.
Paul Allison
James Bond 007 wrote:
> I can think of another young prospect that the Red Sox didn't
> want to trade, because he was the third baseman of the future (sic),
> mainly Scott Cooper. As I recall, the Braves wanted to trade
> Tom Glavine straight up for Cooper.
> We let Wade Boggs go to make way for Cooper, and pass on Glavine.
> Great dealing, eh?
Correct, and instead of trading Cooper, the Sox mistakingly choose to
trade away their "third choice", some kid named Jeff Bagwell for a 40
year old right handed reliever named Larry Anderson.
My point (and I think yours too) is that prospects are always a gamble.
Your hesitant to trade away some because at 19 they appear to be the
next Ted Williams, or you can't wait to unload others because at that
same tender age, they look a lot more like the next Mario Mendoza.
A lot of people are unsure about Garciaparra, but I've put a lot of
stock in him. I've seen him play at four levels of baseball, from
collegiate to the majors, and near as I can tell (mind you, I'm no
scout) he has both the tools and the mental toughness to excell at all
of those levels. Everyone is right in predicting that he won't come
anywhere near his Pawtucket numbers in the bigs, and I fully agree.
Afterall, how many players, at any position, manage to slug .750? On
the other hand, who was Alex Rodriguez BEFORE he was Alex Rodriguez? He
put up similar, even less spectacular, numbers in AAA and people were
still unsure of him.
Of course, the decision was a lot more clear cut in Seattle. Afterall,
he was replacing one Felix Fermin, a sometimes hit-sometimes field
shortstop who could never repeat his single .300 season in Cleveland.
In Boston, Garciaparra will be replacing John Valentin, who is certainly
no slouch at the plate, but has always been somewhat lackadaisical in
the field. His arm strength is adequate, but his range always seemed a
little short. He would be better suited for second or third base, where
his range wouldn't be as big of a factor. Unfortunately, he's
vehemently opposed to a position change, which in my always humble
opinion is a sure sign of a selfish ballplayer. Nomar has obvious
superior range (which would be wasted at second) and much, much softer
hands. If Valentin doesn't generate sizeable interest in terms of
players offered, I'd try Nomar at second and let his range go to waste.
At least we could ensure that his bat is good enough to keep him at the
big league level. And by the time Sadler is ready, Valentin will likely
be a free agent, or traded. Ramble, Ramble. :)
Cheers,
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Allison Net Vista - Quality Internet Service
pall...@netvista.net ... it's about time
http://www.netvista.net Concord, California (510) 688-4600
James Bond 007
I can think of another young prospect that the Red Sox didn't
want to trade, because he was the third baseman of the future (sic),
mainly Scott Cooper. As I recall, the Braves wanted to trade
Tom Glavine straight up for Cooper.
We let Wade Boggs go to make way for Cooper, and pass on Glavine.
Great dealing, eh?
JJR
SoxFan9418
In article <552u7c$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lo0ne...@aol.com
(Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
>ITS NO WONDER WHY the Sox havent won the WORLD SERIES in 90 years. You
>call yourself a fan,
Yes I do
you should be the GM of the Sox, cause you seem to be
>as clueless as you think DD is.
I don't think DD is clueless, I think he's doing a damn good job
> I can't see ANY reason NOT to bring a
>TALENT like Belle to BOSTON
You don't care that he's an embarrassment to the game? Well, you're
entitled
> especially with the gaping HOLE out there
>now.
Why don't we give Cordero a chance there before we call him a gaping hole
>And, considering he is a FREE AGENT, if you sign him, you dont have
>to TRADE for him, which means NO PROSPECTS LOST!!!
Ah, see, now who's clueless? Signing a top notch free agent -- and I'm
sure Belle qualifies -- costs you a draft pick. DD has been
extraordinarily reluctant to do this in the past, and I see no indication
he's going to change his mind.
>Granted, Belle makes
>himself look bad at times (an understatement there), but if you can find
>anyone ELSE who is a FREE AGENT and can hit 48 homers, drive in 125 runs,
>then lets sign them, but UNTIL that day happens, anyone who thinks that
>the SOX shouldnt sign Belle is just plain stupid.
Ahh, so I'm just plain stupid am I?
Do you guys realize that left field is *not* the problem right now? We've
got one of the best young hitters in baseball, and we've discovered that
he is a disaster at second base. He's going to get his shot at left
field. The difference between Cordero and Belle in left wouldn't be the
difference in winning the World Series because we still aint gonna have
the pitching to get there.
DD has to:
1) Resolve the Valentin/Naehring 3B situation
2) Find a lefty starter
3) Find a gold glove caliber center fielder
These are the priorities, not finding a new left fielder. If Cordero
sucks out there then we can talk about filling the gaping hole in left
field.
Michael Steinkrauss
Teddy, I will try to explain the major league baseball freeagent
compensation rules.
First there are 4 types of free agent A, B, C, and no compensation.
That is determined by a players statistics the previous 2 years. I thin
it goes something like the top 25% at a position are A, the next 25% are
B, etc.
If a team signs a free agent before a date in early December they are
required to give compensation.
On that early December date teams must either offer arbitration to the
player, or they lose their compensation rights. (Last year the Sox
offered arbitration to Hanson so they received compensation. They didn't
offer arbitration to Aguilera so they received no compensation).
The player has 15 days to either accept arbitration or decline it. During
that time he can negotiate with every team. If he doesn't accept
arbitration his original team can't resign him until after May 1. (my
explanation of this part may be slightly wrong, but the rest I am very
sure of).
Here is how compensation works.
Type A. The team that loses the player receives the other teams #1
pick, and a supplemental first round pick. If the team that signed the
Free agent was in the bottom 14 teams, they can not lose a #1 pick, so
the team that lost the free agent would receive a second round pick. This
is what happened with Hanson last year the Sox received a second round
pick and a supplemental #1.
Type B. The team that loses the player receives a #1 (or #2 from a bad
team), but they don't receive a supplemental #1. This was the case in the
Berryhill signing .
Type C The team that loses the player receives a pick (I think it is
second round) from the team that signed him.
So where does that leave the Sox free agents.
Clemens will clearly be a type A and I am certain the Sox will offer
arbitration, so if he goes the Sox will receive 2 #1's.
Greenwell may be a No compensation guy. He would ordinarily have been a
type B, or C, but I think the Sox relinquished any rights to comp when
they designated him for assignment. I might be wrong.
The Sox late season push might have taken them out of the Free Agent hunt.
As now any signing will require a #1 pick as comp, or at least before
the arbitration deadline.
One other note. Most players become no-compensation type after that early
Dec. date, because very few players are offered arbitration . Example:
Pittsburgh received no compensation for Barry Bonds, because they were
afraid to offer him arbitration
Mike.
Lo0neYtOoN
>Ahh, so I'm just plain stupid am I?
You said it, I just figured it all along. Well, EXCUSE me for the
misinterpretation of the draft rules, like the first round pick that we
lose to the Indians will make that big of a difference (in your mind it
will). We would get their pick in the second round anyway, so it MIGHT
still be worth the deal. Hmmm BELLE and a second round pick for your
first round pick?? Now I don't know if I would do it anymore. You still
probably would rather have Greenwell out there than Belle. WAKE UP!!! I
don't believe you want to argue the point of whether the SOX should go
after Belle or not. When he ends up with another team (Marlins) don't
start bitching over the fact that the SOX should have gotten him when he
puts up another MONSTER year next year. So what if he misses 10 games to
suspension? Granted some of your points are actually valid, like DD's
problems that he has to solve and that he is doing a decent job.
Edward Zartler
In article <552u7c$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> lo0ne...@aol.com (Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
>ITS NO WONDER WHY the Sox havent won the WORLD SERIES in 90 years. You
>as clueless as you think DD is. I can't see ANY reason NOT to bring a
>TALENT like Belle to BOSTON, especially with the gaping HOLE out there
>now. And, considering he is a FREE AGENT, if you sign him, you dont have
>to TRADE for him, which means NO PROSPECTS LOST!!! Granted, Belle makes
>himself look bad at times (an understatement there), but if you can find
>anyone ELSE who is a FREE AGENT and can hit 48 homers, drive in 125 runs,
>then lets sign them, but UNTIL that day happens, anyone who thinks that
>the SOX shouldnt sign Belle is just plain stupid.
Ummhmm...If we sign Belle we lose our first round pick, as he is a
type A free agent, unless I misunderstand this rule. As first rounders
can make immediate impacts these are great picks to have...We got Cincy's
for Berryhill...Signing Belle does lose up a prospect, the next Garciaparra.
Teddy
Mike Ewert (U 102)
Boggs has grown up quite a bit since his baby blow ups. He is a respected
player who has worked over time on his fielding and is shows. Now he has
a ring with the hated Yankees when he should have gotten one in 86. Ain't
that the bitchin truth!
An'na'Delilah
Looneytoon raises an interesting question re: Albert Belle's free
agent status, however he does both his ideas and his credibility injustice
by labeling any opposition to Belle as "stupid".
Belle's numbers, statistically speaking, certainly would make the Sox
even more potent offensively than they have been the past two seasons.
Defensively, Albert's prolly no worse than Greenie, _but_ Greenie has
played the Monster day in day out for 10 years. So at home defensively,
we'd lose some, on the road, its prolly a wash. Offensively, Belle is a
_major_ improvement, I mean _major_.
Considering that's all Looney is basing his analysis on, in so far as
it goes, it's a correct analysis. Given those factors of just offense and
defense, Belle would of course improve the Sox.
But there are of course, other factors to consider. First, how about
payroll? Wayne Huizenga is determined to spend some of his video rental
profits and build a champion in South Florida. ESPN reports that he'll
offer Belle a 4 year, $40,000,000 deal to sign with the Marlins. That
would make Belle, by far, the highest paid player in baseball.
I don't believe the Sox can even begin discussing that kind of money
with any single player at this point. If they were to sign Belle to that
kind of salary <$10 mil per>, forget about re-signing Clemens, forget
about bringing in another starter or two, and be prepared to have Tim
Wakefield start opening day as your #1. Boston _is_ a profitable team,
and the owners have a right to keep it that way. When you committ a
franchise to a major purchase like Belle, and have an operating budget
dedicated to salaries, if you overspend in one area, you need to cut
corners in another area.
Some people will no doubtscream at this point about the Sox not being
willing to spend what it takes to win. That's not the case. However,
spending to buy even more offense for the most devestating lineup in
baseball makes little sense, especially when the team needs at least one
quality starter, one all around centerfielder, and two quality middle
relievers. =20
_If_ Canseco leaves <I'm not at all sure he will>, that might free up
some money. But the Sox have better places to spend that money. What the
club has in leftfield right now is more than adequate. Allow Darren
Bragg, Wil Cordero <who _is_ a terrific young hitter>, and Reggie
Jefferson to compete for the job in spring training. All of them bring
different skills to the team, and a platoon is not out of the question,
nor sumfin to regret. The Baltimore Orioles were a potent force utilizing
outfield platoons during the 1970's and 80's, and many NL teams operate
this way. This seems an efficient, and cost effective way to turn these
players talents into an asset, and should be examined closely. It also
costs the Sox _nothing_, no draft picks, no prospects, no cash, nothing.
I don't see leftfield as being a "hole". I see 3 quality players all
with a chance to win the job in spring training. Bragg gives the Sox a
legitimate leadoff hitter who makes things happen, Cordero is a good young
hitter with power, and Jefferson is a good solid dh/parttime of-1b type
with power who was born to hit in Fenway. Of the 3, Bragg is by far the
better defensive player. I suspect we have more than enuf talent in
leftfield to win a world series title in the next 5 years.
Where we _don't_ have enuf talent is in center and the pitching staff.
I am very comfortable with Lee Tinsley in centerfield, at least
defensively. Tinsley however, is in all porobability more valuable to the
team as a 4th outfielder. Able to play all 3 outfield spots, his speed
and defense and versatility would seem to make him the perfect candidate
for the 4th outfield slot. This assumes the Sox go out and get a top
centerfielder <I wouldn't rule out the Sox signing Moises Alou and playing
him in left or right, and making Bragg the centerfielder, and leaving the
leftfierld battle between cordero and Jefferson. I think it is much more
likely that Bragg would make the move to CF than Alou, but I'm not
certain>.
Rightfield is a question mark as well, though a starting outfield of
Cordero in left, Bragg in center, and Jefferson in right, with Tinsley and
Pemberton getting playing time is hardly a disaster. That outfield
_won't_ keep the sox from winning a championship, though I would prefer to
see a better defensive player out there as well. Assuming for the moment
that Canseco calms down and gets off the KK bandwagon, the Sox offense
would remain every bit as potent as it was last season, perhaps moreso
with Jefferson and Cordero being given fulltime roles, and Bragg around
for the entire year. =20
Without a doubt, pitching is where the Sox need to spend their money.
I'd like to see them bring in a legitimate #2 starter, though I'd settle
for a #3. They can do this either thru free agency, or by trading either
Tim Naehring or John Valentin <I understand the dodgers are very
interested in Naehring -- isn't he a southern california kid?> It
wouldn't hurt the Sox to bring in a 2nd decent starter, but if they are
able to re-sign Rajah, one should be enuf.
The real attention IMHO needs to be on the middle relief corps.
Losing Rheal Cormier really hurt this ball club last year. He was a
terrific swingman, filling those middle/late innings prior to using your
closer, as well as being able to spot start. The Sox really need to bring
in two guys here that can get you thru the 6thj, 7th, and 8th innings so
Cliff Slocumb doesnt have to get 6 outs every night.
Final thoughts on Belle. Boston is one of the most racially charged
major cities in North America. Imagine the first time some drunk jerk
hurled a racial epithet at Belle when he strikes out. Albert Belle going
into the stands to beat up a white fan? In Boston? Imagine the racial
problems, if not riots that would cause in Roxbury, Dorchester, and
Southie. Bringing Belle to Boston is very likely to cause as much racial
conflict as Judge Garrity's 1976 forced busing decision did.
No thank you.
=20
--Anna
=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D=
*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=
=3D-=3D*
An'na'Delilah + ` . + . . + STRANGE ` + '
Goddess/Wizzie/B.I.T.C.H. . + NEW ' ' +
Beautiful, Intelligent, Talented ` . WORLDS + =20
Charming and ~~~HOT! + . ' . ` + . TrekMUSH . '
Strange New Worlds TrekMUSH . ` . ' + . '
<<< tsb.weschke.com port 4201 >>>
<<< http://www.inet-images.com/snw >>>
Admin Email: <<< s...@tsb.weschke.com >>> +
. "When I'm good I'm very good,
+ . ` but when I'm bad, I'm better."
+ . ` . + --Mae West
+ .
Commissioner of ~~~<<< AWFL >>> Anna's World Football League
Owner of the o/~ Block Island Sound o/~
Web Page http://www.cris.com/~annad
Email: <<< an...@cris.com >>> or <<< god...@tsb.weschke.com >>>
Boston Red Sox fanatic, New England Patriots fan, Teacher, and Mom!
Ok, I'm a masochist ;)
=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D=
*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=3D-=3D*=
=3D-=3D*
=FF
SoxFan9418
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.961030...@acad.umm.maine.edu>,
"Mike Ewert (U 102)" <mew...@acad.umm.maine.edu> writes:
>Boggs has grown up quite a bit since his baby blow ups. He is a respected
>player who has worked over time on his fielding and is shows.
Explain that to the stewardess he bitched out
SoxFan9418
In article <556kab$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lo0ne...@aol.com
(Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
> You still
>probably would rather have Greenwell out there than Belle.
Now who's being stupid?
>WAKE UP!!! I
>don't believe you want to argue the point of whether the SOX should go
>after Belle or not.
Ah, seems to me, that was the point we were arguing. I don't believe I
ever said Belle wouldn't be an offensive force on this team or that he
wouldn't increase our offensive production. My point is that offense
isn't our problem. Pitching and defense are our problems. Going after
Albert Belle would be like giving a death row inmate some aspirin. It may
improve his lot, but his biggest problems are elsewhere
>When he ends up with another team (Marlins) don't
>start bitching over the fact that the SOX should have gotten him when he
>puts up another MONSTER year next year.
Don't worry, I won't
>So what if he misses 10 games to
>suspension?
Yeah, and so what if it's your kid he runs down on Halloween
Lo0neYtOoN
>WAKE UP!!! I
>don't believe you want to argue the point of whether the SOX should go
>after Belle or not.
:Ah, seems to me, that was the point we were arguing. I don't believe I
:ever said Belle wouldn't be an offensive force on this team or that he
:wouldn't increase our offensive production. My point is that offense
:isn't our problem. Pitching and defense are our problems. Going after
:Albert Belle would be like giving a death row inmate some aspirin. It
may
:improve his lot, but his biggest problems are elsewhere
just goes to show why you are a Sox fan. You can never have too many good
players. Ask the Braves that question. You are right that we need
pitching, but more offense never hurts.
>When he ends up with another team (Marlins) don't
>start bitching over the fact that the SOX should have gotten him when he
>puts up another MONSTER year next year.
:Don't worry, I won't
Ok, we'll see next year.
:Yeah, and so what if it's your kid he runs down on Halloween
:Gregory Lynn
:----Sox in 96
:Er, 97? Hpw 'bout them prospects? :)
you only hear one side of the truth from the media stories, don't always
believe what you read. I have some land for sale in the everglades CHEAP!
What did those kids do?? There is 3 sides to every story. And as for
your "How bout them prospects" well, hope some of them actually develop
from prospects into "player" cause the Sox sure need some (pitching).
Maybe its time to finally get a #1 starter.
Bluto
soxfa...@aol.com (SoxFan9418) wrote:
>In article <19961025175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>lo0ne...@aol.com writes:
>>Well, Belle is a better Left Fielder than anyone currently roaming the
>>green monster right now, and a FREE AGENT, so why not make a run at him??
>Because he's one of the top half dozen embarrassments in all of baseball.
>Lets see . . . . .
>#1) The leadership vacuum
>#2) Marge Schott
>#3) Albert Belle
>#4) The umpires
>#5) the Pittsburgh Pirates
>Did I miss anything?
>Gregory Lynn
Yeah, you forgot about Bobby Bonilla, The Biggest (insert
one:Jerk/Loser) In Baseball.
Now, if the Sox get him, well......Bonilla is such a jerk, he almost
makes Belle look cool.
Bluto
jbagnall
In article <32751...@robby.oit.umass.edu>,
JJR
>>That's Lou Gorman for you. Lucky we have the Duke.
JB
Jason Kolman
SoxFan9418 (soxfa...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <552u7c$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lo0ne...@aol.com
: (Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
: > I can't see ANY reason NOT to bring a
: >TALENT like Belle to BOSTON
: You don't care that he's an embarrassment to the game? Well, you're
: entitled
I've got to disagree with you here; while Belle may be a jerk, you
certainlty don't know him or how he acts in the clubhouse, and by all
accounts he seems like a hard worker who really studies pitchers. I think
a lot of his reputation is media-driven; the $50,000 fine he was given for
yelling a Hannah Storm was an absolute joke, as guys like Jay Buhner, Paul
O'Neil and Tim Belcher do similar things all the time and are labelled
"intense competitors." Belle would be a 100% upgrade to the Sox' outfield,
and I'd love to see him come if the price is right (although he's at the
age where he should start to decline).
: Ah, see, now who's clueless? Signing a top notch free agent -- and I'm
: sure Belle qualifies -- costs you a draft pick. DD has been
: extraordinarily reluctant to do this in the past, and I see no indication
: he's going to change his mind.
I agree here; Belle's age and the draft pick are the big negatives to
signing him, not his character.
: Do you guys realize that left field is *not* the problem right now? We've
: got one of the best young hitters in baseball, and we've discovered that
: he is a disaster at second base. He's going to get his shot at left
: field. The difference between Cordero and Belle in left wouldn't be the
: difference in winning the World Series because we still aint gonna have
: the pitching to get there.
Again, I've got to disagree. While I'm a big Cordero fan, given his age
and hitting ability, I don't think moving him to left field would be a
good idea. As a middle infielder he'd be one of the best hitters in
baseball, but as a corner outfielder he'd be about average; there's just
no way he's in Belle's league yet, and his development hasn't been
stunning over the last couple of years. I'd try him at second base in
winter ball again before giving up on that idea.
: DD has to:
: 1) Resolve the Valentin/Naehring 3B situation
: 2) Find a lefty starter
: 3) Find a gold glove caliber center fielder
Number 1 I agree with; the Sox have a surplus of middle infielders, and I
expect Duquette to get some value in return. If Clemens resigns, however,
I think the starting pitching is basically fine; Clemens, Suppan, Sele,
Wakefield and Gordon, plus maybe a signing like Portugal or Wells, would
be a solid rotation. I think Sele in particular is poised to have a good
season, as his strikeout rate improved a lot this year. Bragg deserves the
centerfield job; the major tasks for this offseason are resolving the
corner outifeld spots (no Moises Alou, please) and strengthening the
bullpen, whch was terrible last year.
Lo0neYtOoN
you guys deserve to be SOX fans... ah the struggles, the pain, the agony.
You deserve it all. No wonder we havent won a world series in 90 years,
cause you are too concerned with image, and not concerned enough with
WINNING. Both Bonilla and Belle PRODUCED for their prospective teams.
PRODUCTION most of the time means WINS, which means WORLD SERIES
APPEARANCES. You must seem to forget that both Belle AND Bonilla's teams
made POSTSEASON appearances, which was what the SOX were hoping for, but
didn't quite make. So before you go and bash players, consider whether
they will help your team or not first.
SoxFan9418
In article <55g07d$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lo0ne...@aol.com
(Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
>So before you go and bash players, consider whether
>they will help your team or not first.
>
>
If either belle or bonilla were a pitcher, or could play defense worth a
damn it would be different, but we don't need more offense, particularly
when it comes with a loser attached.
An'na'Delilah
On 2 Nov 1996, Lo0neYtOoN wrote:
>
> you guys deserve to be SOX fans... ah the struggles, the pain, the agony.
> You deserve it all.
Thank you. ;) Being a Sox fan is rather akin to relishing New England
weather. It takes a hardy soul to be a Sox fan, and you do us all much
credit, even if that's not your intent ;).
No wonder we havent won a world series in 90 years,
> cause you are too concerned with image, and not concerned enough with
> WINNING. Both Bonilla and Belle PRODUCED for their prospective teams.
> PRODUCTION most of the time means WINS, which means WORLD SERIES
> APPEARANCES.
You haven't addressed the main problem. It is _extremely_ unlikely
the sox will win a championship by acquiring a new LF. LF is _not_ the
shortfall on this club. We can score plenty of runs. And real life
budgetary constraints means if you are gonna give a guy like Belle $10 mil
per, you've got to rob Peter to pay Paul. That money is far better off
being spent on pitching. The Sox have a good enuf offense to win and
compete in post season play. They need 1 or 2 starting pitchers, and
deseprately need some middle and setup relief pitchers, and _maybe_ need a
CF <depending upon whether Bragg cuts it in CF>.
Until _that_ problem is addressed, we prolly won't win a title.
You must seem to forget that both Belle AND Bonilla's teams
> made POSTSEASON appearances, which was what the SOX were hoping for, but
> didn't quite make.
No one's forgetting that. But Bonilla isn't worth what he's making,
he's a defensive liability wherever he plays, and I can't see any way he
improves the Sox in areas that they need to be improved. As for Belle,
he's an outstanding power hitter, who is less than adequate defensively,
but from a pure statistical vantage, he's an asset to any team.
But the question is, with a limited budget, is that where the team can
best improve its championship qualifications?
I think not.
So before you go and bash players, consider whether
> they will help your team or not first.
>
>
I think it's an acceptable and debatable issue whether players like
Belle and Bonilla are good players to bring in. This isn't Fantasy
Baseball where the only thing that matters is stats. Team chemistry,
impact on a community, and general reputation for troublemaking are
certainly issues management needs to consider. Expressing concern over
Belle's well publicized exploits isn't bashing as far as I'm concerned,
but it is an issue that should be considered.
Regardless of _all_ that, from a pure fiscal management perspective,
the Sox, like any business, have only a limited amount of capital they are
willing to spend on salaries. Do they spend $10 mil per in order to
acquire more offense? Or is that money better spent on pitching?
To me, the issue is clear. Buy more pitching ;). But that's just my
two cents worth.
--Anna
----------------------------------------
An'na'Delilah, Goddess/Wizard/B.I.T.C.H. + ' +
Beautiful, Intelligent, Talented, Charming, and ~~~HOT .
RedSox Fanatic, Patriots Fan, Teacher, Writer, Mom and Masochist! +
<<<an...@cris.com>>> <<<god...@tsb.weschke.com>>>
+ . ,
"When I'm good I'm very good, but when I'm bad I'm better."
--Mae West
.
~~~<<< AWFL >>> + Strange New Worlds TrekMUSH
Anna's World Football League . <<< tsb.weschke.com 4201 >>>
<<<http://www.cris.com/~annad>>> <<<http://www.inet-images.com/snw>>>
Jason Kolman
MattKiss (matt...@aol.com) wrote:
: No way in hell is Bonds the best player of all time.
Maybe not, but he's close.
:He has speed,
: hitting, and defense, but he is not the best player of all time. Good
: players do not bring down the mentality of the rest of the team.
And your evidence that Bonds does this, or that it really matters, is....
:Good players don't bitch and moan about being on a loser club.
Oh, I see; if he "bitches and moans" about being on a loser he's a
"clubhouse cancer"; but if he just shuts up and plays, he's a pompous
millionare who only cares about his salary, not about winning.
:Good players care about the fans, the sport, and themselves, in that
:order. Wait a sec, am I talking about Wade Boggs or Barry Bonds?
I can see you've taken Shaughnessy 101: Introduction to Cliche and
Mindless Media Drivel.
Seriously, I'm sick and tired of all these holier-than-thou fans and
sportswriters questioning the character of a bunch of athletes they don't
even know. People were so upset when Alomar talked about Hirschbeck's son
as a motive for his emotional instability, but this sort of pop psychology
goes on every day. Unless you're a family member, friend or relative of
Bonds, I don't see how you can possibly know what kind of a person he is,
not that that would really matter anyway.
R. G. W
go...@erols.com wrote:
>
> I have a hard time knocking Gorman for that one. Cooper was good for a
> few years. We also got a couple of good players for him. Whiten, who is
> a good player, but for some reason just did not work in Boston. I liked
> Cooper and I am wish they never traded him and maybe he could have worked
> out like he was supposed to if he stayed in Boston.
>
> Derek
become much better than he was. Boggs was forced out because Gorman was
in love with Cooper's potential. It never developed. Cooper is now
hunting for a major league job. No takers yet for a mediocre hitter, with
limited range and no speed.
Billy
jbagnall <jbag...@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca> writes:
>In article <32751...@robby.oit.umass.edu>,
> jam...@emily.oit.umass.edu (James Bond 007) wrote:
> I can think of another young prospect that the Red Sox didn't
> want to trade, because he was the third baseman of the future (sic),
> mainly Scott Cooper. As I recall, the Braves wanted to trade
> Tom Glavine straight up for Cooper.
any point. Do you have anything to support this?
Billy
Lo0neYtOoN
If either belle or bonilla were a pitcher, or could play defense worth a
damn it would be different, but we don't need more offense, particularly
when it comes with a loser attached.
Gregory Lynn
----Sox in 96
Er, 97? Hpw 'bout them prospects? :)
Damn, some people JUST DONT GET IT. Maybe if the team were worth a damn,
we could get some pitching in here. You ALWAYS NEED more offense.
Remember, the team that scores MORE RUNS WINS!
SoxFan9418
In article <55ifu9$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lo0ne...@aol.com
(Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
>Damn, some people JUST DONT GET IT. Maybe if the team were worth a damn,
>we could get some pitching in here. You ALWAYS NEED more offense.
>Remember, the team that scores MORE RUNS WINS!
No you dumbass, it's the team that gives up the fewest runs that wins!
Lo0neYtOoN
>No you dumbass, it's the team that gives up the fewest runs that wins!
>Gregory Lynn
>----Sox in 96
>Er, 97? Hpw 'bout them prospects? :)
ER, It's also the team that SCORES THE MOST RUNS WINS!!! The team that
gives up the fewest runs wins, is a NATIONAL LEAGUE viewpoint LOL. These
posts dont mean a damn anyway, cause the SOX arent going to get Belle. I
just hope they go out and get some pitching. Any ideas on who they are
looking at in the free agent market, and any ideas if Clemens will be
back??
Paul Raymond Wellspeak
As all Bosox fans know they have made several postseason
appearances within the past 10 years. They have produced and have won many
games. Unfortunately like the teams of Belle and Bonilla the Sox can not
win the big one.
Besides the Sox had major pitching and defense problems this year.
Great pitching and defense will always defeat great offense.
On 2 Nov 1996, Lo0neYtOoN wrote:
> you guys deserve to be SOX fans... ah the struggles, the pain, the agony.
> You deserve it all. No wonder we havent won a world series in 90 years,
> cause you are too concerned with image, and not concerned enough with
> WINNING. Both Bonilla and Belle PRODUCED for their prospective teams.
> PRODUCTION most of the time means WINS, which means WORLD SERIES
> APPEARANCES. You must seem to forget that both Belle AND Bonilla's teams
> made POSTSEASON appearances, which was what the SOX were hoping for, but
> didn't quite make. So before you go and bash players, consider whether
Raymond Diperna
MattKiss (matt...@aol.com) wrote:
: No way in hell is Bonds the best player of all time. He has speed,
: hitting, and defense, but he is not the best player of all time.
Not the best *player*, but certainly one of the best left fielders ever.
: Good players do not bring down the mentality of the rest of the team.
How did he bring down the mentality of the rest of the team? By being one
of the top two hitters in the national league?
:Good players don't bitch and moan about being on a loser club.
Patently false.
:Good players care about the fans, the sport, and themselves, in that
:order.
Cut this nauseating feel-good BS.
: Wait a sec, am I talking about Wade Boggs or Barry Bonds?
Nobody knows.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond DiPerna <rad...@pitt.edu>
alias: a0...@lehigh.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Diperna
SoxFan9418 (soxfa...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <552u7c$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lo0ne...@aol.com
: (Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
: > I can't see ANY reason NOT to bring a
: >TALENT like Belle to BOSTON
: You don't care that he's an embarrassment to the game? Well, you're
: entitled
No. I don't. I'd rather the sox were contenders than have a team filled
with people who have never made a mistake in their life.
: > especially with the gaping HOLE out there
: >now.
: Why don't we give Cordero a chance there before we call him a gaping hole
He's had his chance. For 5 years in the major leagues. And he doesn't
hit *nearly* well enough to justify playing him in left field. Cordero,
my friend, is in fact a GAPING hole in left. Not only offensively, but
can he even play *defense* out there?
: >Granted, Belle makes
: >himself look bad at times (an understatement there), but if you can find
: >anyone ELSE who is a FREE AGENT and can hit 48 homers, drive in 125 runs,
: >then lets sign them, but UNTIL that day happens, anyone who thinks that
: >the SOX shouldnt sign Belle is just plain stupid.
: Ahh, so I'm just plain stupid am I?
Well, yes -- if you refuse to sign Belle because he doesn't live up to
your definition of morality.
: Do you guys realize that left field is *not* the problem right now?
Oh? How so?
: We've
: got one of the best young hitters in baseball, and we've discovered that
: he is a disaster at second base.
Cordero is NOT one of the best young hitters in baseball. No way, no how.
Last year he hit .284/.322/.401 (that's AVE/OBP/SLG).
That is *putrid* for a left fielder. He doesn't get on base NOR does he
hit for power. If this is your idea of "best young hitter in baseball,"
you've got a tortured definition of "best."
And how old is he?
: He's going to get his shot at left field.
The only "shot" here is the sound of the red sox shooting themselves in
the foot if Cordero goes *near* left field.
: The difference between Cordero and Belle in left wouldn't be the
: difference in winning the World Series because we still aint gonna have
: the pitching to get there.
The difference between Cordero and Belle in left is HUGE. The sox
contended last year, and had (i believe) the best record in all of
baseball the second half.
: DD has to:
: 1) Resolve the Valentin/Naehring 3B situation
: 2) Find a lefty starter
Why do we need a lefty starter, as opposed to a righty?
: These are the priorities, not finding a new left fielder. If Cordero
: sucks out there then we can talk about filling the gaping hole in left
: field.
It doesn't help to close the barn door *after* the cows run out.
Why not bring Ted Williams back next year, and if he sucks out there
*then* we can talk about filling the gaping hole in left field?
The goal here is to prevent the mistake *before* it's made. And the way
you maximize your success of doing that is by making intelligent decisions
right now.
Raymond Diperna
An'na'Delilah (An...@cris.com) wrote:
: _If_ Canseco leaves <I'm not at all sure he will>, that might free up
: some money.
It would also mean the loss of a fantastic hitter.
: But the Sox have better places to spend that money. What the
: club has in leftfield right now is more than adequate.
Oh? How so?
: Allow Darren
: Bragg, Wil Cordero <who _is_ a terrific young hitter>, and Reggie
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What makes Cordero a terrific young hitter? Please share.
From where i sit, he didn't even get on base at a *league average* rate
last year, NOR did he hit for any power at all. This offense in left
field? Surely you jest.
: Jefferson to compete for the job in spring training. All of them bring
Jefferson is done competing. Let him play right.
: I don't see leftfield as being a "hole". I see 3 quality players all
: with a chance to win the job in spring training.
Too bad there are 3 outfield spots, and not more than 2 quality players to
fill them.
: Cordero is a good young hitter with power
Friend, a .401 SLG% is NOT power.
: Where we _don't_ have enuf talent is in center and the pitching staff.
: I am very comfortable with Lee Tinsley in centerfield, at least
: defensively.
"Very comfortable" with tinsley in center?????? The man cannot hit for
power and cannot get on base. He makes Cordero look like Mark McGwire.
Tinsley, 1996: .245/.293/.333 (for the sox)
That is downright *horrible*. And he did even worse for Philly.
: Tinsley however, is in all porobability more valuable to the
: team as a 4th outfielder. Able to play all 3 outfield spots, his speed
: and defense and versatility would seem to make him the perfect candidate
: for the 4th outfield slot. This assumes the Sox go out and get a top
: centerfielder <I wouldn't rule out the Sox signing Moises Alou and playing
: him in left or right, and making Bragg the centerfielder, and leaving the
: leftfierld battle between cordero and Jefferson. I think it is much more
: likely that Bragg would make the move to CF than Alou, but I'm not
: certain>.
: Rightfield is a question mark as well,
You are the question mark.
: for a #3. They can do this either thru free agency, or by trading either
: Tim Naehring or John Valentin <I understand the dodgers are very
: interested in Naehring -- isn't he a southern california kid?> It
What is wrong with Naehring?
: Final thoughts on Belle. Boston is one of the most racially charged
: major cities in North America. Imagine the first time some drunk jerk
: hurled a racial epithet at Belle when he strikes out. Albert Belle going
: into the stands to beat up a white fan? In Boston? Imagine the racial
: problems, if not riots that would cause in Roxbury, Dorchester, and
: Southie. Bringing Belle to Boston is very likely to cause as much racial
: conflict as Judge Garrity's 1976 forced busing decision did.
: No thank you.
You are an absolute fool.
First, even *assuming* that Belle would cause such a mass racial upheaval
(a RIDICULOUS proposition), that still is no basis for making a decision,
as all it does is foster racism. Desegregation caused many riots. Should
we have just kept the schools segregated instead?
An'na'Delilah
On 4 Nov 1996, Raymond Diperna wrote:
>
> It would also mean the loss of a fantastic hitter.
>
Agreed. As I've said in many a prior post, let Jose calm down and let
KK fade into history. Jose is an asset.
> : But the Sox have better places to spend that money. What the
> : club has in leftfield right now is more than adequate.
>
> Oh? How so?
>
1) We desperately need pitching. Tim Wakefield as a #2 starter
doesn't cut it. Nothing against Tim, but when he's your second best
starting pitcher, you _need_ more pitching. We also desperately need
middle relief help. Having a closer -- _any_ closer -- who has to
consistently get 4,5 or 6 outs every appearance is counterproductive.
Darren Bragg is a fine leftfielder, and Cordero is just now blossoming
into a hitter. He was injured last year, and then used as a pinch hitter.
Using just last year's numbers are disingenuous. That being said,
_nowhere_ did I say Cordero was better than Belle.
Nowhere. ;)
> : Allow Darren
> : Bragg, Wil Cordero <who _is_ a terrific young hitter>, and Reggie
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What makes Cordero a terrific young hitter? Please share.
>
> From where i sit, he didn't even get on base at a *league average* rate
> last year, NOR did he hit for any power at all. This offense in left
> field? Surely you jest.
>
His rate of development in Montreal was terrific. He's just now
coming into his prime <I believe he's 25 or 26, correct me if I'm wrong>,
and thus he's just now entering his peak years of production. Montreal
traded him because they didn't have a place for him to play defensively,
not because he isn't a good young hitter. Again, you're overrelying on
one year's stats, and fail to take into account 1) his needing to adjust
to AL pitching and strike zones, and 2) A season lost to injury.
That being said, _nowhere_ did I say Cordero is a better player than
Belle.
Nowhere. ;)
> : Jefferson to compete for the job in spring training. All of them bring
>
> Jefferson is done competing. Let him play right.
>
I think Reggie has earned a spot. Let's see how well he can play
everyday defensively. Not much argument on this point. RJ rocks! ;) A
born fenway hitter.
>
> Too bad there are 3 outfield spots, and not more than 2 quality players to
> fill them.
>
The team needs a solid defensive centerfielder with speed that can
hit. I thought I said this? ;)
> : Cordero is a good young hitter with power
>
> Friend, a .401 SLG% is NOT power.
>
> : Where we _don't_ have enuf talent is in center and the pitching staff.
> : I am very comfortable with Lee Tinsley in centerfield, at least
> : defensively.
>
> "Very comfortable" with tinsley in center?????? The man cannot hit for
> power and cannot get on base. He makes Cordero look like Mark McGwire.
>
Please read the entire quote and try and understand it before you
start flaming people. I made it clear my comfort was primarily
defensively. I think you've gone overboard in your attempt to vilify me.
How you can include a quote of mine, and not even pay attention to the
words and meanings is beyond belief.
I suggest you read the words again. Then maybe you'll understand what
I said was I'm comfortable with Tinsley, at least defensively.
> Tinsley, 1996: .245/.293/.333 (for the sox)
>
> That is downright *horrible*. And he did even worse for Philly.
>
1) You ignore 1995 completely, and point to 1996's offensive stats
when he was a bench player in Philly, and unsure of his role with the Sox
in '96.
2) His battiing average, obp, and slug pct have _nothing_ to do with
what I said. He's a good solid defensive player. Please _read_ the quote
next time before commenting.
3) I refer you to the next quote, in which I also make it clear
Tinsley's more valuable as a backup, and he's more suited to such a role.
Why is it so hard for you to read and understand what I said? I made
it quite clear.
> : Tinsley however, is in all porobability more valuable to the
> : team as a 4th outfielder. Able to play all 3 outfield spots, his speed
> : and defense and versatility would seem to make him the perfect candidate
> : for the 4th outfield slot. This assumes the Sox go out and get a top
> : centerfielder <I wouldn't rule out the Sox signing Moises Alou and playing
> : him in left or right, and making Bragg the centerfielder, and leaving the
> : leftfierld battle between cordero and Jefferson. I think it is much more
> : likely that Bragg would make the move to CF than Alou, but I'm not
> : certain>.
>
<points to the above quote> I even made it clear that Bragg was
preferable over Tinsley in CF.
Did you even read the post, or are did you just want to start a
flamewar?
> : Rightfield is a question mark as well,
>
> You are the question mark.
>
I guess this remark answers my question. If you don't like my ideas,
debate is acceptable, that's the purpose of this forum. Making silly
remarks like that, of a personal nature, is hurtful and counterproductive,
and can only be interpreted as your desire to start a shouting match and
name calling which I won't engage in. Please refrain from doing so in the
future, it only makes people take your _serious_ opinions and ridicule
them when you start getting personal.
> : for a #3. They can do this either thru free agency, or by trading either
> : Tim Naehring or John Valentin <I understand the dodgers are very
> : interested in Naehring -- isn't he a southern california kid?> It
>
> What is wrong with Naehring?
>
Nothing is wrong with Naehring. In fact, I defy you to show me any
post with my name attached, that has _ever_ said one negative word about
Naehring.
_Ever_.
The fact is the Sox have decided to play Nomar Garciaparra at
shortstop. Assuming <which _may_ be an error on my part> that Jeff Frye
is gonna be the second baseman next year, and that Mo Vaughn will be the
firstbaseman, that leaves _one_ infield spot, with two outstanding players
left in John Valentin and Naehring. It is _common sense_ that when you
have two fine players like that to fill one position, and your team
desperately needs help in another area, you consider trading one of them
for that help. The fact that I said I read the Dodgers were interested in
Naehring doesn't mean there's anything wrong with him. It means that they
_might_ be willing to trade us sumfin in another area where we need help.
Is that so hard to grasp?
> : Final thoughts on Belle. Boston is one of the most racially charged
> : major cities in North America. Imagine the first time some drunk jerk
> : hurled a racial epithet at Belle when he strikes out. Albert Belle going
> : into the stands to beat up a white fan? In Boston? Imagine the racial
> : problems, if not riots that would cause in Roxbury, Dorchester, and
> : Southie. Bringing Belle to Boston is very likely to cause as much racial
> : conflict as Judge Garrity's 1976 forced busing decision did.
> : No thank you.
>
> You are an absolute fool.
>
Again, why resort to namecalling? Do you even know what I'm speaking
about? Boston has historically had problems with relating to black
ballplayers. Mo Vaughn is the _first_ black whom I haven't heard raise it
as an issue. If you disagree and believe it's no longer an issue, that's
one thing. But please refrain from name calling and inflamatory
statements like this one.
After all, you do the reasonable portions of your argument no good
when the person reading them feels attacked and abused.
Unless of course, all you wanted to do was start a flame war. If
that's the case, don't expect me to play your game.
Do you even know who Garrity is? Do you have any familiarity with the
major crisis and unrest his ruling caused?
In the real world, these issues bear _some_ relevance on bringing a
player to a new team, whether you like it or not. Statistics are not all
that matters.
I will say my use of the word _likely_ was an overstatement. Consider
it me engaging in reductio ad absurdem if you will. The fact is, bringing
a player with a volatile temper like Belle to Boston _may_ cause some
racial oriented issues.
I _do_ however note I overstated the case saying it was _likely_. For
pointing that out, I give you credit. However, you could have done so by
simply saying I was overstating the case, rather than resorting to name
calling.
Your choice.
> First, even *assuming* that Belle would cause such a mass racial upheaval
> (a RIDICULOUS proposition), that still is no basis for making a decision,
> as all it does is foster racism. Desegregation caused many riots. Should
> we have just kept the schools segregated instead?
>
>
Your statement here infers of course that that is what I believe.
Pointing out a historical fact, such as the election of Abraham Lincoln
caused many southern states to secede in 1861 does not mean I think we
should have elected someone else. But it _is_ a historical fact.
\
I never _once_ said I oppossed or favoured Judge garrity's ruling on
busing. I merely reiterated conventional wisdom on what it did to the
community at the time. I don't believe _anyone_ familiar with the
situation would debate that the busing ruling heightened racial tensions
in the city and caused problems between the city's various ethnic blocks.
The fact is, Belle has a temper, and it is partially racially related.
No, not to the fact he is a black man. He has a temper, and has in the
past, attacked a fan <jackass IMHO>, who called him a "nigger". That _is_
relevant to bringing Belle to a city with a history of racial problems.
How much relevance it has, is debateable certainly. But to discard it out
of hand, or imply by your question that I am oppossed to desegregation is
unfair.
You also fail to address the limited capital that the Sox can spend on
player salaries. I don't believe there is any question the Sox biggest
hole, and thus top priority, is to build a quality pitching staff, in the
areas I have above listed. If you spend 10 mil plus per annum on Belle,
where are you going to find pitching that you can afford that can make you
a champion? Getting a player like Belle is without meaning unless you
intend to compete for a world championship. Without the pitching
improvements, the Sox don't have the horses.
I'd also like to reiterate that I _never_ once said I thought Cordero
or Bragg were better ballplayers than Belle. You seem to have focused on
a chain of argument that I _never_ made. I will spell it out for you.
Albert Belle is a better outfielder than any outfielder the Sox
currently have.
I did _not_ believe this was a serious concern to anyone. If my posts
led you to believe, or anyone to believe that I think we have better OF's
than belle, you have my sincerest apologies. However in rereading my
posts, I fail to see how they could have led you to that conclusion.
Finally, I'd like to say I never get personally abusive in my posts.
I post to chat about my favourite team, my passion, the Red Sox, with fans
who are as smitten with them as me. To be ridiculed and called an
"absolute fool" and "a question mark" for engaging in a reasonable
discussion of our team's future seems to me to be unfair.
I wish you'd reconsider your need to belittle someone else's ideas
because they don't agree with yours. It is certainly acceptable to debate
any of my claims, they are merely opinion. But when you make me feel like
shit for posting, all that is gonna lead to is me to stop posting, and
stop reading other people's posts.
This is sposed to be fun. Abuse is _not_ fun.
I hope you take this in the way it is meant. And I hope to engage you
in debate in a more pleasant way in the future.
As always, with love,
Steven Joseph Mastroyin
In article <55lp09$7...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> rads...@pitt.edu (Raymond Diperna) writes:
>SoxFan9418 (soxfa...@aol.com) wrote:
>: > especially with the gaping HOLE out there
>: >now.
>
>: Why don't we give Cordero a chance there before we call him a gaping hole
>
>
>He's had his chance. For 5 years in the major leagues. And he doesn't
>hit *nearly* well enough to justify playing him in left field. Cordero,
>my friend, is in fact a GAPING hole in left. Not only offensively, but
>can he even play *defense* out there?
Actually, if 1994 was any indication, Cordero should hit at least as well
as Mike Greenwell did. I wouldn't call it a gaping hole, but I'd rather
have somebody else there. I'd also rather see Cordero back at 2B at least
until there is no reasonable doubt that he can't play there.
>: We've
>: got one of the best young hitters in baseball, and we've discovered that
>: he is a disaster at second base.
>
>Cordero is NOT one of the best young hitters in baseball. No way, no how.
>
>Last year he hit .284/.322/.401 (that's AVE/OBP/SLG).
True, but that's not much of a sample. His 1993 and 1994 show a heckuva
lot of promise. The real question is whether he is going to be injured
for his whole career after spending the better part of two seasons
injured.
>That is *putrid* for a left fielder. He doesn't get on base NOR does he
>hit for power. If this is your idea of "best young hitter in baseball,"
>you've got a tortured definition of "best."
Again, small sample.
>And how old is he?
Only 25. Not that old, really. Sure, he's no Andruw Jones or Ruben
Rivera, but he wasn't a complete slouch at the plate.
>The difference between Cordero and Belle in left is HUGE. The sox
>contended last year, and had (i believe) the best record in all of
>baseball the second half.
I have to agree with this. But not because Cordero will necessarily be
bad, but because Belle is so good.
Steve
Billy
SoxFan9418 <soxfa...@aol.com> writes:
>In article <55ifu9$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lo0ne...@aol.com
>(Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
>
>>Damn, some people JUST DONT GET IT. Maybe if the team were worth a damn,
>>we could get some pitching in here. You ALWAYS NEED more offense.
>>Remember, the team that scores MORE RUNS WINS!
>
>
>Gregory Lynn
Morgan of this fact.
Billy
Billy
Raymond Diperna <rads...@pitt.edu> writes:
>
Somebody wrote:
>: got one of the best young hitters in baseball, and we've discovered that
>: he is a disaster at second base.
>
>Cordero is NOT one of the best young hitters in baseball. No way, no how.
>
>Last year he hit .284/.322/.401 (that's AVE/OBP/SLG).
>
>hit for power. If this is your idea of "best young hitter in baseball,"
>you've got a tortured definition of "best."
left fielder. Badly.
>
Billy
Billy
Raymond Diperna <rads...@pitt.edu> writes:
>MattKiss (matt...@aol.com) wrote:
>: No way in hell is Bonds the best player of all time. He has speed,
>: hitting, and defense, but he is not the best player of all time.
>
>Not the best *player*, but certainly one of the best left fielders ever.
>: Good players do not bring down the mentality of the rest of the team.
>
>How did he bring down the mentality of the rest of the team? By being one
>of the top two hitters in the national league?
"second best"?
>:Good players don't bitch and moan about being on a loser club.
>
>Patently false.
>
>:Good players care about the fans, the sport, and themselves, in that
>:order.
>
>Cut this nauseating feel-good BS.
the two go together, and sometimes they don't.
>: Wait a sec, am I talking about Wade Boggs or Barry Bonds?
Billy
Bluepill
hey, im sick of hearing that losing a draft pick as a reason not to sign
albert belle.
the red sox farm system has come a long way during the DD regime. i think
a draft pick is worth signing a player of albert belle's caliber. the red
sox have to make some sacrafices to acheive a championship season. one
draft pick wont mean the end of the world. if it was like in the nhl, i
could understand how signing a free agent like belle would be difficult.
in the nhl, the team that signs a premier restricted free agent would have
to give up a good hunk of compensation to the players former team. mlb
isnt anywhere near that bad. alot of the first rounders dont even pan
out. granted there are some shining examples of first rounders that have
done well, frank thomas and nomar garciaparra are two good example of good
mlb 1st rounders, but dont forget that alot of them turn out like brien
taylor did: an utter letdown.
i can understand that someone would argue that albert belle would cost too
much money. i can also understand that someone would argue that albert
belles attitude would be detrimental to the team. but please dont throw
me that crap about losing a draft pick. its not like you wouldnt lose a
draft pick for most of the premier players that are free agents anyway.
one more thing, albert belle was benched when he was in the college world
series because he charged after a heckler in the stands. this fan was
shouting racial slurs at albert when he was playing in left field. his
coach, i think he played for lsu or some team in that area of the
southeast, didnt want belle to get hurt. it wasnt due to a bad attitude
by albert belle. albert, or should i say joey, supposedly was a plesant
young man up until the year he got drafted.
David Nieporent
In <ZLAyPx6....@delphi.com>, Billy <just...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Raymond Diperna <rads...@pitt.edu> writes:
>>MattKiss (matt...@aol.com) wrote:
>>: No way in hell is Bonds the best player of all time. He has speed,
>>: hitting, and defense, but he is not the best player of all time.
>>Not the best *player*, but certainly one of the best left fielders ever.
>I'd go along with this.
He could be the best player ever. It's arguable. He is not the best
player ever, when compared to his peers, and that's the yardstick we
normally use in such discussions.
But in just pure talent, he could be. He's certainly the best player in
baseball now, and given that most of his competition for that title
played in vastly talent-diluted times, it's possible.
>>: Good players do not bring down the mentality of the rest of the team.
>>How did he bring down the mentality of the rest of the team? By being one
>>of the top two hitters in the national league?
>Notice how "one of the top two" sounds much better than "second best"?
No, not really. Anyway, calling him "second best" implies there's someone
clearly better than him, and I'm not sure that's true. Certainly he's the
best player in baseball -- not just the NL -- over a seven year period now.
>>:Good players don't bitch and moan about being on a loser club.
>>Patently false.
>>:Good players care about the fans, the sport, and themselves, in that
>>:order.
>>Cut this nauseating feel-good BS.
>Matt, you're confusing good players with good people. Sometimes
>the two go together, and sometimes they don't.
While it's certainly true that these are separate issues entirely, it is
also certainly true that Barry Bonds is -- for some inexplicable reason --
thought of as a bad person. And yet when you ask people why, they either
make stuff up entirely or list things that don't constitute being a bad
person.
>>: Wait a sec, am I talking about Wade Boggs or Barry Bonds?
>If you can't tell Wade Boggs from Barry Bonds, we've got problems.
Bonds is the black one, right?
--
David M. Nieporent |"I have been participating in the USENET for many
niep...@pluto.njcc.com|years now. I have never found it to be a requirement
Plainsboro, NJ |for anyone to know anything about any subject to post
DAVEY & ORIOLES 1997!!!|on any newsgroup." -- seen on talk.politics.misc.
Raymond Diperna
: Darren Bragg is a fine leftfielder, and Cordero is just now blossoming
: into a hitter.
I simply don't see this. Cordero has *regressed* from a level that wasn't
all that great to begin with. As you point out, injuries have a lot to do
with that regression. But certainly he is not "blossoming," as you claim.
: He was injured last year, and then used as a pinch hitter.
: Using just last year's numbers are disingenuous. That being said,
: _nowhere_ did I say Cordero was better than Belle.
Nor did i claim that you *did* say Cordero was better than Belle. But,
you claimed that left field was "more than adequate." I disagree.
And you are correct in that we must look at more than just last year. But
i've looked. And i do not see a competent left fielder in Wil Cordero.
Not only offensively, but defensively he is unproven in left.
: Nowhere. ;)
: > : Allow Darren
: > : Bragg, Wil Cordero <who _is_ a terrific young hitter>, and Reggie
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > What makes Cordero a terrific young hitter? Please share.
: >
: > From where i sit, he didn't even get on base at a *league average* rate
: > last year, NOR did he hit for any power at all. This offense in left
: > field? Surely you jest.
: >
: His rate of development in Montreal was terrific. He's just now
: coming into his prime <I believe he's 25 or 26, correct me if I'm wrong>,
: and thus he's just now entering his peak years of production.
True, he is entering his peak and can be expected to hit better over the
next few years (barring injury) than he did over the last few. But what i
am saying is that his last few years were nothing special. For one thing,
he doesn't know how to draw a walk. For another thing, he has not hit for
all that much power.
: Montreal
: traded him because they didn't have a place for him to play defensively,
: not because he isn't a good young hitter.
But you don't understand. He was a good young hitter for a *shortstop*.
For a left fielder, his offense is *horrible*.
All this talk when he came up of him being a good young hitter was
perhaps justified only to the extent that he was going to be a SS -- not
a corner outfielder. This is a *huge* difference. You can't just
continue to apply the same offensive standards for a player when he
switches from SS to LF.
Furthermore, the sox don't have any place for him defensively either.
: Again, you're overrelying on
: one year's stats, and fail to take into account 1) his needing to adjust
: to AL pitching and strike zones, and 2) A season lost to injury.
You have a valid point with the injury. But as for adjusting to AL
pitching, i personally don't think that theory holds any water at all.
: That being said, _nowhere_ did I say Cordero is a better player than
: Belle.
: Nowhere. ;)
Nor did i say you did.
: > : Cordero is a good young hitter with power
: >
: > Friend, a .401 SLG% is NOT power.
: >
: > : Where we _don't_ have enuf talent is in center and the pitching staff.
: > : I am very comfortable with Lee Tinsley in centerfield, at least
: > : defensively.
: >
: > "Very comfortable" with tinsley in center?????? The man cannot hit for
: > power and cannot get on base. He makes Cordero look like Mark McGwire.
: >
: Please read the entire quote and try and understand it before you
: start flaming people. I made it clear my comfort was primarily
: defensively.
I know you were speaking primarily defensively. Unfortunately, a center
fielder has to hit also, and Tinsley's defense doesn't come close to
making up for that toothpick that he brings up to the plate with him.
: I think you've gone overboard in your attempt to vilify me.
But i have not attempted to vilify you; i am simply responding to your
statements. Granted, i may have been a little bit rough around the edges
in my response, and for that, i apologize.
: How you can include a quote of mine, and not even pay attention to the
: words and meanings is beyond belief.
But i *did* pay attention; the point i was trying to make was that
you cannot just look at a player's defense.
: I suggest you read the words again. Then maybe you'll understand what
: I said was I'm comfortable with Tinsley, at least defensively.
I understood this.
: > Tinsley, 1996: .245/.293/.333 (for the sox)
: >
: > That is downright *horrible*. And he did even worse for Philly.
: >
: 1) You ignore 1995 completely, and point to 1996's offensive stats
: when he was a bench player in Philly, and unsure of his role with the Sox
: in '96.
If i recall correctly, he only became a bench player in philly because he
proved that he could not hit. In 110 at bats or so in philly, the man had
*one* extra base hit. As for his being unsure of his role with the sox, i
do not know what relevance this is.
: 2) His battiing average, obp, and slug pct have _nothing_ to do with
: what I said. He's a good solid defensive player. Please _read_ the quote
: next time before commenting.
We agree that he is a solid 4th outfielder. But i do not believe this man
should be getting any regular playing time at all, due to his lousy
hitting.
Do you see my point?
: 3) I refer you to the next quote, in which I also make it clear
: Tinsley's more valuable as a backup, and he's more suited to such a role.
: Why is it so hard for you to read and understand what I said? I made
: it quite clear.
Again, i understood; i was merely pointing out that we must look at the
whole picture.
: > : Tinsley however, is in all porobability more valuable to the
: > : team as a 4th outfielder. Able to play all 3 outfield spots, his speed
: > : and defense and versatility would seem to make him the perfect candidate
: > : for the 4th outfield slot. This assumes the Sox go out and get a top
: > : centerfielder <I wouldn't rule out the Sox signing Moises Alou and playing
: > : him in left or right, and making Bragg the centerfielder, and leaving the
: > : leftfierld battle between cordero and Jefferson. I think it is much more
: > : likely that Bragg would make the move to CF than Alou, but I'm not
: > : certain>.
: >
: <points to the above quote> I even made it clear that Bragg was
: preferable over Tinsley in CF.
: Did you even read the post, or are did you just want to start a
: flamewar?
I simply responded to your statements, some of which i agreed with, some
of which i disagreed with.
: > : Rightfield is a question mark as well,
: >
: > You are the question mark.
: >
: I guess this remark answers my question. If you don't like my ideas,
: debate is acceptable, that's the purpose of this forum. Making silly
: remarks like that, of a personal nature, is hurtful and counterproductive,
I think you are reading too much into that remark. All i was saying was
that some of your ideas are confusing to me. In particular, it is
confusing to me why you think right field is a question mark, given the
past two years that Reggie Jefferson has had, and given your own admission
that there are more important things to address (such as pitching).
: and can only be interpreted as your desire to start a shouting match and
: name calling which I won't engage in. Please refrain from doing so in the
: future, it only makes people take your _serious_ opinions and ridicule
: them when you start getting personal.
Again, i think you are going way overboard here. But, to the extent it
appeared otherwise, i apologize. It is rather ironic, however, that _you_
seem to be the one making the personal attacks...
: > : for a #3. They can do this either thru free agency, or by trading either
: > : Tim Naehring or John Valentin <I understand the dodgers are very
: > : interested in Naehring -- isn't he a southern california kid?> It
: >
: > What is wrong with Naehring?
: >
: Nothing is wrong with Naehring. In fact, I defy you to show me any
: post with my name attached, that has _ever_ said one negative word about
: Naehring.
For pete's sake, all i asked was a simple question to ascertain why you
were interested in dealing him -- was it because you thought he was bad,
or simply because you feel the sox have two people they can play at third,
so Naehring can be dealt to address other weaknesses. Below, you answered
my question, in that you feel they can address other weaknesses by dealing
Naehring. I agree with you that a team should deal its excess talent to
address other weaknesses, as a general rule.
: _Ever_.
: The fact is the Sox have decided to play Nomar Garciaparra at
: shortstop. Assuming <which _may_ be an error on my part> that Jeff Frye
: is gonna be the second baseman next year, and that Mo Vaughn will be the
: firstbaseman, that leaves _one_ infield spot, with two outstanding players
: left in John Valentin and Naehring. It is _common sense_ that when you
: have two fine players like that to fill one position, and your team
: desperately needs help in another area, you consider trading one of them
: for that help. The fact that I said I read the Dodgers were interested in
: Naehring doesn't mean there's anything wrong with him. It means that they
: _might_ be willing to trade us sumfin in another area where we need help.
: Is that so hard to grasp?
Not in the least.
: > : Final thoughts on Belle. Boston is one of the most racially charged
: > : major cities in North America. Imagine the first time some drunkjerk
: > : hurled a racial epithet at Belle when he strikes out. Albert Belle going
: > : into the stands to beat up a white fan? In Boston? Imagine the racial
: > : problems, if not riots that would cause in Roxbury, Dorchester, and
: > : Southie. Bringing Belle to Boston is very likely to cause as much racial
: > : conflict as Judge Garrity's 1976 forced busing decision did.
: > : No thank you.
: >
: > You are an absolute fool.
: >
: Again, why resort to namecalling?
Yes. Indeed i called you a name here, which i believed to be
justified based on your above statement. I will further explain this
below.
: Do you even know what I'm speaking
: about? Boston has historically had problems with relating to black
: ballplayers. Mo Vaughn is the _first_ black whom I haven't heard raise
: it as an issue. If you disagree and believe it's no longer an issue,
: that's one thing. But please refrain from name calling and inflamatory
: statements like this one.
[see below]
: After all, you do the reasonable portions of your argument no good
: when the person reading them feels attacked and abused.
: Unless of course, all you wanted to do was start a flame war. If
: that's the case, don't expect me to play your game.
[see below]
: Do you even know who Garrity is? Do you have any familiarity with the
: major crisis and unrest his ruling caused?
In Brown v. Board of Education I, the United States Supreme Court struck
down segregation. Brown II was slightly less encouraging, however, as the
Court wrote that desegregation was to be followed in "all deliberate
speed." People said that it should occur gradually. Justice Thurgood
Marshall responded that, "I think 95 years is pretty gradual."
The problem was that initially desegregation had no real effect, because
of the geographical location of the schools. That is, the black children
still went to the schools in the black neighborhoods, and the white
children still went to the schools in the white neighborhoods. Therefore,
the Brown decision was ineffectual.
Judge Garrity ruled that the students would be bused to different schools
in order to provide a diverse group of students at each school. This is
the ruling you speak of, which caused so much racial tension -- riots,
etc.
: In the real world, these issues bear _some_ relevance on bringing a
: player to a new team, whether you like it or not. Statistics are not all
: that matters.
This is where we disagree. Decisions cannot be made based upon how a
particular group of people might react. I do not feel comfortable when
mob violence dictates how the decision is to be made. If people don't
like the decision because of their personal prejudices, well that is too
damn bad. For example, it would be wrong if the jury in the OJ Simpson
case or the Rodney King trial were influenced in their decision-making
process by how they thought the public would react. A more related
example is the Roberto Alomar spitting incident. The umpires and the
general public, both groups being utterly irrational here, called for
Alomar to be suspended from the playoffs -- completely ignoring the MLB
rules that were in place and wanting their own form of punishment. Gene
Budig appropriately refused to give in to these demands and went by the
book.
My point is that once race is factored into the decision-making process,
it becomes, in effect racism. But let's be clear -- i was not, nor am i,
claiming or even suggesting that you are a racist. I think your
intentions were good in that you basically said you would consider race in
bringing Belle to this city because you are concerned with preventing
racial tension. That is certainly a valid end. But in my opinion,
it is not proper for decisions to be made in this way.
: I will say my use of the word _likely_ was an overstatement. Consider
: it me engaging in reductio ad absurdem if you will. The fact is, bringing
: a player with a volatile temper like Belle to Boston _may_ cause some
: racial oriented issues.
But your statement was confusing in that it did not simply state a
possible effect, as you state above. Your statement was confusing because
you said that you would consider this while making your decision, and, as
for bringing a player that might cause such racial tension, "no thank you"
were the exact words you used. Surely, you can see how this might be
confusing to me. This is why i called you an "absolute fool." Plain and
simple, i think somebody who thinks that race should be factored into this
equation, even if this person has good intentions (as i think you do)
simply misses the boat.
: I _do_ however note I overstated the case saying it was _likely_. For
: pointing that out, I give you credit. However, you could have done so by
: simply saying I was overstating the case, rather than resorting to name
: calling.
To say that you overstated the case is in itself a major understatement.
You practically equated a signing of Albert Belle with the decision to bus
the children to other schools. Or, to put it more accurately, you
attempted to equate the effect of these two situations. Surely you can see
how i took that as being a foolish proposition.
In other words, your major overstatement was the main reason for my
distasteful reaction.
: Your choice.
: > First, even *assuming* that Belle would cause such a mass racial upheaval
: > (a RIDICULOUS proposition), that still is no basis for making a decision,
: > as all it does is foster racism. Desegregation caused many riots. Should
: > we have just kept the schools segregated instead?
: >
: >
: Your statement here infers of course that that is what I believe.
: Pointing out a historical fact, such as the election of Abraham Lincoln
: caused many southern states to secede in 1861 does not mean I think we
: should have elected someone else. But it _is_ a historical fact.
: \
: I never _once_ said I oppossed or favoured Judge garrity's ruling on
: busing. I merely reiterated conventional wisdom on what it did to the
: community at the time.
But then you linked it to the Belle situation by suggesting that a similar
result might occur if the red sox signed Belle. Don't you see this?
: I don't believe _anyone_ familiar with the
: situation would debate that the busing ruling heightened racial tensions
: in the city and caused problems between the city's various ethnic blocks.
Nor did *I* debate this.
: The fact is, Belle has a temper, and it is partially racially related.
: No, not to the fact he is a black man. He has a temper, and has in the
: past, attacked a fan <jackass IMHO>, who called him a "nigger". That _is_
: relevant to bringing Belle to a city with a history of racial problems.
But I don't see how it's relevant. First, the country as a whole has a
history of racial problems -- not just Boston. Second, the way to combat
racism is to *confront* it -- not *avoid* it.
In other words, we both agree that racism is and has been a problem. And
we are both well-intentioned in our views on how to solve that problem.
But i just don't agree with your solution (and if i have a mistaken belief
of what your solution is please correct me) which basically avoids the
problem. Again -- i am not saying or suggesting you are a bad person. I
am only saying that your way to deal with the problem seems
counterproductive to me.
: How much relevance it has, is debateable certainly. But to discard it out
: of hand, or imply by your question that I am oppossed to desegregation is
: unfair.
But i did not imply you are opposed to desegregation. I was merely
suggesting to you that the *alternative* to busing was no good. Sure, the
busing caused racial tension, but the alternative was no good.
: Finally, I'd like to say I never get personally abusive in my posts.
: I post to chat about my favourite team, my passion, the Red Sox, with fans
: who are as smitten with them as me. To be ridiculed and called an
: "absolute fool" and "a question mark" for engaging in a reasonable
: discussion of our team's future seems to me to be unfair.
: I wish you'd reconsider your need to belittle someone else's ideas
: because they don't agree with yours. It is certainly acceptable to debate
: any of my claims, they are merely opinion. But when you make me feel like
: shit for posting, all that is gonna lead to is me to stop posting, and
: stop reading other people's posts.
: This is sposed to be fun. Abuse is _not_ fun.
: I hope you take this in the way it is meant. And I hope to engage you
: in debate in a more pleasant way in the future.
I think my statements above have responded to these issues.
And i, too, hope to engage you in debate in a more pleasant way in the
future. I have no hard feelings.
--Ray
[I haven't written anything new below -- my newsreader is a little screwed
up right now]
An'na'Delilah (An...@cris.com) wrote:
: Nowhere. ;)
: Nowhere. ;)
:
: _Ever_.
: Your choice.
Article Unavailable
SoxFan9418
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.961104...@viking.cris.com>,
An'na'Delilah <An...@cris.com> writes:
>
> His rate of development in Montreal was terrific. He's just now
>coming into his prime <I believe he's 25 or 26, correct me if I'm wrong>,
He just turned 25 on October 3. He's a good young hitter, and I think it
behooves us to give the guy a chance before we piss and moan about him.
Mark Agars
In article <BFKRXhm....@delphi.com> Billy <just...@delphi.com> writes:
>Path: news3.cac.psu.edu!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news-feed.iguide.com!delphi.com!usenet
>From: Billy <just...@delphi.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox
>Subject: Re: For no reason?
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 96 03:45:10 -0500
>Organization: Delphi (in...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
>Lines: 14
>Message-ID: <BFKRXhm....@delphi.com>
>References: <32751...@robby.oit.umass.edu> <55dv1o$o4_...@nbnet.nb.ca>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1d.delphi.com
>X-To: jbagnall <jbag...@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca>
There was a lot of talk about this possibility many years ago.
It was one of Lou Gorman's efforts. I don't recall the specifics about Cooper
though. I think it was before his time. Either way, it was before Glavine
became the superstar he is now, I can still remember Gorman referring to him
as one of the promising young pitchers in the league. Of all the idiotic
trades he did pull off, I wish he could have completed this one.
Mark
SoxFan9418
In article <55d8df$7...@decaxp.harvard.edu>, jko...@fas.harvard.edu (Jason
Kolman) writes:
>: You don't care that he's an embarrassment to the game? Well, you're
>: entitled
>
>I've got to disagree with you here; while Belle may be a jerk, you
>certainlty don't know him or how he acts in the clubhouse, and by all
>accounts he seems like a hard worker who really studies pitchers. I think
>a lot of his reputation is media-driven; the $50,000 fine he was given
for
>yelling a Hannah Storm was an absolute joke, as guys like Jay Buhner,
Paul
>O'Neil and Tim Belcher do similar things all the time and are labelled
>"intense competitors." Belle would be a 100% upgrade to the Sox'
outfield,
>and I'd love to see him come if the price is right (although he's at the
>age where he should start to decline).
Albert Belle has never completed a season in the majors without getting
suspended for something. If you don't like the Hannah Storm incident, how
about the corking of the bat, the throwing of the ball at the
photographer, the throwing of the ball at the fan, the chasing kids down
in his jeep. The man is a remarkable talent, but he's an asshole and
since offense is not our problem, I'd rather stay away from him.
>
>: Ah, see, now who's clueless? Signing a top notch free agent -- and I'm
>: sure Belle qualifies -- costs you a draft pick. DD has been
>: extraordinarily reluctant to do this in the past, and I see no
indication
>: he's going to change his mind.
>
>I agree here; Belle's age and the draft pick are the big negatives to
>signing him, not his character.
>
>: Do you guys realize that left field is *not* the problem right now?
We've
>: got one of the best young hitters in baseball, and we've discovered
that
>: he is a disaster at second base. He's going to get his shot at left
>: field. The difference between Cordero and Belle in left wouldn't be
the
>: difference in winning the World Series because we still aint gonna have
>: the pitching to get there.
>
>Again, I've got to disagree. While I'm a big Cordero fan, given his age
>and hitting ability, I don't think moving him to left field would be a
>good idea.
The guy turned 25 a month ago, what does that have to do with moving him
to left field?
> As a middle infielder he'd be one of the best hitters in
>baseball, but as a corner outfielder he'd be about average;
As a middle infielder, he's a sieve, and average is a significant upgrade
over Greenwell, and I for one, think he'll be much better than average.
> there's just
>no way he's in Belle's league yet,
Never said he was, never said he would be, but he doesn't have to be to be
a damn good player
> and his development hasn't been
>stunning over the last couple of years.
Try to remember that he spent what, 75 games on the DL this season?
That's practically half a season.
> I'd try him at second base in
>winter ball again before giving up on that idea.
Of all the options we have at second base, why the hell put Cordero there
when he's the worst fielder of the lot? We've got a position open that
requires less defensive prowess than second, that is taylor made for a man
with a bad arm.
>: DD has to:
>
>: 1) Resolve the Valentin/Naehring 3B situation
>: 2) Find a lefty starter
>: 3) Find a gold glove caliber center fielder
>
>If Clemens resigns, however,
>I think the starting pitching is basically fine; Clemens, Suppan, Sele,
>Wakefield and Gordon plus maybe a signing like Portugal or Wells, would
>be a solid rotation.
I think signing wells would qualify as getting a lefty starter
>I think Sele in particular is poised to have a good
>season, as his strikeout rate improved a lot this year.
I think you are right here, and I very much hope so. A rotation of Sele,
Suppan, Wakefield, Gordon, and some undetermined, decent lefty like Wells
would be good enough for me in 1997.
Article Unavailable
Raymond Diperna
.srv.cis.pitt.edu>
Distribution:
[Forgive me while i respond to my own post...]
Raymond Diperna (rads...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: An'na'Delilah (An...@cris.com) wrote:
: : On 4 Nov 1996, Raymond Diperna wrote:
: : > : Final thoughts on Belle. Boston is one of the most racially charged
: : > : major cities in North America. Imagine the first time some drunkjerk
: : > : hurled a racial epithet at Belle when he strikes out. Albert Belle going
: : > : into the stands to beat up a white fan? In Boston? Imagine the racial
: : > : problems, if not riots that would cause in Roxbury, Dorchester, and
: : > : Southie. Bringing Belle to Boston is very likely to cause as much racial
: : > : conflict as Judge Garrity's 1976 forced busing decision did.
: : > : No thank you.
: : >
: : > You are an absolute fool.
: : >
: : Again, why resort to namecalling?
: Yes. Indeed i called you a name here, which i believed to be
: justified based on your above statement. I will further explain this
: below.
[...]
: Your statement was confusing because
: you said that you would consider this while making your decision, and, as
: for bringing a player that might cause such racial tension, "no thank you"
: were the exact words you used. Surely, you can see how this might be
: confusing to me. This is why i called you an "absolute fool." Plain and
: simple, i think somebody who thinks that race should be factored into this
: equation, even if this person has good intentions (as i think you do)
: simply misses the boat.
Upon even further reflection, I do regret using the words "absolute fool."
I agree i went overboard here. However, i hope it is clear that i was
mainly reacting to what i believed to be a gross exaggeration to compare
the effect of Belle coming to Boston with the effect of the busing
decision. As Anna has admitted, she did overstate the case. To the extent
that i reacted too harshly, i do apologize to her.
I also hope i made it clear that i did not think she was opposed to
desegregation -- i was simply pointing out that the alternative to busing
was not any good.
In short, i admit that my criticism was a bit excessive.
Billy
David Nieporent <niep...@pluto.njcc.com> writes:
>
Somebody wrote:
>>>How did he bring down the mentality of the rest of the team? By being one
>>>of the top two hitters in the national league?
>>Notice how "one of the top two" sounds much better than "second best"?
>No, not really. Anyway, calling him "second best" implies there's someone
>clearly better than him, and I'm not sure that's true. Certainly he's the
better than "second best."
>best player in baseball -- not just the NL -- over a seven year period now.
>>Matt, you're confusing good players with good people. Sometimes
>>the two go together, and sometimes they don't.
>
>While it's certainly true that these are separate issues entirely, it is
>also certainly true that Barry Bonds is -- for some inexplicable reason --
>thought of as a bad person. And yet when you ask people why, they either
>make stuff up entirely or list things that don't constitute being a bad
>person.
some reason, I don't seem to be plugged in to whatever channels
report a lot of the so-called bad-guy behavior. Most of what
I've heard about Bonds is along the lines of, "He's arrogant."
Whether that alone necessarily makes him a bad person is
debatable, but I'm not going to debate it. My point was
(and at least this time, you didn't snip the post I was
responding to, thank you) that good ballplayers aren't always
good people, and good people aren't always good ballplayers.
Some jerks can't hit and some nice guys can.
>>>: Wait a sec, am I talking about Wade Boggs or Barry Bonds?
>
>>If you can't tell Wade Boggs from Barry Bonds, we've got problems.
>
>Bonds is the black one, right?
who's the great hitter. Bonds is also the one who hits
All Those Home Runs and steals All Those Bases. Oh, by
the way, Bonds is black. But they both have a mustache.
Billy
SoxFan9418
In article <55lp09$7...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
(Raymond Diperna) writes:
>: > I can't see ANY reason NOT to bring a
>: >TALENT like Belle to BOSTON
>
>: You don't care that he's an embarrassment to the game? Well, you're
>: entitled
>
>No. I don't. I'd rather the sox were contenders than have a team filled
>with people who have never made a mistake in their life.
I don't believe there are any people who have never made a mistake in
their life, and if there are, there certainly aren't enough of them to
field a reasonably competent baseball team. I have never, will never, say
that everyone gets shitcanned because they make a mistake. HOWEVER, there
is a huge difference between someone who makes a mistake (say, Roberto
Alomar) and someone who has made a career of making mistakes the way
Albert Belle has. And I repeat if Belle were a pitcher, a gold glove
centerfielder, or a gold glove catcher, I wouldn't oppose his coming based
on his piss poor attitude. We do not, however, need to carry a
multi-million dollar jackass in left field merely because of his offense.
Our offense is not the problem. We have an MVP candidate on the team
already, we don't need Albert Belle.
>
>: > especially with the gaping HOLE out there
>: >now.
>
>: Why don't we give Cordero a chance there before we call him a gaping
hole
>
>
>He's had his chance. For 5 years in the major leagues. And he doesn't
>hit *nearly* well enough to justify playing him in left field. Cordero,
>my friend, is in fact a GAPING hole in left. Not only offensively, but
>can he even play *defense* out there?
Try to understand that the kid is only 25 years old. Every baseball
person you talk to or read, or listen to on the radio, or anything,
believes that this kid can hit. The mere fact that he broke into the
majors at 21 should tell you the guy has some serious talent. We haven't
seen a whole lot of his hitting skills because he was on the shelf for
half the season.
Can he play defense in left field? Beats the ever loving crap out of me.
Through 1995 he had less than thirty games played in left field. But I
remind you that left field is one of the least demanding positions on the
field. And I maintain that we should give the guy a chance before we rip
him to shreds. If a year from now he has sucked canal water, I'll be all
for replacing him, but I seriously doubt that will be necessary.
>
>: >Granted, Belle makes
>: >himself look bad at times (an understatement there), but if you can
find
>: >anyone ELSE who is a FREE AGENT and can hit 48 homers, drive in 125
runs,
>: >then lets sign them, but UNTIL that day happens, anyone who thinks
that
>: >the SOX shouldnt sign Belle is just plain stupid.
>
>: Ahh, so I'm just plain stupid am I?
>
>Well, yes -- if you refuse to sign Belle because he doesn't live up to
>your definition of morality.
You can't read can you? I refuse to sign Belle because he doesn't fill a
need and we can better spend the money elsewhere.
><<<some belle/cordero stuff deleted>>>>
>
>: DD has to:
>: 1) Resolve the Valentin/Naehring 3B situation
>: 2) Find a lefty starter
>
>Why do we need a lefty starter, as opposed to a righty?
Because we have righty starters. In the next two years, we'll have Sele,
Suppan, Rose Pavano, Gordon, Checo, Kato, and probably others competing
for starter spots. Not what you'd call an overabundance of lefties. It's
good to be able to attack batters from both sides of the plate and right
now, we've got a decided lack of lefty pitching. Of course, so do most
other teams, but I don't want to be most teams, I want to win.
>: These are the priorities, not finding a new left fielder. If Cordero
>: sucks out there then we can talk about filling the gaping hole in left
>: field.
>
>It doesn't help to close the barn door *after* the cows run out.
It doesn't help to rebuild your barn when it's your chicken coop that's
broken.
>Why not bring Ted Williams back next year, and if he sucks out there
>*then* we can talk about filling the gaping hole in left field?
This is just stupid
>The goal here is to prevent the mistake *before* it's made. And the way
>you maximize your success of doing that is by making intelligent
decisions
>right now.
Intelligent decisions like recognizing your weaknesses and taking steps to
counter them? If you've got a leaky roof are you going to fix your
doorbell?
SoxFan9418
In article <55lptm$7...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
(Raymond Diperna) writes:
>Jefferson is done competing. Let him play right.
Now you want to take a first baseman and make him play right field? Are
you insane? Jefferson sucked in left field last year and left field is
easier to play.
David Nieporent
In article <xZIQ-j8....@delphi.com>, Billy <just...@delphi.com> wrote:
>David Nieporent <niep...@pluto.njcc.com> writes:
>>>Matt, you're confusing good players with good people. Sometimes
>>>the two go together, and sometimes they don't.
>>While it's certainly true that these are separate issues entirely, it is
>>also certainly true that Barry Bonds is -- for some inexplicable reason --
>>thought of as a bad person. And yet when you ask people why, they either
>>make stuff up entirely or list things that don't constitute being a bad
>>person.
>I'll pass no judgment on Barry Bonds' character. Actually, for
>some reason, I don't seem to be plugged in to whatever channels
>report a lot of the so-called bad-guy behavior. Most of what
>I've heard about Bonds is along the lines of, "He's arrogant."
Exactly. As far as we know, he hasn't used drugs, run over a second
baseman, gotten in a fight in a bar, thrown a baseball at a fan, spit at
an umpire, threatened to hold out after signing a contract, refused to
play hurt, admitted tanking plays, or anything of that sort.
Basically, people make the huge logical leap from "I don't like his
attitude." to "He's a bad person who hurts team chemistry."
BTW, I'm not arguing with you, here. I'm just arguing with anyone who
feels this way.
>Whether that alone necessarily makes him a bad person is
>debatable, but I'm not going to debate it. My point was
>(and at least this time, you didn't snip the post I was
>responding to, thank you)
It's called netiquette; If nobody snips older lines in the posts, they
get way too long. I try to leave in relevant stuff and snip anything
else; people can look up the previous article if they care that much.
>that good ballplayers aren't always
>good people, and good people aren't always good ballplayers.
>Some jerks can't hit and some nice guys can.
Not too many jerks can't hit; these types of people rarely make it to the
majors, or stay there.
>>>>: Wait a sec, am I talking about Wade Boggs or Barry Bonds?
>>>If you can't tell Wade Boggs from Barry Bonds, we've got problems.
>>Bonds is the black one, right?
>Bonds is the one who's the great player. Boggs is the one
>who's the great hitter. Bonds is also the one who hits
>All Those Home Runs and steals All Those Bases. Oh, by
>the way, Bonds is black. But they both have a mustache.
Boggs is the one who eats chicken and had the affair, right?
Raymond Diperna
SoxFan9418 (soxfa...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <55d8df$7...@decaxp.harvard.edu>, jko...@fas.harvard.edu (Jason
: Kolman) writes:
: Albert Belle has never completed a season in the majors without getting
: suspended for something. If you don't like the Hannah Storm incident, how
: about the corking of the bat, the throwing of the ball at the
: photographer, the throwing of the ball at the fan, the chasing kids down
: in his jeep. The man is a remarkable talent, but he's an asshole and
: since offense is not our problem, I'd rather stay away from him.
I do not see how Belle's troubles make him any less of a player on the
field.
: > As a middle infielder he'd be one of the best hitters in
: >baseball, but as a corner outfielder he'd be about average;
: As a middle infielder, he's a sieve, and average is a significant upgrade
: over Greenwell, and I for one, think he'll be much better than average.
Greenwell is a far better hitter than Cordero, and will be next year as
well. The problem with greenwell is his salary.
: By 1998 though, I think we should start making our major push to the
: series.
There's no reason to think they can't contend next year. Why wait until
1998, when Canseco and Valentin and Naehring et. al. will be a year older?
: We'll have short and third settled, which we haven't the last few
: years.
Uh, Naehring and Valentin have been playing there for the last coule of
years. Or, did you forget this?
Valentin has been the best AL shortstop over the last 3 years -- better
than Ripken. Of course, Rodriguez won that honor hands down last year.
: If Cordero works, we'll have left settled.
And if we can figure out how to travel at the speed of light, time travel
into the future will be possible.
: >Bragg deserves the
: >centerfield job;
: For 1997, I agree with you entirely. For 1998, I believe Kenny Lofton is
: a free agent. Lofton would look extremely good in a Sox uniform. The
Lofton has slipped somewhat, and doesn't compare to Edmunds or Griffey.
: If they can pick up a solid defensive catcher while they're at
: it, I'm all for it.
Stanley is an excellent overall catcher.
Raymond Diperna
SoxFan9418 (soxfa...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <55lp09$7...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
: (Raymond Diperna) writes:
: >: You don't care that he's an embarrassment to the game? Well, you're
: >: entitled
: >
: >No. I don't. I'd rather the sox were contenders than have a team filled
: >with people who have never made a mistake in their life.
: I don't believe there are any people who have never made a mistake in
: their life, and if there are, there certainly aren't enough of them to
: field a reasonably competent baseball team. I have never, will never, say
: that everyone gets shitcanned because they make a mistake. HOWEVER, there
: is a huge difference between someone who makes a mistake (say, Roberto
: Alomar) and someone who has made a career of making mistakes the way
: Albert Belle has.
What is the relevance of this to putting together a baseball team?
We are not voting on Time's Man of the Year award.
: Our offense is not the problem. We have an MVP candidate on the team
: already, we don't need Albert Belle.
Uh, isn't the goal to get as many good players as possible -- and not stop
at one?
: >: Why don't we give Cordero a chance there before we call him a gaping
: hole
: >
: >He's had his chance. For 5 years in the major leagues. And he doesn't
: >hit *nearly* well enough to justify playing him in left field. Cordero,
: >my friend, is in fact a GAPING hole in left. Not only offensively, but
: >can he even play *defense* out there?
: Try to understand that the kid is only 25 years old. Every baseball
: person you talk to or read, or listen to on the radio, or anything,
: believes that this kid can hit.
They might also believe in the tooth fairy. But "I think he can" is not
"he can."
But still you miss the point: he can hit, at what position? SS? Yes, i
will agree he is a competent hitter for a SS. As a LF, however, he is a
disaster.
: The mere fact that he broke into the
: majors at 21 should tell you the guy has some serious talent.
As you said, this is a mere fact. Its relevance is in question.
Furthermore, he broke in as a *shortstop*, not a LF, so this is entirely
irrelevant.
:We haven't
: seen a whole lot of his hitting skills because he was on the shelf for
: half the season.
He's been in the majors for almost half the decade.
: Can he play defense in left field? Beats the ever loving crap out of me.
Shouldn't this be a concern of yours?
: Through 1995 he had less than thirty games played in left field. But I
: remind you that left field is one of the least demanding positions on the
: field. And I maintain that we should give the guy a chance before we rip
: him to shreds. If a year from now he has sucked canal water, I'll be all
: for replacing him, but I seriously doubt that will be necessary.
That is a terrible way to run a baseball team, or anything else for that
matter. Sound decisions must be made.
: You can't read can you? I refuse to sign Belle because he doesn't fill a
: need and we can better spend the money elsewhere.
Then why have you been harping on his character ad infinitum??
: >Why do we need a lefty starter, as opposed to a righty?
: Because we have righty starters.
....and?
Why do we need lefty starters as opposed to righties?
: In the next two years, we'll have Sele,
: Suppan, Rose Pavano, Gordon, Checo, Kato, and probably others competing
: for starter spots. Not what you'd call an overabundance of lefties.
But why do we need lefty starters?
: It's
: good to be able to attack batters from both sides of the plate and right
: now, we've got a decided lack of lefty pitching. Of course, so do most
: other teams, but I don't want to be most teams, I want to win.
You are confusing the significance of starters and relievers. It is
important to have both lefties and righties in the bullpen. It is
irrelevant what side of the plate your starters throw from.
Article Unavailable
Paul Allison
Raymond Diperna wrote:
> : It doesn't help to rebuild your barn when it's your chicken coop that's
> : broken.
> You fail to see that both the roof *and* the doorbell have problems.
I've never seen so many analogies in one post before. Amazing. Okay,
now that this thread has been going for, well, ever, I think I'll jump
back in the mix.
First - Wil Cordero. Good bat? For a middle infielder? Yes. For a
Left Fielder? Certainly not compared to Albert Bell. But Albert Belle
is not a prototypical Left Fielder. I believe that Belle and Greg
Vaughn were the only two left fielders to surpass 30 homers in that
position last season (AL only). Several other outfielders did -
Anderson (CF), Griffey (CF), Gonzalez (RF?), Buhner (RF), Ramirez (RF),
Salmon (RF) and Carter (RF).
Okay, now that I've spewed off a bunch of names and positions, I think
that Cordero *might* have a prosperous offensive carrer as a left
fielder. That's *if* he can return to his 1994 form (.294, 30 doubles,
15 homers, 63 RBI's, 16 SB's, .489 SLG, .363 OBP). He accomplished this
in the strike shortened season, so averaging it out to say, 154 games,
it translates into a rather nice 42 doubles, 21 homers, 88 RBI's and 22
SB's. Comparable to Albert Belle? Not by a long shot. Still
reasonably respectable numbers for a leftfielder, especially considering
he will not be counted on as the main source of offense in this lineup.
Of course, that's only assuming that he can repeat that performace. If
he does, I'd be reasonbly happy with him in left, assuming he's not a
huge liabliity in the field. A couple of big "if's", I know.
Now, on to Bad Albert. I actually don't hate the guy, and I respect the
hell out of what he can do to a baseball. He's perhaps the best pure
power hitter in the game right now (sorry McGwire), and I'm somewhat
willing to forgive his off the field (and occasionly ON the field)
problems for that big old bat of his. Here's my problem with him in
Boston though:
First, we really aren't in serious need of a slugger of Albert's
ability. Sure, he'd be a great asset hitting behind Mo, but Canseco
(when/if healthy) is a lot more than adequate. If Canseco does indeed
depart, then I would take into serious consideration the prospect of a
Mo/Belle 3-4 punch. With Canseco/Vaughn, et al, we are definetly not
lacking in the power department. In my opinion, I think our money and
effort would be better spent on acquiring a traditional table setter
with base stealing speed. Who's out there though? That's the problem.
Rickey Henderson (ducking) can be had from San Diego. Kenny Lofton will
be a free agent at the end of next season. Johhny Damon could be had
from K.C. for the right price.
Second, Florida has publicly stated that they'd give Belle $40 million
over 4 seasons to play in Miama (hello, tampering!). $10 million per
season? I think we would be better off spending the $10 million on,
dare I say it, pitching and speed.
Cheers,
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Allison Net Vista - Quality Internet Service
pall...@netvista.net ... it's about time
http://www.netvista.net Concord, California (510) 688-4600
Paul Allison
Raymond Diperna wrote:
> Lofton has slipped somewhat, and doesn't compare to Edmunds or Griffey.
How's that? Lofton's still one of the premier leadoff mean in baseball,
and, last I checked, still leads the league in steals about every
season. I believe he's still only 28, right? Griffey is far superior,
I agree. They're different type of players though. Griffey combines
smart baserunning with pure power, while Lofton is fast as fire on the
basepaths.
Jim Edmunds? Actually, I really like the guy. I had hoped the Sox
would've taken advantage of the Angels outfiled problem by picking up
either Edmunds or Salmon. Too bad the Angels elected to trade Chili
Davis (enabling one of the OF'ers to take over DH), although from
California's standpoint, that was their best move. Edmunds is still a
different type of ball player, though. Great power, little speed.
> Stanley is an excellent overall catcher.
Historyically, yes. He certainly didn't show it in 96 though, at least
in terms of throwing out base runners. If his shoulder is back to 100%,
he should return to his former defensive prowess. Unfortunately, he's
also declined to excercise his player option for '97, so Boston is going
to have to re-sign him.
David Pease
In article <mda113.7...@psu.edu>, Mark Agars <mda...@psu.edu> wrote:
>In article <32814A...@netvista.net>
>>Raymond Diperna wrote:
>
>>> Lofton has slipped somewhat, and doesn't compare to Edmunds or Griffey.
>
>>How's that? Lofton's still one of the premier leadoff mean in baseball,
>>and, last I checked, still leads the league in steals about every
>>season. I believe he's still only 28, right? Griffey is far superior,
>>I agree. They're different type of players though. Griffey combines
>>smart baserunning with pure power, while Lofton is fast as fire on the
>>basepaths.
>
>informed comments I've read on this group.
Then either you aren't around much, or you've got yourself in your
KILL file.
>Loften means more to his team than any other player on the Indians....
Uhh, no.
Lofton means more to his team than any other player on the Indians
who isn't better than Lofton. Unfortunately for Lofton, Jim Thome,
Albert Belle, and even Manny Ramirez have passed him over the last
couple of years.
>Including the highly touted (especially on this group) Sir Albert.
Now where in the Hell did you get this idea?
>There is not a better leadoff hitter in baseball than Loften.
That's really not true. He's pretty good, but he's not as good as he
once was.
>To say Griffey is far superior is an unfair
>comparison (should we evaluate every trade or free agent possibility based on
>how they stack up against perhaps the best player in the game right now),
No it's not. There is absolutely nothing "unfair" about it. Ray said
(and I quote) "Lofton has slipped somewhat, and doesn't compare to Edmonds
or Griffey." What, exactly, is unfair about that? Are you Lofton's
agent or something?
>plus, it is not nearly as large a gap between them as you suggest.
Uhh, yes it is. It's gaping.
>Griffey is
>a great player, no question, but his methods of generating runs draws more
>attention than Loftons.
That's because it's more effective, and generates more runs.
>Take Griffey away from Seattle, and other players
>(e.g., Buhner, Martinez) were able to pick up the run production duties.
Who cares? Now you're talking about teams, and it really isn't Griffey's
fault (or Lofton's fault) what his teammates can and can't do.
>Take Lofton away from the Indians, and there is no one on the team that can
>replace the things he does or the runs he generates.
Yeah right. I think I'll plug Kevin Seitzer into the leadoff spot, and
still score 800 runs.
>There is certainly no lapse with Loften's defensive abilities.
True enough--Lofton is excellent defensively.
>I wont even get into comparing Edmunds.
Good. I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself any more.
Thank you for your time
dp
--
EL, DDfL & J dave pease, RDFC http://www.baseballprospectus.com/
"If you give Maddux the outside corner, he'll take more and more, and all
of a sudden you're swinging at pitches six inches off the plate."
-- Mariano Duncan, who swings at pitches six inches off the plate anyway.
David Pease
In article <32814A...@netvista.net>,
Paul Allison <pall...@netvista.net> wrote:
>Raymond Diperna wrote:
>
>> Lofton has slipped somewhat, and doesn't compare to Edmunds or Griffey.
>
>How's that?
Well, it all started when Lofton decided he was going to try and hit
bombs instead of walking and getting on base.
>Lofton's still one of the premier leadoff mean in baseball,
>and, last I checked, still leads the league in steals about every
>season.
Right. The only thing is, steals just aren't that important offensively.
Sure, it adds to Lofton's value--but Edmonds is hitting 30 HR a year and
doesn't lose a thing as far as getting on base is concerned, and Griffey--
sheesh, there's not really any reason to bring Griffey into this
discussion. He's so far superior to Lofton, there's really no
comparison.
>I believe he's still only 28, right?
Sure, but Edmonds and Griffey aren't exactly old men, either.
>Griffey is far superior, I agree. They're different type of players
>though.
Sure--Griffey is an all-time great, and Lofton is merely good.
>Griffey combines smart baserunning with pure power, while Lofton is
>fast as fire on the basepaths.
But the offensive value of a SB as opposed to a HR can (and has been)
measured. The HR wins every time, and it's not close.
>Jim Edmunds? Actually, I really like the guy. I had hoped the Sox
>would've taken advantage of the Angels outfiled problem by picking up
>either Edmunds or Salmon.
That would have been nice.
>Edmunds is still a different type of ball player, though. Great power,
>little speed.
What is this "different type of ball player" stuff? They're both CF,
they're both excellent fielders, and Edmonds is clearly the better
hitter, their respective playing styles be damned.
Mark Agars
>From: Paul Allison <pall...@netvista.net>
>Newsgroups: alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox
>Subject: Re: SOX NEW LF
>Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 18:31:55 -0800
>Organization: Net Vista
>Lines: 31
>Message-ID: <32814A...@netvista.net>
>References: <55d8df$7...@decaxp.harvard.edu> <55onne$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <55qj2e$1...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>
>Reply-To: pall...@netvista.net
>NNTP-Posting-Host: bambam.netvista.net
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
>Raymond Diperna wrote:
>> Lofton has slipped somewhat, and doesn't compare to Edmunds or Griffey.
>How's that? Lofton's still one of the premier leadoff mean in baseball,
>and, last I checked, still leads the league in steals about every
>season. I believe he's still only 28, right? Griffey is far superior,
>I agree. They're different type of players though. Griffey combines
>smart baserunning with pure power, while Lofton is fast as fire on the
>basepaths.
Thankyou for that response. The original statement was one of the least
informed comments I've read on this group. Loften means more to his team
than any other player on the Indians....Including the highly
touted (especially on this group) Sir Albert. There is not a better leadoff
hitter in baseball than Loften. To say Griffey is far superior is an unfair
comparison (should we evaluate every trade or free agent possibility based on
how they stack up against perhaps the best player in the game right now),
plus, it is not nearly as large a gap between them as you suggest. Griffey is
a great player, no question, but his methods of generating runs draws more
attention than Loftons. Take Griffey away from Seattle, and other players
(e.g., Buhner, Martinez) were able to pick up the run production duties. Take
Lofton away from the Indians, and there is no one on the team that can replace
the things he does or the runs he generates. There is certainly no lapse with
Loften's defensive abilities. I wont even get into comparing Edmunds.
That said...I want to make a quick comment on the Cordero debate. I was a big
fan of his when he was in Montreal. He's had a rough year and a half, and
there is no question that his stock has fallen somewhat because of it.
However, he is still widely regarded among baseball people as being a
promising young hitter, and the Sox would be foolish to give up on him now. I
think most of his problems started in Montreal when his defensive woes got him
in trouble with Alou, and when he came to Boston he got hurt. I would be
very surprised if given a full, healthy season next year he didn't hit .300,
20 HR's, 80 rbi's, and steal 20 bases. Sounds like some good stats for a LF
in Boston.
Just my $.02.
Mark
Billy
David Nieporent <niep...@pluto.njcc.com> writes:
>Exactly. As far as we know, he hasn't used drugs, run over a second
>baseman, gotten in a fight in a bar, thrown a baseball at a fan, spit at
>an umpire, threatened to hold out after signing a contract, refused to
>play hurt, admitted tanking plays, or anything of that sort.
>
>Basically, people make the huge logical leap from "I don't like his
>attitude." to "He's a bad person who hurts team chemistry."
>
>BTW, I'm not arguing with you, here. I'm just arguing with anyone who
>feels this way.
pleasant to hang around with, but I sure as hell would
want him on my baseball team (if I could get him cheap
enough, and if he filled a need).
>>Whether that alone necessarily makes him a bad person is
>>debatable, but I'm not going to debate it. My point was
>>(and at least this time, you didn't snip the post I was
>>responding to, thank you)
>
>It's called netiquette; If nobody snips older lines in the posts, they
>get way too long. I try to leave in relevant stuff and snip anything
>else; people can look up the previous article if they care that much.
what you posted made my remarks look way out of context and
put me in the position of defending the name choice of the
Braves' new park, something I couldn't care less about and
which wasn't even the crux of my original post. But never
mind.
>>>>>: Wait a sec, am I talking about Wade Boggs or Barry Bonds?
>
>>>>If you can't tell Wade Boggs from Barry Bonds, we've got problems.
>
>>>Bonds is the black one, right?
>
>>Bonds is the one who's the great player. Boggs is the one
>>who's the great hitter. Bonds is also the one who hits
>>All Those Home Runs and steals All Those Bases. Oh, by
>>the way, Bonds is black. But they both have a mustache.
>
>Boggs is the one who eats chicken and had the affair, right?
so he can wear a helmet and not hear the fans. (His own words.
God only knows what they must be shouting at him.)
Billy
Bluepill
get over it people, belle isnt coming to town in anything other than a
visitors uniform.
just, please, move on.
im begging you!
SoxFan9418
In article <55qk3s$1...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
(Raymond Diperna) writes:
[Everything snipped]
You say Cordero is dogmeat, I say he's enough of a player to deserve a
chance. We disagree.
You say the handedness of our starting pitching is irrelevant. I
disagree.
I agree that it is more important to have a diversely handed bullpen than
rotation. I agree that the handedness thing is way blown out of
proportion. I agree that a good righty starter is better than a lousy
lefty starter.
Are you telling me that if you have four spots in your rotation filled
with righties you wouldn't prefer to have a lefty in the other spot?
SoxFan9418
In article <55qj2e$1...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
(Raymond Diperna) writes:
>SoxFan9418 (soxfa...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In article <55d8df$7...@decaxp.harvard.edu>, jko...@fas.harvard.edu
(Jason
>: Kolman) writes:
>
>: Albert Belle has never completed a season in the majors without getting
>: suspended for something. <snippage>
>
>I do not see how Belle's troubles make him any less of a player on the
>field.
They don't. They do however, keep him off the field, and his performance
on the field has never been a part of my argument against going after him.
>
>: > As a middle infielder he'd be one of the best hitters in
>: >baseball, but as a corner outfielder he'd be about average;
>
>: As a middle infielder, he's a sieve, and average is a significant
upgrade
>: over Greenwell, and I for one, think he'll be much better than average.
>
>Greenwell is a far better hitter than Cordero, and will be next year as
>well. The problem with greenwell is his salary.
I'd be willing to bet you that Cordero will have a better on base
percentage and slugging percentage than Greenwell in 1997. The problem
with Greenwell, in addition to his salary, is that he's a fourth or fifth
outfielder who was starting.
>
>: By 1998 though, I think we should start making our major push to the
>: series.
>
>There's no reason to think they can't contend next year. Why wait until
>1998, when Canseco and Valentin and Naehring et. al. will be a year
older?
Valentin and Naehring aren't exactly ancient. I don't think Canseco will
be with the team. And the reason we can't contend is that we aint got no
pitching unless Sele AND Suppan AND Checo all perform brilliantly.
>: We'll have short and third settled, which we haven't the last few
>: years.
>
>Uh, Naehring and Valentin have been playing there for the last coule of
>years. Or, did you forget this?
Yes, Valentin and Naehring have been playing there the last couple of
years. That does *not* mean that the positions were settled. Take a look
at our Opening Day SS (1997) if you don't believe me.
>
>Valentin has been the best AL shortstop over the last 3 years -- better
>than Ripken. Of course, Rodriguez won that honor hands down last year.
I have never said that Valentin wasn't a good shortstop. It is just plain
simple, however, that because Shortstop is primarily a defensive position,
Nomar Garciaparra is better. AND he's no slouch at the plate either.
>
>: If Cordero works, we'll have left settled.
>And if we can figure out how to travel at the speed of light, time travel
>into the future will be possible.
Why are so many people dismissing the merest possibility that the guy can
play? He's had less than thirty games there his whole career, give him a
freaking chance already.
>
>: >Bragg deserves the
>: >centerfield job;
>
>: For 1997, I agree with you entirely. For 1998, I believe Kenny Lofton
is
>: a free agent. Lofton would look extremely good in a Sox uniform. The
>
>Lofton has slipped somewhat, and doesn't compare to Edmunds or Griffey.
Edmonds and Griffey aren't FAs at the end of 1997 I don't believe, and
unless Lofton slips a hell of a lot betwixt now and then, he's still going
to be pretty damn good.
>
>: If they can pick up a solid defensive catcher while they're at
>: it, I'm all for it.
>
>Stanley is an excellent overall catcher.
Stanley is good. Stanley is better defensively than he showed this year.
I would still like to have, say, Joe Girardi to bring in in the seventh
when we're up by two.
Paul Raymond Wellspeak
On 6 Nov 1996, David Pease wrote:
> In article <32814A...@netvista.net>,
> Paul Allison <pall...@netvista.net> wrote:
> >Raymond Diperna wrote:
> >
> >> Lofton has slipped somewhat, and doesn't compare to Edmunds or Griffey.
> >
> >How's that?
>
> Well, it all started when Lofton decided he was going to try and hit
> bombs instead of walking and getting on base.
>
> >Lofton's still one of the premier leadoff mean in baseball,
> >and, last I checked, still leads the league in steals about every
> >season.
>
> Right. The only thing is, steals just aren't that important offensively.
> Sure, it adds to Lofton's value--but Edmonds is hitting 30 HR a year and
> doesn't lose a thing as far as getting on base is concerned, and Griffey--
> sheesh, there's not really any reason to bring Griffey into this
> discussion. He's so far superior to Lofton, there's really no
> comparison.
>
> >I believe he's still only 28, right?
>
> Sure, but Edmonds and Griffey aren't exactly old men, either.
>
> >Griffey is far superior, I agree. They're different type of players
> >though.
>
> Sure--Griffey is an all-time great, and Lofton is merely good.
>
> >Griffey combines smart baserunning with pure power, while Lofton is
> >fast as fire on the basepaths.
>
> But the offensive value of a SB as opposed to a HR can (and has been)
> measured. The HR wins every time, and it's not close.
>
> >Jim Edmunds? Actually, I really like the guy. I had hoped the Sox
> >would've taken advantage of the Angels outfiled problem by picking up
> >either Edmunds or Salmon.
>
> That would have been nice.
>
> >Edmunds is still a different type of ball player, though. Great power,
> >little speed.
>
Speed is not only the ability to steal and steals are not only
being fast. To steal a base, speed helps alot but, if someone gets a
good jump or is not expected to steal (Cecil or Mo) they can do it.
Speed deals with the abilty to get around the bases. Lofton can go
from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home on a single to almost any part of the
park. That is what the red Sox lack. Some of the Sox have trouble scoring
from 3rd on a Double.
Steven Joseph Mastroyin
In article <55k67t$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> soxfa...@aol.com (SoxFan9418) writes:
>In article <55ifu9$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, lo0ne...@aol.com
>(Lo0neYtOoN) writes:
>
>>Damn, some people JUST DONT GET IT. Maybe if the team were worth a damn,
>>we could get some pitching in here. You ALWAYS NEED more offense.
>>Remember, the team that scores MORE RUNS WINS!
>
>No you dumbass, it's the team that gives up the fewest runs that wins!
>
Greg, I hope you're kidding, but if you're not, I think that it is pretty
obvious that the team that does *both* is the team that wins.
Proof in the pudding, so to speak, would be the 1992 and 1993 Red Sox, who
were near the league lead in preventing runs, but finished well below .500
both years.
Steve
Raymond Diperna
SoxFan9418 (soxfa...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <55qk3s$1...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
: (Raymond Diperna) writes:
: You say the handedness of our starting pitching is irrelevant. I
: disagree.
Ok. But why? That's all i'm asking.
: Are you telling me that if you have four spots in your rotation filled
: with righties you wouldn't prefer to have a lefty in the other spot?
Yes; it simply does not matter.
Raymond Diperna
Paul Raymond Wellspeak (p...@wpi.edu) wrote:
: Speed is not only the ability to steal and steals are not only
: being fast. To steal a base, speed helps alot but, if someone gets a
: good jump or is not expected to steal (Cecil or Mo) they can do it.
When i think of a "surprise" base stealer, i think of Molitor (who is a
smart base stealer -- not particularly fast), or perhaps Valentin.
I do *not* think of Cecil Fielder, who has stolen 2 bases in the last 12
years or so.
: Speed deals with the abilty to get around the bases. Lofton can go
: from 1st to 3rd or 2nd to home on a single to almost any part of the
: park. That is what the red Sox lack. Some of the Sox have trouble scoring
: from 3rd on a Double.
But speed is only one part of the game. You seem to think that a team of
nine Carl Lewises would score 1000 runs per year. Unfortunately, the
runner has to hit also.
soxfa...@aol.com
Wow, we've turned a completely inane argument about Albert Belle and Wil
Cordero into a similarly inane argument about Lofton, Edmonds, and
Griffey.
The difference between Lofton and Belle IMHO is that the Sox have a need
for a CF while they don't have a need for LF. You may disagree as Mr.
DiPerna (sp?) does. Darren Bragg is a pretty good CF. I think he would
be a pretty damn good RF if we had someone else to play center. Currently
we don't.
My argument that I've expressed around this board that we should target
1998 for the start of our major playoff run is based on the status of the
following pitchers.
Sele:Slowly recovering from injury, 1997 could be he make or break year
Suppan: Looks okay so far, but hasn't proven himself yet at ML level
Checo: Sounds good, but we aint so much as seen him yet
Kato: Ditto
Gordon: He's okay and that's all he'll ever be
Rose: At least a year away
Pavano: At least a year away
Wakefield: Decent fifth starter and useful cause he can pitch short
I look at this and say that it would be miraculous to have Sele, Suppan,
and Checo ALL pan out well enough for us to win in 1997. And I don't just
mean winning a division, I mean having a legitimate shot to win it all.
However, in 1998 Sele will either have made it or not. Suppan and Checo
will have had a full ML season under their belt. Pavano and Rose will
have had a full, or mostly full AAA season under their belts. That means
that Sele, Rose, Pavano, Suppan, and Checo can compete for spots in the
rotation.
Wakefield gets the #5 slot right?
Go out and sign a #1 starter, preferably lefty (Tom Glavine, Alex
Fernandez come to mind).
Then, those five pitchers are competing for three spots. Those are much
better odds.
Then we sign Kenny Lofton to play center, and shift Bragg to right and
things basically look like this.
C-Stanley/Hatteberg/Hasselman/McKeel or someone else
1b-Mo
2b-Probably Sadler, if not, there's about five other guys who can play the
position
ss-Nomar
3b-Naehring/Valentin
LF-Cordero/someone else
CF-Lofton
RF-Bragg
Now the Naehring/Valentin and Cordero/someone else decisions should be
made in 1997, leaving the only questions in 1998 the catcher and sadler.
In the rotation, you'll have:
Fernandez/Glavine
Pitcher one of big five
Pitcher two of big five
Pitcher three of big five
Tim Wakefield
What I like about this is that it requires us to sign only two or three
free agents. If Cordero sucks, we're gonna have to find someone to play
left, but we've got a whole host of outfielders who may do a decent enough
job. Sign two big time free agents to fill spots and we have the makings
of a pretty good team.
Raymond Diperna
soxfa...@aol.com wrote:
: Wow, we've turned a completely inane argument about Albert Belle and Wil
: Cordero into a similarly inane argument about Lofton, Edmonds, and
: Griffey.
Define "inane" in this context. What are you trying to say here?
soxfa...@aol.com
In article <55tpbn$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
(Raymond Diperna) writes:
>: You say the handedness of our starting pitching is irrelevant. I
>: disagree.
>
>Ok. But why? That's all i'm asking.
In a given game, the starter's handedness is relevant because of the fact
that the hand with which the pitcher throws the ball has an impact on how
effective a given hitter is. Now I grant you, that this is more relevant
with close, late inning bullpen maneuverings, but ask yourself this: how
many times have you seen Wade Boggs sit against a good lefty? Fairly
often, right?
Imagine for a moment that you're two games out of first place and playing
a three game weekend series against the first place team....in September.
This is a big series, no? Now imagine that this first place team has
demonstrated that they are much better at hitting righthanded pitchers
than lefthanded (or vice versa). Wouldn't you want to play to their
weakness if at all possible? Do I advocate messing up your whole rotation
to get a lefty against them? No of course not. Were I a manager, would I
consider starting my lefty a day short? Yes, particularly if whoever it
was who's regular turn it was wasn't particularly effective against these
guys.
The point is that with a lefty you have more options than you do without
one. I would prefer to have two, quite frankly.
>
>: Are you telling me that if you have four spots in your rotation filled
>: with righties you wouldn't prefer to have a lefty in the other spot?
>
>Yes; it simply does not matter.
Over the course of a season, it matters more than in just one game, and
games are not played in isolation. Hitting is timing, and the more you
can change the look you give a given lineup, the better off you're going
to be.
Fiaz
inane=idiotic, foolish.
Raymond Diperna (rads...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: -----------------------------------------------------------------
: Raymond DiPerna <rad...@pitt.edu>
: alias: a0...@lehigh.edu
: -----------------------------------------------------------------
--
"Get a job!!"
-Paul Keating, former Prime Minister of Australia, now unemployed
matt...@aol.com
We have decent to good speed with Bragg, Frye, and Valentin. Naehring
ain't that bad, Reggie has some wheels, and with Nomar coming up, we will
be fine. I would suggest that we try to get a 70-80 base stealer though.
matt...@aol.com
Wakefield an ok fifth starter?
How many other fifth starters lead their teams in wins (14), pitch over
200 innings, and have 6 complete games (5th in ML)? He is a very good
fifth starter, and throw in the fact that he can effectively pitch on
short notice, shows that he is one of the most valuable pitchers on our
staff.
user1
Darlene and Raquel want to know if you're single.
Raymond Diperna
matt...@aol.com wrote:
: We have decent to good speed with Bragg, Frye, and Valentin. Naehring
: ain't that bad, Reggie has some wheels, and with Nomar coming up, we will
: be fine. I would suggest that we try to get a 70-80 base stealer though.
I don't know why you think it is useful to focus exclusively on speed.
Sure, a 70 base stealer would be nice, IF that player can also hit well
and play defense. Speed is only one facet of the offense. A player can
steal 0 bases and be far better than someone who steals 100 bases. The
fact of the matter is that other facets are hitting are much more valuable
than solen bases. Again -- i am not saying that speed doesn't help, only
that it doesn't make sense to overvalue it.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond DiPerna <rad...@pitt.edu>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Diperna
soxfa...@aol.com wrote:
: In article <55tpbn$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
: (Raymond Diperna) writes:
: >: You say the handedness of our starting pitching is irrelevant. I
: >: disagree.
: >
: >Ok. But why? That's all i'm asking.
: In a given game, the starter's handedness is relevant because of the fact
: that the hand with which the pitcher throws the ball has an impact on how
: effective a given hitter is.
Unfortunately, the pitchers have to work in a rotation as opposed to a
random order. Otherwise, their arms fall off. Thus, you have very little
ability to control who starts on any given day.
: Now I grant you, that this is more relevant
: with close, late inning bullpen maneuverings, but ask yourself this: how
: many times have you seen Wade Boggs sit against a good lefty? Fairly
: often, right?
Yes, and it was silly because Boggs Against Lefties was better than
Charlie Hayes or Player X against lefties. But this is further evidence
of Torre's incompetence.
: Imagine for a moment that you're two games out of first place and playing
: a three game weekend series against the first place team....in September.
: This is a big series, no? Now imagine that this first place team has
: demonstrated that they are much better at hitting righthanded pitchers
: than lefthanded (or vice versa). Wouldn't you want to play to their
: weakness if at all possible? Do I advocate messing up your whole rotation
: to get a lefty against them? No of course not. Were I a manager, would I
: consider starting my lefty a day short? Yes, particularly if whoever it
: was who's regular turn it was wasn't particularly effective against these
: guys.
The problem is that the good lefty hitters can hit lefties reasonably
well, and if they can't, the opposing manager can always start a RH hitter
instead.
: The point is that with a lefty you have more options than you do without
: one. I would prefer to have two, quite frankly.
But you really don't have more options, because of the pitching rotation.
The bottom line is, you want good starting pitchers, be them righty or
lefty.
R. G. W
matt...@aol.com wrote:
>
> We have decent to good speed with Bragg, Frye, and Valentin. Naehring
> ain't that bad, Reggie has some wheels, and with Nomar coming up, we will
> be fine. I would suggest that we try to get a 70-80 base stealer though.
it. As far as Naehring and Jefferson having wheels, you have to be
joking. Timmy makes Rich Gedman look like a speedstar.
R. G. W
rather have 5 Bob Gibsons in my rotation than trade one for an Eric
Gundersen because he's a lefty.
Bruce S. McClure
As for a LF, I'm not too concerned with the outfield right now.
Personally, my deep concern is pitching. Now maybe I'm going to ruffle
some feathers here, but I'm not an advocate of resigning Clemens. I think
his best years are behind him and as a starter, he's only good for a #3
slot in a rotation. I wouldn't be heartbroken if TX or Houston signed him.
IMHO, if I'm Duquette, I'm trying to sign Avery and Wettland. Granted
there's cash to be spent to get either/both of them, but a change of venue
is only going to help Steve and John would look good in a Sox cap.
After that, our next need is for a catcher. Stanley isn't going to do it
and I don't think he's going to be back. Benito Santiago is available I
think, and he'd be a good young catcher for a few years.
Infield is my next concern as Valentin doesn't want to play 3rd (hasn't he
heard of Rico Petrocelli?) and Garciaparra is ready for the big show (AND
WE DON'T WANNA TRADE HIM....BEST SHORTSTOP IN THE MINORS). Cordero might
be convinced to return to 2nd with a little coaxing. With that, I could
envision an infield of Vaughn, Cordero, Garciaparra, Valentin (maybe
Naehring @ 2nd if he returns and could learn it).
If Naehring is at 2nd, Cordero could play LF. I like Reggie Jefferson as a
regular with Troy O'Leary out there, too. Therefore, it would look a
little like this as a starting lineup:
1b: Vaughn
2b: Naehring/Valentin/Cordero
SS: Garciaparra
3b: Naehring/Valentin
OF: Cordero/Jefferson/O'Leary
C...SIGN ONE
P: Wakefield (yes, keep him, he'll come back), Sele, SIGN AVERY, who else?
Those are my opinons...I'd like to hear others.
soxfa...@aol.com
In article <5632dm$d...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
(Raymond Diperna) writes:
>soxfa...@aol.com wrote:
>: In article <55tpbn$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
>: (Raymond Diperna) writes:
>
>: >: You say the handedness of our starting pitching is irrelevant. I
>: >: disagree.
>: >
>: >Ok. But why? That's all i'm asking.
>
>: In a given game, the starter's handedness is relevant because of the
fact
>: that the hand with which the pitcher throws the ball has an impact on
how
>: effective a given hitter is.
>
>Unfortunately, the pitchers have to work in a rotation as opposed to a
>random order. Otherwise, their arms fall off. Thus, you have very
little
>ability to control who starts on any given day.
Ahh, but that rotation is not set in stone is it? Has any team ever gone
through an entire season without having any starter miss a start? I doubt
it.
And if you read carefully, you will notice that nowhere did I espouse
throwing your pitchers out there in a completely random manner....or even
a remotely random manner.
If you take a look at my hypothetical situation, you will see that it
doesn't come up that often. Sometimes you have big games late in the
season and if you have some diversity among your staff you have more
options. And when you're in a tight race, and you have more options, you
have a better chance of success.
>
>: Now I grant you, that this is more relevant
>: with close, late inning bullpen maneuverings, but ask yourself this:
how
>: many times have you seen Wade Boggs sit against a good lefty? Fairly
>: often, right?
>
>Yes, and it was silly because Boggs Against Lefties was better than
>Charlie Hayes or Player X against lefties. But this is further evidence
>of Torre's incompetence.
I'm sorry, but Boggs was sitting against good lefties before Torre got
there.
>
>: Imagine for a moment that you're two games out of first place and
playing
>: a three game weekend series against the first place team....in
September.
>: This is a big series, no? Now imagine that this first place team has
>: demonstrated that they are much better at hitting righthanded pitchers
>: than lefthanded (or vice versa). Wouldn't you want to play to their
>: weakness if at all possible? Do I advocate messing up your whole
rotation
>: to get a lefty against them? No of course not. Were I a manager,
would I
>: consider starting my lefty a day short? Yes, particularly if whoever
it
>: was who's regular turn it was wasn't particularly effective against
these
>: guys.
>
>The problem is that the good lefty hitters can hit lefties reasonably
>well, and if they can't, the opposing manager can always start a RH
hitter
>instead.
Keep in mind that you don't have an unlimited number of players. The
things you have to weigh in making a decision like the one I proposed
include looking at how the other guy is going to react to your moves, and
obviously you don't make a move unless you feel it improves your chances.
>: The point is that with a lefty you have more options than you do
without
>: one. I would prefer to have two, quite frankly.
>
>But you really don't have more options, because of the pitching rotation.
So as far as you are concerned, no pitcher ever pitches out of rotation?
Keep in mind now, that I'm not talking about going to a three man
rotation, or a four man rotation, I'm just saying that down the stretch
and in the postseason, if you can gain an advantage by pitching one
pitcher on a days less rest than he is used to, then you have to consider
the option.
>The bottom line is, you want good starting pitchers, be them righty or
>lefty.
This is very true.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Raymond DiPerna <rad...@pitt.edu>
>
>alias: a0...@lehigh.edu
Gregory Lynn
soxfa...@aol.com
In article <19961109195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
matt...@aol.com writes:
I agree entirely that he is valuable to this team. He is also very
erratic.
Raymond Diperna
@#McClureB>:
Distribution:
Bruce S. McClure (mccl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: As for a LF, I'm not too concerned with the outfield right now.
: Personally, my deep concern is pitching. Now maybe I'm going to ruffle
: some feathers here, but I'm not an advocate of resigning Clemens. I think
: his best years are behind him and as a starter, he's only good for a #3
: slot in a rotation. I wouldn't be heartbroken if TX or Houston signed him.
Of course his best years are behind him, but why is that relevant? The
question is, what is he going to be able to do for the next 3 or 4 years.
He's still going to be a top pitcher; he has gone from outstanding to
very good.
Only good for a #3 starter? Who on the red sox is better than clemens?
Sele's injuries make him a question mark, and suppan is unproven. Roger
Clemens was one of the top 5 pitchers in the AL last year.
If you think Clemens is a #3 pitcher, you're out of your mind -- unless
you've also got Maddux and perhaps Kevin Brown on your roster.
: IMHO, if I'm Duquette, I'm trying to sign Avery and Wettland. Granted
: there's cash to be spent to get either/both of them, but a change of venue
: is only going to help Steve and John would look good in a Sox cap.
Mel Torme would look good in a sox cap also. What's your point?
: After that, our next need is for a catcher. Stanley isn't going to do
: it and I don't think he's going to be back.
What's wrong with Stanley? Why can't he do it?
: Benito Santiago is available I think, and he'd be a good young
: catcher for a few years.
Santiago is not close to Stanley, his fluke season notwithstanding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond DiPerna <rad...@pitt.edu>
alias: a0...@lehigh.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R. G. W
Raymond Diperna wrote:
>
> @#McClureB>:
> Distribution:
>
> Bruce S. McClure (mccl...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : As for a LF, I'm not too concerned with the outfield right now.
> : Personally, my deep concern is pitching. Now maybe I'm going to ruffle
> : some feathers here, but I'm not an advocate of resigning Clemens. I think
> : his best years are behind him and as a starter, he's only good for a #3
> : slot in a rotation. I wouldn't be heartbroken if TX or Houston signed him.
>
> Of course his best years are behind him, but why is that relevant? The
> question is, what is he going to be able to do for the next 3 or 4 years.
> He's still going to be a top pitcher; he has gone from outstanding to
> very good.
can't hit lefties. Pemberton would be a nice compliment. Let's worry
about pitching, pitching, and pitching. If there is any cash left after
the pitchers, then go get a solid rightfielder.