Red Sox Rotation Discussion

[Dojji]

Schilling? Where is that coming from? You have also recently misrepresented my 2006 ST evaluations of Lester. You forced me to research a 3 year old thread to prove that my memory of my evaluation was accurate. Why'd you do that? I hate having to research old posts. From now on when you accuse me of inconsistency or anything else, how about you bring the proof with the accusation? That's only fair.

 

Welcome to the club.

[CrespoBlows]

Welcome to the club.

 

Shut the f*** up.

 

I've always shown your quote to you. You have to be reminded.

[Dojji]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/406290045_e8df4b158b.jpg

[CrespoBlows]

Is this supposed to be your best attempt at humor?

[ORS]

Dude, your blood sugar must be low. It's that time of the day. Grab a candy bar and calm down. Who is discussing the FO performance in this thread? Not me. Also, although I question and criticize many FO moves, I have openly shared my opinion that on balance they have done a good job. You memory is selective in this regard.

 

Schilling? Where is that coming from? You have also recently misrepresented my 2006 ST evaluations of Lester. You forced me to research a 3 year old thread to prove that my memory of my evaluation was accurate. Why'd you do that? I hate having to research old posts. From now on when you accuse me of inconsistency or anything else, how about you bring the proof with the accusation? That's only fair. Without the proof, in the future I am just going to respond that your accusation is unsubstantiated BS. You search the posts. As for Schilling, when did I ever say that the post-surgical Schilling would be as good as the young uninjured Schilling? I didn't say that I didn't want Smoltz this season. I just think some people have unrealistic expectation of a post-surgical 41-yr old Smoltz. People are predicting 10 wins and he will not even take the mound until June. That's very ambitious.

My blood sugar's fine, so quit pretending like I'm being irrational. If anything, I'm laughing at this because it's funny watching you tie your own shoe laces together and try and do the cha-cha afterward.

 

You think you put the Lester thing to bed? No, you selectively found your post where you recant some of your original pessimism. You had to, because, well, it was just one or two appearances in ST, certainly not enough make bold claims. Anyway, for the record, here's the money post that had my recollection of your assessment of Lester being quite critical.

 

As for the top prospect Lester' date=' who has been labeled as "untouchable" by fans on Sox boards all over the internet, he looked vewry touchable on the mound. He had poor command of his pitches. His velocity was very ordinary, and judging from the two hard hit extra base hits that he gave up he didn't have too much movement on his pitches. The HR hit against him was a screaming liner that I thought did not have enough height to get out. It was crushed. He's probably another Red Sox over-hyped prospect. Don't get too upset if they trade him at some point for a real major leaguer. It's the job of the FO to build up these guys and use them as trade bait. Tomorrow Papelbon goes again. I think that he is much closer to the real deal than Lester. Papelbon has much more velocity.[/quote']

 

Originally, I didn't go back to look when you posted the link because I didn't care enough to press the issue. Looks like my memory is correct, not that I ever doubted it, so I will continue to trust it, especially when the alternative is your ability to retroactively tell us what the meaning of "is" is in a previous post.

 

You don't get the connection between your comments in this thread and your complaints about the FO's moves this offseason? You've been very critical of the money under contract to Smoltz, Penny, and Saito given their injury issues. This is one season removed from them signing another 41 y/o pitcher with the potential for shoulder issues. This is where Schilling becomes relevant to the discussion. You liked that move and were critical of them not doing it sooner. I don't see enough difference in the situations to be totally in favor of one while being totally opposed to the other. Thus, we come full circle to my comment about finding consistency only in your apparent agenda of being critical of the FO.

[Dojji]

I was pretty critical of Lester too before he put it together. Most of us were. I'm not sure how much that proves, other than the fact that we have the ability to be wrong sometimes. That's hardly a revelation is it?

[ORS]

Why can't you take the time, or hell at least ask, to find out what that was about? This is a spill over from the Lars Anderson thread. I made a throw away comment about his previous ST predictions given what he posted about Anderson, and was subsequently accused of having a faulty memory.

 

Sorry for defending my memory and making you feel compelled offer your point of little relevance.

[rhet]

The thing is, Smoltz was dominant at 40 last year before getting hurt. Certain guys when healthy can be very effective into their 40s.

 

With Smoltz, age isn't the issue, health is.

[Dojji]

Why can't you take the time, or hell at least ask, to find out what that was about? This is a spill over from the Lars Anderson thread. I made a throw away comment about his previous ST predictions given what he posted about Anderson, and was subsequently accused of having a faulty memory.

 

Sorry for defending my memory and making you feel compelled offer your point of little relevance.

 

If you start bring wars from other threads into a new one, why are you surprised when people don't have any idea what you're talking about? If you two want to snarl at each other over an old grievance, do it on your own.

[ORS]

And the anal retentive thread police have arrived. I still think the more prudent option is to shut your hole and keep out of it when you don't know the specifics.

[CrespoBlows]

If you start bring wars from other threads into a new one' date=' why are you surprised when people don't have any idea what you're talking about? If you two want to snarl at each other over an old grievance, do it on your own.[/quote']

 

That's what they were doing before you intervened.

[Dojji]

Just saying they have these wonderful things called "private messages" so that the rest of us don't have to put up with the mass hijacking spammings that occur when it goes beyond the realm of discussion of the team and into something personal.

[TheKilo]

Just saying they have these wonderful things called "private messages" so that the rest of us don't have to put up with the mass hijacking spammings that occur when it goes beyond the realm of discussion of the team and into something personal.

 

You've been on this board how long?

[ORS]

It's not personal, you collossal douche (that is, BTW). It something relevant to our current discussion, no, not the thread topic, but the related tangent, that spilled over from another thread. Now, you are left with 3 options when something spills over. One, you can choose to leave it alone and let it resolve itself out of the thread. Two, you can research and/or ask about it to join the discussion tanget. Three, you can assume you know what the f*** is going on and stick your foot in your mouth.

 

Unfortunately, you picked option 3 and got all butthurt when called out for it. Then you proceded to play thread police and say it had no place here. Well, that wasn't an issue when you couldn't resist chiming in, was it?

[TheKilo]

lol butthurt what an awesome expression

[Dipre]

Why can't you take the time, or hell at least ask, to find out what that was about? This is a spill over from the Lars Anderson thread. I made a throw away comment about his previous ST predictions given what he posted about Anderson, and was subsequently accused of having a faulty memory.

 

Sorry for defending my memory and making you feel compelled offer your point of little relevance.

 

And the anal retentive thread police have arrived. I still think the more prudent option is to shut your hole and keep out of it when you don't know the specifics.

 

It's not personal, you collossal douche (that is, BTW). It something relevant to our current discussion, no, not the thread topic, but the related tangent, that spilled over from another thread. Now, you are left with 3 options when something spills over. One, you can choose to leave it alone and let it resolve itself out of the thread. Two, you can research and/or ask about it to join the discussion tanget. Three, you can assume you know what the f*** is going on and stick your foot in your mouth.

 

Unfortunately, you picked option 3 and got all butthurt when called out for it. Then you proceded to play thread police and say it had no place here. Well, that wasn't an issue when you couldn't resist chiming in, was it?

 

Owned. Hard. Thrice. Give Up.

[Dojji]

Owned. Hard. Thrice. Give Up.

 

Speaking of irrelevant interjections.

 

It's not personal' date=' you collossal douche (that is, BTW). It something relevant to our current discussion, no, not the thread topic, but the related tangent, that spilled over from another thread.[/quote']

 

Just because I'm a collossal douche, I might as well point out that you just admitted it didn't belong here.

 

Three, you can assume you know what the f*** is going on and stick your foot in your mouth.

 

Four, you can try to turn the thread back to its original purpose.

 

Unfortunately, you picked option 3 and got all butthurt when called out for it. Then you proceded to play thread police and say it had no place here. Well, that wasn't an issue when you couldn't resist chiming in, was it?

 

Was there a relevance to the Red Sox rotation here that I missed somewhere? Go pull your balcony scene somewhere else. This isn't the ORS High Drama forum, it's Red Sox discussion and a conversation on the pitching rotation. That's not particularly an unreasonable request. If you want to go after someone, even me -- especially me, you think people want to go through this crap AGAIN this week? --- take it over PM or somewhere else and stop cluttering the threads. I am sick to death of the testosterone poisoning around here.

[a700hitter]

My blood sugar's fine, so quit pretending like I'm being irrational. If anything, I'm laughing at this because it's funny watching you tie your own shoe laces together and try and do the cha-cha afterward.

 

You think you put the Lester thing to bed? No, you selectively found your post where you recant some of your original pessimism. You had to, because, well, it was just one or two appearances in ST, certainly not enough make bold claims. Anyway, for the record, here's the money post that had my recollection of your assessment of Lester being quite critical.

As for the top prospect Lester, who has been labeled as "untouchable" by fans on Sox boards all over the internet, he looked very touchable on the mound. He had poor command of his pitches. His velocity was very ordinary, and judging from the two hard hit extra base hits that he gave up he didn't have too much movement on his pitches. The HR hit against him was a screaming liner that I thought did not have enough height to get out. It was crushed. He's probably another Red Sox over-hyped prospect. Don't get too upset if they trade him at some point for a real major leaguer. It's the job of the FO to build up these guys and use them as trade bait. Tomorrow Papelbon goes again. I think that he is much closer to the real deal than Lester. Papelbon has much more velocity.

 

Originally, I didn't go back to look when you posted the link because I didn't care enough to press the issue. Looks like my memory is correct, not that I ever doubted it, so I will continue to trust it, especially when the alternative is your ability to retroactively tell us what the meaning of "is" is in a previous post.

You are cherry-picking my initial post about Lester, which was intentionally provocative to get *******s like JSinger all worked up. Guess-what? It worked. Some people are still worked up over it more than two years later. After all my years and posts on this forum, you haven't caught on that my method of operation is to provoke and then discuss? If you noticed, my initial post was predominantly a report of what I had observed in the game, but my later posts in the thread gave a more fulsome evaluation of Lester as a prospect. In several posts, I said that he was a couple of years away and I likened him to John Tudor. Boy, what criticism! I wasn't recanting anything, but of course you will tell me what I was thinking, because you are all omniscient. I'll admit that I underestimated him. I didn't think that he would become a top of the rotation guy so fast. I thought that he'd still be a #3 or 4. I was right that he needed time to develop. He didn't arrive as a big time pitcher until he learned to aggressively throw strikes last May. Some of us will acknowledge our misjudgments, but not you who is clinging to a ridiculous position that you would rather have Wakefield than Sonnenstine in 2009. In his last 4 post season starts, Wakefield is 0-3 with a 10.80 ERA spanning 4 post seasons. That is pretty disgusting. Sonnenstine has had some degree of success in his one post season. He's 25 and last season's experience should help his development while Wakefield's torn labrum can only get worse. Yeah, I'm sure lots of us would like to see Wakefield taking the ball in a playoff game instead of Sonnenstine (heavy sarcasm). I am sorry, but sticking to your guns on this one makes you look like an irrational ass IMO.

 

You don't get the connection between your comments in this thread and your complaints about the FO's moves this offseason? You've been very critical of the money under contract to Smoltz' date=' Penny, and Saito given their injury issues. This is one season removed from them signing another 41 y/o pitcher with the potential for shoulder issues. This is where Schilling becomes relevant to the discussion. You liked that move and were critical of them not doing it sooner. I don't see enough difference in the situations to be totally in favor of one while being totally opposed to the other. Thus, we come full circle to my comment about finding consistency only in your apparent agenda of being critical of the FO.[/quote']You don't see the difference? One guy was post surgical at the time of signing while the other guy had not been diagnosed with any shoulder condition and had passed a team physical at the time of the signing. No difference there? Cling to that winning argument too.

[CrespoBlows]

One week away.

[Gom]

I'll say this about the Red Sox rotation. The key is Lester. If he's what he showed last year, you guys have the potential to have the best rotation in baseball.

 

If he regresses hard...well, you'll be watching baseball in New York and Tampa in the first week in October.

[Keeper]

I would say the keys to the Yanks rotation are Burnett and Joba. If you get 50 combined starts from them you should be in good shape.

[ORS]

You are cherry-picking my initial post about Lester' date=' which was intentionally provocative to get *******s like JSinger all worked up. Guess-what? It worked. Some people are still worked up over it more than two years later. After all my years and posts on this forum, you haven't caught on that my method of operation is to provoke and then discuss? If you noticed, my initial post was predominantly a report of what I had observed in the game, but my later posts in the thread gave a more fulsome evaluation of Lester as a prospect. In several posts, I said that he was a couple of years away and I likened him to John Tudor. Boy, what criticism! I wasn't recanting anything, but of course you will tell me what I was thinking, because you are all omniscient. I'll admit that I underestimated him. I didn't think that he would become a top of the rotation guy so fast. I thought that he'd still be a #3 or 4. I was right that he needed time to develop. He didn't arrive as a big time pitcher until he learned to aggressively throw strikes last May. Some of us will acknowledge our misjudgments, but not you who is clinging to a ridiculous position that you would rather have Wakefield than Sonnenstine in 2009. In his last 4 post season starts, Wakefield is 0-3 with a 10.80 ERA spanning 4 post seasons. That is pretty disgusting. Sonnenstine has had some degree of success in his one post season. He's 25 and last season's experience should help his development while Wakefield's torn labrum can only get worse. Yeah, I'm sure lots of us would like to see Wakefield taking the ball in a playoff game instead of Sonnenstine (heavy sarcasm). I am sorry, but sticking to your guns on this one makes you look like an irrational ass IMO.[/quote']

Couple of things about your supposed "motivation"....

 

One, I don't buy it. This smells like a convenient way for you to back away from words that have been proven wrong.

 

Two, supposing I did buy it, your provocative comments are generally one liners - like the one I threw your way that started this discussion. Your post about Lester is more detailed, and IMO, contains more of your true thoughts at the time.

 

Finally, this is the second time in 2 posts you've attempted to paint me as irrational and failed. Did this part confuse you?

 

Originally, I didn't go back to look when you posted the link because I didn't care enough to press the issue.

 

No, I'm not worked up over it two years later. Here's the thing, I remember s***. I don't want to, but I do. If I read it, it sticks around with me for a while. Unfortunately, most of the stuff I remember is worthless, trivial information, like, for instance, your thoughts on our prospects in spring training.

 

You think it's irrational stating that I'd choose Wakefield in a big game? Look at how you arrive at that conclusion. Postseason stats. Good, let's follow that path. Do you also prefer Sonnanstine over Sabathia? Look at the postseason stats, 2-1 with 4.24 ERA for Sonnanstine, 2-3 with a 7.92 for Sabathia. No brainer, right? Here's the thing, when you use stupid criteria, you get stupid conclusions. Statistically, Sabathia and Wakefield are the superior pitchers, and they are who I choose.

 

You don't see the difference? One guy was post surgical at the time of signing while the other guy had not been diagnosed with any shoulder condition and had passed a team physical at the time of the signing. No difference there? Cling to that winning argument too.

I see the difference between Smoltz and Schilling, but my post also included Penny. Penny is analogous to Schilling in that there is a potential for a shoulder issue and he's pre-op. And make no mistake, Schilling had a shoulder issue earlier in the year when he went on the DL to keep him fresh for October. He passed a physical, Penny passed a physical. Apples to apples. When you add a post-op Smoltz to Penny, and the combined committment of resources is in the same ballpark, I think this year's activity is better from a risk mitigation standpoint than last year's. I don't think you can make an argument that recognizes the potential for problems with Schilling's shoulder, which were real, and still prefers that move by itself over the combination this year, not without applying a double standard.

 

Since you don't trust my memory. For the story about Schilling's shoulder: Link

[Dojji]

For the record, I'm a card-carrying member of Tim Wakefield's fan club and I'd still prefer Sonnanstine. I really enjoy that someone who throws as slow as Wakefield does can succeed in big league ball, but the surest way a pitcher can win my heart is to throw strikes, and Sonny throws strikes. A lot of strikes.

 

Also the guy's going into his third year of big league ball and with his strikethrowing ways there's always a chance he can adjust and "take the next step." The next step Wakefield's going to take in his career is when he's finally put to pasture.

 

Also, a700 exaggerated the risks a bit but he does have a point about Smoltz. I think most of us are managing our expectations appropriately, and even airhead optimists like me are waiting to see what we get as he starts to rehab. I don't think it's a winning bet to bet against Smoltz' ability to pitch if healthy, but it is entirely possible that he never gets up to big league readiness.

 

The big reason Smoltz is a low-risk move is precisely because we already have a plan in place for how to proceed with our rotation if that happens, and even if Penny and Wakefield get hurt or suck.

[ORS]

For the record, I'm a card-carrying member of Tim Wakefield's fan club and I'd still prefer Sonnanstine. I really enjoy that someone who throws as slow as Wakefield does can succeed in big league ball, but the surest way a pitcher can win my heart is to throw strikes, and Sonny throws strikes. A lot of strikes.

 

Also the guy's going into his third year of big league ball and with his strikethrowing ways there's always a chance he can adjust and "take the next step." The next step Wakefield's going to take in his career is when he's finally put to pasture.

 

Also, a700 exaggerated the risks a bit but he does have a point about Smoltz. I think most of us are managing our expectations appropriately, and even airhead optimists like me are waiting to see what we get as he starts to rehab. I don't think it's a winning bet to bet against Smoltz' ability to pitch if healthy, but it is entirely possible that he never gets up to big league readiness.

 

The big reason Smoltz is a low-risk move is precisely because we already have a plan in place for how to proceed with our rotation if that happens, and even if Penny and Wakefield get hurt or suck.

That's fine. Like I mentioned upthread, the differences are marginal with a slight favor in statistical performance to Wakefield. There is a case for Sonnanstine. I have no problem if anyone has reasons for prefering him. I will chime in when someone portrays it as something that doesn't even require thought, a foregone conclusion, like a700 did.

 

I have not disputed the future value Sonnanstine holds over Wakefield beyond 2009. I'm trying to stick to the original topic of discussion. The future value, while relevant to a discussion of who you'd prefer to have overall, is not germane to a discussion of the Sox starting pitching depth in 2009.

[a700hitter]

Couple of things about your supposed "motivation"....

 

One, I don't buy it. This smells like a convenient way for you to back away from words that have been pr oven wrong.

 

Two, supposing I did buy it, your provocative comments are generally one liners - like the one I threw your way that started this discussion. Your post about Lester is more detailed, and IMO, contains more of your true thoughts at the time.

Man, your synapses are just not firing right lately. First, unlike you, I will admit an error in judgment when proved wrong. Second, why would I back away from an opinion in the same thread before the player even set foot on a field to prove me wrong. The other posts are in the thread. I said that I thought he could be like a John Tudor type, but that Tudor took time to develop. Such condemnation! You don't have to buy anything. But here's the post once again.

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/game-thread-forum/5554-official-2006-spring-training-game-thread-13.html#post124705

 

This is from your post where you recollected what I said:

 

I recall your analysis of Lester's potential being a bit more critical. You didn't say he was a couple of years away. You were critical not only of his command, but said he lacked the stuff to be a big league pitcher. You basically predicted him to be a bust.

As a rational man, does this seem like an accurate recollection of my evaluation?

 

You think it's irrational stating that I'd choose Wakefield in a big game? Look at how you arrive at that conclusion. Postseason stats. Good' date=' let's follow that path. Do you also prefer Sonnanstine over Sabathia? Look at the postseason stats, 2-1 with 4.24 ERA for Sonnanstine, 2-3 with a 7.92 for Sabathia. No brainer, right? Here's the thing, when you use stupid criteria, you get stupid conclusions. Statistically, Sabathia and Wakefield are the superior pitchers, and they are who I choose.[/quote']It's not irrational. It is very poorly reasoned. IMO you are part of an extremely small minority of baseball experts on this one-- possibly a class of 1. What's funny is that you will be throwing up if Wakefield gets the ball against Sonnenstine.

 

I see the difference between Smoltz and Schilling, but my post also included Penny. Penny is analogous to Schilling in that there is a potential for a shoulder issue and he's pre-op. And make no mistake, Schilling had a shoulder issue earlier in the year when he went on the DL to keep him fresh for October. He passed a physical, Penny passed a physical. Apples to apples.

Since you don't trust my memory. For the story about Schilling's shoulder: Link

Here's your entire post that started this whole argument:

 

Yet, you were perfectly content bringing back Schilling for his 41 y/o season. You are a tough one to follow. The only thing that remains consistent is that the FO did a poor job in your book.

I don't see Penny's name. Do you? You were comparing my reaction to signing 41 year old pitchers. Here's the link to your post, so you can see that I have not edited your words.

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/389423-post86.html

 

Do me a favor please. Research your recollections about my opinions before you start posting them, because you are having trouble recollecting your own posts.

[Dojji]

That's fine. Like I mentioned upthread, the differences are marginal with a slight favor in statistical performance to Wakefield. There is a case for Sonnanstine. I have no problem if anyone has reasons for prefering him. I will chime in when someone portrays it as something that doesn't even require thought, a foregone conclusion, like a700 did.

 

I have not disputed the future value Sonnanstine holds over Wakefield beyond 2009. I'm trying to stick to the original topic of discussion. The future value, while relevant to a discussion of who you'd prefer to have overall, is not germane to a discussion of the Sox starting pitching depth in 2009.

 

Alright, fair enough. Here's the thing though: I think Sonnanstine could take that step this year. All the signs are there and the third season (second full) is a pivotal time for a young pitcher. That was when Lester broke out after all.

[ORS]

You don't think I recapped your position very well? Line for line....

 

[nothing] You said nothing about how far away he was (original post).

You didn't say he was a couple of years away.

He had poor command of his pitches. His velocity was very ordinary, and judging from the two hard hit extra base hits that he gave up he didn't have too much movement on his pitches.

You were critical not only of his command, but said he lacked the stuff to be a big league pitcher.

A bit of extrapolation on my part, but if you can't command mediocre stuff, you don't have the stuff to be a big league pitcher.

He's probably another Red Sox over-hyped prospect.

You basically predicted him to be a bust.

This sounds like a bust, to me.

 

I can't admit I'm wrong? I'm about to. I admit, I wasn't clear in my OP about Schilling. You have consistently lumped the 3 injury signings (Smoltz, Penny, Saito) together as some sort of defective trifecta. I didn't make it clear that when I made my comment about Schilling, who had everything wrong with him that group had, that I considered the group as one for the purposes of discussion. That's my fault for not clarifying that, but I was only following your lead.

[BSN07]

a700's nightmare continues;)

 

There has been a legitimate change in Jon Lester's changeup this spring. With the left-hander down to one more exhibition start, he can now say for sure that the pitch he has been experimenting with for all of camp will not be left on the cutting-room floor when he makes his first regular-season start April 8 against the Rays. Lester used the pitch, in his estimate, 10 to 15 times on Sunday against the Phillies. This on a day he gave up six hits and one run while walking four and striking out five against one of the best lineups in baseball. Last year, Lester said he would throw the pitch "zero to one time" per start. He quipped that it was his ninth best pitch

.

[ORS]

Alright' date=' fair enough. Here's the thing though: I think Sonnanstine could take that step this year. All the signs are there and the third season (second full) is a pivotal time for a young pitcher. That was when Lester broke out after all.[/quote']

I'm skeptical there's a "step" for Sonnanstine to take. He's got very bland stuff. He doesn't miss bats particularly well nor does he have a dominating pitch that can induce consistent weak contact. I suspect his career BABIP will be on the high side of average. He will mitigate this by limiting the free pass, but he'll get hit hard with regularity IMO.

[a700hitter]

You don't think I recapped your position very well? Line for line....

 

A bit of extrapolation on my part, but if you can't command mediocre stuff, you don't have the stuff to be a big league pitcher.

 

 

This sounds like a bust, to me.

 

But it is all from my initial post which you have cherry-picked. Haven't we already done this dance? Only a few posts later I gave a more in-depth evaluation that you apparently forgot, which goes to my point that your memory is selective. Congratulations, you have cherry-picked a post to line up with your selective memory. The rest of my posts in that thread and my recollection of my opinion of him at the time mean nothing to you. You will hold onto one post as being my definitive position on the matter even though it still doesn't say what you recollected. As you noted, you made a few extrapolations and assumptions? Well the subsequent posts in the thread proved those assumptions and extrapolations to be wrong.

 

Your post that started this argument was not a provocative post to generate lively debate. You didn't throw out a provocative player assessment or anything like that. Your post was just a random attack on me that had nothing to do with a discussion of the Red Sox pitching depth as compared to the Yankees and the Rays. The thread was not a discussion of Schilling, nor was it a discussion of the FO. Your post was out of place and it added nothing to the discussion. It didn't provoke a discussion of any baseball issues, but started a flare up of a you said- I said boring discussion. You should be embarrassed that a man of your intelligence stooped to such a level and is fighting so hard to defend his pettiness

 

I can't admit I'm wrong? I'm about to. I admit' date=' I wasn't clear in my OP about Schilling. You have consistently lumped the 3 injury signings (Smoltz, Penny, Saito) together as some sort of defective trifecta. I didn't make it clear that when I made my comment about Schilling, who had everything wrong with him that group had, that I considered the group as one for the purposes of discussion. That's my fault for not clarifying that, but I was only following your lead.[/quote']That's an admission... that you weren't clear? No, you were clear. You referenced Schilling and only Schilling and it was in the context of being a 41 year old pitcher. Penny is not 41 so why would I assume that you meant to include him. Unlike you, I respond to what a member posts, not what I think he meant. At least have enough dignity to admit that you didn't mention or reference Penny in any way in your snotty post. It had nothing to do with not being clear. There's no evidence in that post of Penny or anyone other than Schilling, except in your own head.