Schilling: Sign Beckett -- Now

[a700hitter]

Some pretty knowledgeable posters kinda look foolish now. Go through the thread' date=' it's gold. [/quote']I was 100% right throughout this thread-- no surprise there. Plus, my prediction of what the FO would do was spot on-- no surprise there either considering my predictions this off season. Theo has been Channeling me for some time.

 

Also, it is a good thread for the new posters to see what Dutchy/Imperial was all about.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Remind me when signing Cliff Lee was a realistic option? Say Theo lets Beckett hit the FA market this year. Cliff Lee ends up spurning the Yankees' much higher offer (and probably ours too) and then Beckett probably ditches us and signs on the with Yankees. It was the right move re-upping Beckett and not taking the risk of trying to sign Lee (now with hindsight it appears it wouldn't even be possible)

 

So far it's Lee 1 Beckett 0, but Beckett is a couple years younger and makes a substantially lower amount. Lets see in a couple years what the scoreboard looks like, frankly I believe it'll be pretty damn close.

[Dipre]

First off, the core of the argument was "who was the superior pitcher". Cliff Lee is the superior pitcher.

 

@a700: 100% right? o rly?

 

I can agree with that, because I don't see the potential for a big upgrade with Lee.

 

Instance number one where you're wrong:

 

Lee's 2010 and Beckett's 2010 numbers are clearly heaven-and-earth different. You've been complaining all offseason about how getting another bullpen piece catapults the Sox to the playoffs, but i bet trading for Lee would have gotten the Sox to the playoffs as well, because he was "hand-over fist" superior than the back three of our rotation.

 

I admitted the mistake several posts back. It was, as I put it a Pyrrhic victory, because you pointed out a mistake regarding an irrelevant fact. I'm not bitter. I'm just trying to point out that you're argument is technical and misses the forest for the trees, but I guess that is your style. Carry on.

 

Another instance where you swung-and-missed and Dutchy wouldn't let it go. The percentage is dropping......

 

You were right in three things: 1) Assuming they would open their wallet to Beckett, 2) Noting that Clemens' early shoulder surgery never hindered his performance 3) Noting that Lee has been good to great throughout his whole career with the exception of one year.

 

You were wrong in two things: 1) Failing to acknowledge that Clemens had early-career shoulder issues. 2) Saying that there wasn't a big upgrade to be had from Lee to Beckett.

 

60% accuracy, pretty far from 100%.

 

Also, about the whole "The FO agrees with me" thing, they signed Carl Crawford, and you didn't predict any of the other players they signed, nor did they go with the bullpen construction model you thought they would, you never implied they would trade for Gonzales, and when they did, you thought it would fall through.

 

In conclusion: You're not always right, hell, you're not usually right, so stop tooting your own horn.

 

However, i'll give you "being right" over 50% of the time, even though that's much lower than my mark.

 

Anyways, carry on.

[a700hitter]

First off, the core of the argument was "who was the superior pitcher". Cliff Lee is the superior pitcher.

 

@a700: 100% right? o rly?

 

 

 

Instance number one where you're wrong:

 

Lee's 2010 and Beckett's 2010 numbers are clearly heaven-and-earth different. You've been complaining all offseason about how getting another bullpen piece catapults the Sox to the playoffs, but i bet trading for Lee would have gotten the Sox to the playoffs as well, because he was "hand-over fist" superior than the back three of our rotation.

 

 

 

Another instance where you swung-and-missed and Dutchy wouldn't let it go. The percentage is dropping......

 

You were right in three things: 1) Assuming they would open their wallet to Beckett, 2) Noting that Clemens' early shoulder surgery never hindered his performance 3) Noting that Lee has been good to great throughout his whole career with the exception of one year.

 

You were wrong in two things: 1) Failing to acknowledge that Clemens had early-career shoulder issues. 2) Saying that there wasn't a big upgrade to be had from Lee to Beckett.

 

60% accuracy, pretty far from 100%.

 

Also, about the whole "The FO agrees with me" thing, they signed Carl Crawford, and you didn't predict any of the other players they signed, nor did they go with the bullpen construction model you thought they would, you never implied they would trade for Gonzales, and when they did, you thought it would fall through.

 

In conclusion: You're not always right, hell, you're not usually right, so stop tooting your own horn.

 

However, i'll give you "being right" over 50% of the time, even though that's much lower than my mark.

 

Anyways, carry on.

A few things:

 

1. You are really reaching. I was right about all the big issues in this thread. Being wrong about a minor factual point that is irrelevant to the main point in an argument is.... well, it is irrelevant. Shame on you counselor.

 

2. I am still not convinced about the big upgrade with Lee over Beckett and it still remains to be seen since we only have 2010 to look at. We'll know in a couple or three years if Lee would have been a big upgrade. Beckett just had his worst year-- due to injuries.

 

3. I bitch slapped Dutchy/Imperial into a near psychotic break. You should have seen the psychotic vicious pm's that I was getting from him. There was a reason that he was banned multiple times for his psychotic behavior.

 

4. You really have too much time on your hands with this meticulous researching of old threads. I know you are not used to the cold Michigan weather, but good God get a warm winter coat and get out. Take heed of Spud's advice to all of us: get laid.

 

5. I said the Fo would sign Beckett and they did, and I said that they should and could sign Carl Crawford, and they did.

 

Which of those were you right about. My accuracy rate is about 99.9888% I thought you are a stats guy?

[Dipre]

Actually, i don't have enough time in my hands, if i did, i'd find other threads where you're clearly wrong (usually saying trade prospect X for established star Y, like that Lester + Pedroia for Dontrelle Willis you once proposed).

 

Being wrong is being wrong, no matter the "size" of the error, as statistics would show (i am a stats guy right?) therefore, 60% accuracy.

 

You really need to enroll in a Supervisory Skills for Administrators class, since they always take a chapter to show you that: "You are not always right, and if you think you are, you either think too highly of yourself, or you're delusional".

 

Work on improving that percentage.

[a700hitter]

Actually, i don't have enough time in my hands, if i did, i'd find other threads where you're clearly wrong (usually saying trade prospect X for established star Y, like that Lester + Pedroia for Dontrelle Willis you once proposed).

 

Being wrong is being wrong, no matter the "size" of the error, as statistics would show (i am a stats guy right?) therefore, 60% accuracy.

 

You really need to enroll in a Supervisory Skills for Administrators class, since they always take a chapter to show you that: "You are not always right, and if you think you are, you either think too highly of yourself, or you're delusional".

 

Work on improving that percentage.

You just can't stand when anyone else is right about anything. Sometimes you will argue with poster when they agree with you about the main point. I will acknowledge when other posters are correct about something. It doesn't bother me. Usually their being correct coincides with their agreeing with me, but not always.

 

If you are fixated on proving my accuracy percentage, have at it. I really don't care. When I have been wrong about something, I have openly and repeatedly acknowledged it. While you are at it, you might want to devote sometime to disproving my custom user title. Claiming that "Theo Channels Me" is a very bold boast bordering on arrogance.

 

Lighten up Dude. My "I'm always right stuff" is what we call "schtick" No Spud, I'm not Jewish. I don't do this to boast. I engage in this schtick, because it drives overly serious posters nuts. You sir are one of those posters. I apologize, but it does give me a chuckle. I would have though that you would have caught onto this after all this time, especially since we have spoken to each other several times. Oh well.:dunno:

[Dipre]

Hey, i just like calling a spade a spade. If you're right, you're right, if you're wrong, you're wrong.

 

I was wrong in saying Beckett wouldn't take a hometown discount or that the Sox wouldn't sign Crawford. When you lower that "i'm always right" stuff to "i'm usually right" (whether you're joking or not) we can be at peace.

[a700hitter]

Hey, i just like calling a spade a spade. If you're right, you're right, if you're wrong, you're wrong.

 

I was wrong in saying Beckett wouldn't take a hometown discount or that the Sox wouldn't sign Crawford. When you lower that "i'm always right" stuff to "i'm usually right" (whether you're joking or not) we can be at peace.

I'm not changing my schitck for anyone. Take it for what it is.

[example1]

This is stupid. Dipre your argument is that you were right that Lee is better than Beckett? I think one signing cancels others and given the results--this team with 5 good pitchers and the addition of Gonzalez and Crawford--is there anything to complain about? To argue that the Sox could have let Beckett go, sign Lee, Crawford, and trade for Gonzalez seems foolish, unless you think Lee prefers Boston over Texas or new York or Philadelphia.

 

I would rather have Beckett, Lackey, Crawford, Gonzalez than lee and an unidentified FA starting pitcher, regardless of whether they also upgraded their offense. This seems like a bunch of 20-20 hindsight, even though I also don't see any stupid posts by myself here.

[Dipre]

This is stupid. Dipre your argument is that you were right that Lee is better than Beckett? I think one signing cancels others and given the results--this team with 5 good pitchers and the addition of Gonzalez and Crawford--is there anything to complain about? To argue that the Sox could have let Beckett go, sign Lee, Crawford, and trade for Gonzalez seems foolish, unless you think Lee prefers Boston over Texas or new York or Philadelphia.

 

I would rather have Beckett, Lackey, Crawford, Gonzalez than lee and an unidentified FA starting pitcher, regardless of whether they also upgraded their offense. This seems like a bunch of 20-20 hindsight, even though I also don't see any stupid posts by myself here.

 

The actual question (and it's not a stupid question, mind you). Regardless of whether Lee was or wasn't an option for the Red Sox (let's maintain a neutral context here) is he or isn't he a superior pitcher to Josh Beckett?

 

It's a question of people's abilities to remain objective in their assessments about players, and i clarified this in a post above by the way:

 

First off, the core of the argument was "who was the superior pitcher". Cliff Lee is the superior pitcher.

 

You usually don't jump the gun and go around calling people stupid, so what changed here?

 

Are we incapable of admitting that a player that doesn't play for our club is superior than a player that does play for our club, regardless what stats would indicate?

 

I take offense to you calling my argument stupid without taking the time to put the core of the argument into context, by the way.

[example1]

Are we incapable of admitting that a player that doesn't play for our club is superior than a player that does play for our club' date=' regardless what stats would indicate?[/quote']

 

The "are we incapable" discussion is answered in your own posts. Some people are capable and others struggle more with it. There is no universal "we" here. If there were it would probably be a boring place. Even people as knowledgable about baseball as you and I have disagreements and different ways of looking at situations and breaking down baseball-related scenarios. I think the multitude of views and voices makes this place richer, even though I disagree often with the way other people evaluate talent (I disagree with you rarely, and certainly not in this instance).

 

Your points--as valid as they are--come in a thread about signing Beckett, a move that is not independent of context, and which occurred in the context of bad FA pitching classes moving forward and Theo believing that the acquisition of Crawford and Gonzalez (Theo's stated "Plan A") was not only a real possiblity, but would be the priority in the 2010-2011 offseason. Not Cliff Lee.

 

Comparing two potential signings without taking into account contract demands, other competing teams, market values etc., is a discussion that is largely devoid of context and, by defenition, pretty academic. It isn't how these decisions are ever made by a true FO and I know that personally when I'm here to discuss baseball I have my FO hat on. If people like Doj or Kilo were comparing them explicitly without proper context then they have egg on their face (though it doesn't really matter). Otherwise, there's plenty of reason to be happy with the way things turned out regardless of whether Beckett is better than Lee (he is not).

 

I take offense to you calling my argument stupid without taking the time to put the core of the argument into context, by the way.

 

Sorry you took offense. None intended. I understood the context fine. I just think a discussion without context is pretty limited.

[Dipre]

Comparing two players straight up without the need of including "what's best for the Red Sox" is not strange or rare in this place, a baseball discussion forum.

 

The straight up question of : "Is Lee better than Beckett?" is a simple one to answer using statistics, and the fact that Beckett plays for the Sox does not give him a 20% boost in statistics. I'll say it again, in a player-to-player comparison, regardless of team issues, who is the better pitcher? That is easy to answer without trying to cop-out from the discussion E1. The "potential signing" line is not part of the discussion, just a straight up comparison:

 

Cliff Lee, 2007-2010:

 

109 GS, 764.2 IP, 3.40 ERA, 125 ERA+, 1.17 WHIP, 7.1 K/9, 1.5 BB/9, 4.60 SO/BB.

 

Josh Beckett 2007-2010: 110 GS, 715 IP, 4.08 ERA, 114 ERA+, 1.23 WHIP, 8.6 K/9, 2.2 BB/9, 3.91 SO/BB.

 

So in the discussion of "who's the better pitcher" it's clear that Lee is the better pitcher. It's really that simple.

 

You can make the argument that when healthy, Beckett has the potential to pitch to a level similar to Lee for a fraction of the cost, you can make the argument that he's younger, so he has more prime years ahead of him, but regardless of salary or age, Cliff Lee is currently the better pitcher, and there's really no way to argue that.

[example1]

Comparing two players straight up without the need of including "what's best for the Red Sox" is not strange or rare in this place, a baseball discussion forum.

 

The straight up question of : "Is Lee better than Beckett?" is a simple one to answer using statistics, and the fact that Beckett plays for the Sox does not give him a 20% boost in statistics. I'll say it again, in a player-to-player comparison, regardless of team issues, who is the better pitcher? That is easy to answer without trying to cop-out from the discussion E1. The "potential signing" line is not part of the discussion, just a straight up comparison:

 

Cliff Lee, 2007-2010:

 

109 GS, 764.2 IP, 3.40 ERA, 125 ERA+, 1.17 WHIP, 7.1 K/9, 1.5 BB/9, 4.60 SO/BB.

 

Josh Beckett 2007-2010: 110 GS, 715 IP, 4.08 ERA, 114 ERA+, 1.23 WHIP, 8.6 K/9, 2.2 BB/9, 3.91 SO/BB.

 

So in the discussion of "who's the better pitcher" it's clear that Lee is the better pitcher. It's really that simple.

 

You can make the argument that when healthy, Beckett has the potential to pitch to a level similar to Lee for a fraction of the cost, you can make the argument that he's younger, so he has more prime years ahead of him, but regardless of salary or age, Cliff Lee is currently the better pitcher, and there's really no way to argue that.

 

That's a lot of writing to respond to someone who agrees with you. Did you see me arguing with you somewhere?

 

My point, which you gloss over by saying it happens all the time etc., is that without context none of these discussions make sense. Baseball doesn't happen in a test-tube, it happens in a number of baseball diamonds in many different cities by players of many different skill levels, salaries, and cultural backgrounds.

 

Also (again) you made the point about comparing players in a vacuum in a thread about signing a contract. If you want to be really clear and free of context why not start a thread called "who is better in a vacuum: Lee or Beckett" and watch all 3 posts that roll in.

[Dipre]

That's a lot of writing to respond to someone who agrees with you. Did you see me arguing with you somewhere?

 

My point, which you gloss over by saying it happens all the time etc., is that without context none of these discussions make sense. Baseball doesn't happen in a test-tube, it happens in a number of baseball diamonds in many different cities by players of many different skill levels, salaries, and cultural backgrounds.

 

Also (again) you made the point about comparing players in a vacuum in a thread about signing a contract. If you want to be really clear and free of context why not start a thread called "who is better in a vacuum: Lee or Beckett" and watch all 3 posts that roll in.

 

Which is why i made the comparison in this thread, got a ton of responses, and even got to troll a700 and his typical "I'm always right" victory chants for a bit.

 

Now, even though you "technically" agree with me, i don't think you're fully convinced of just how wide the gap between them is right now.

[italstallianion]

A few things:

 

1. You are really reaching. I was right about all the big issues in this thread. Being wrong about a minor factual point that is irrelevant to the main point in an argument is.... well, it is irrelevant. Shame on you counselor.

 

2. I am still not convinced about the big upgrade with Lee over Beckett and it still remains to be seen since we only have 2010 to look at. We'll know in a couple or three years if Lee would have been a big upgrade. Beckett just had his worst year-- due to injuries.

 

3. I bitch slapped Dutchy/Imperial into a near psychotic break. You should have seen the psychotic vicious pm's that I was getting from him. There was a reason that he was banned multiple times for his psychotic behavior.

 

4. You really have too much time on your hands with this meticulous researching of old threads. I know you are not used to the cold Michigan weather, but good God get a warm winter coat and get out. Take heed of Spud's advice to all of us: get laid.

 

5. I said the Fo would sign Beckett and they did, and I said that they should and could sign Carl Crawford, and they did.

 

Which of those were you right about. My accuracy rate is about 99.9888% I thought you are a stats guy?

 

 

Don't forget me too. You once sent me into a psychotic rage that got me banned for a week once last year.

[example1]

Which is why i made the comparison in this thread, got a ton of responses, and even got to troll a700 and his typical "I'm always right" victory chants for a bit.

 

Now, even though you "technically" agree with me, i don't think you're fully convinced of just how wide the gap between them is right now.

 

Unless you can provide some numbers that will quantify their performance for next season and for the lengths of their contracts then I don't see how you (or I) can pretend that we know just how wide the gap between them is.

 

If Lee hurts his arm and Beckett approximates previous performances then the gap will be non-existent. If Beckett never pitches again then the gap will be bigger than you think in the opposite direction.

 

My point is that there is a difference between them in their skills, but you are writing as if you were able to predict the differences in their performances in 2010 or as if any of your accumulated knowledge (which is good) is predictive of future performance. In terms of probability I think you're right, but in terms of certainty you--like the rest of us--deal in opinions rather than in certitude. That's the best we can do.

 

I acknowledge now--and have in the past--that there is a difference. That's all that should be relevant to this discussion, unless you want to get into the context of the situation.

 

Is your conclusion that the Red Sox should have planned to go after Lee rather than Beckett, regardless of the implications with A-Gon or Crawford? If not then the difference in skill--like the difference in how wrong one person is over another--is irrelevant. I agree with your initial point, which was a binary "Lee is better than Beckett" equation. When you talk about "not getting how much better" then you're talking about degrees of "better than" which, IMO, deserves more context than the argument you are framing here.

[a700hitter]

Don't forget me too. You once sent me into a psychotic rage that got me banned for a week once last year.

Sorry about that. If it makes you feel any better, I think I got banned for a week for doing that.

[Dipre]

Unless you can provide some numbers that will quantify their performance for next season and for the lengths of their contracts then I don't see how you (or I) can pretend that we know just how wide the gap between them is.

 

If Lee hurts his arm and Beckett approximates previous performances then the gap will be non-existent. If Beckett never pitches again then the gap will be bigger than you think in the opposite direction.

 

My point is that there is a difference between them in their skills, but you are writing as if you were able to predict the differences in their performances in 2010 or as if any of your accumulated knowledge (which is good) is predictive of future performance. In terms of probability I think you're right, but in terms of certainty you--like the rest of us--deal in opinions rather than in certitude. That's the best we can do.

 

I acknowledge now--and have in the past--that there is a difference. That's all that should be relevant to this discussion, unless you want to get into the context of the situation.

 

Is your conclusion that the Red Sox should have planned to go after Lee rather than Beckett, regardless of the implications with A-Gon or Crawford? If not then the difference in skill--like the difference in how wrong one person is over another--is irrelevant. I agree with your initial point, which was a binary "Lee is better than Beckett" equation. When you talk about "not getting how much better" then you're talking about degrees of "better than" which, IMO, deserves more context than the argument you are framing here.

 

I think your FO hat is a bit too tight example. You came to the correct conclusion all by yourself.

 

It's a direct player-to-player comparison (Lee is better than Beckett) nothing to do with future injury, possible signing or any other variable.

 

"Lee is better than Beckett" period.

 

Just like, say a "Gonzales is better than Horseface" (or vice-versa) comparison.

[a700hitter]

Which is why i made the comparison in this thread, got a ton of responses, and even got to troll a700 and his typical "I'm always right" victory chants for a bit.

You trolled me? I think you might have that backwards. You have let my schitck get under your skin for years. I remain almost always entirely right, and... Theo has been on board with my philosophy all along.

[Dipre]

You trolled me? I think you might have that backwards. You have let my schitck get under your skin for years. I remain almost always entirely right' date=' and... Theo has been on board with my philosophy all along.[/quote']

 

60% accuracy. And i trolled you pretty good, which is not an easy thing to do, old man.

[a700hitter]

60% accuracy. And i trolled you pretty good' date=' which is not an easy thing to do, old man.[/quote']100% on predicting the big FO moves re: Beckett and Crawford. Your accuracy rate on those big decisions-- 0%. Watch and learn my young friend. Watch and learn.

[example1]

Theo has been on board with my philosophy all along.

 

If we had asked you 5 years ago whether there was value in making huge commitment to developing a deep minor league system--potentially at the expense of bettering the team for the short term--what would you have said?

[a700hitter]

If we had asked you 5 years ago whether there was value in making huge commitment to developing a deep minor league system--potentially at the expense of bettering the team for the short term--what would you have said?

The depth of our minor league system is overrated by some people on this forum. Of course, I would be on board with building a deep minor league system. The premise of your question is erroneous. A team with the resources of the Red Sox does not have to sacrifice one thing (building internally) to win today. They are one of the few franchises that has the resources to do both. Theo is on board with me about this.

[example1]

The success of the farm system is a direct result of having prioritized draft picks over established veteran free agents. This often made you unhappy. I don't want to go back and replay old posts and you can undoubtedly look them up yourself if you don't remember your own past thoughts.

[Dipre]

The success of the farm system is a direct result of having prioritized draft picks over established veteran free agents. This often made you unhappy. I don't want to go back and replay old posts and you can undoubtedly look them up yourself if you don't remember your own past thoughts.

 

Like trading Lester and Pedroia for "Established starter" Dontrelle Willis?

 

That would've turned out great.

[a700hitter]

The success of the farm system is a direct result of having prioritized draft picks over established veteran free agents. This often made you unhappy. I don't want to go back and replay old posts and you can undoubtedly look them up yourself if you don't remember your own past thoughts.

I don't speak to Theo on the phone so i often did not agree with specific moves, but I do understand the importance of a deep farm system. Unlike others, I believe that the use of prospects as trading chips is every bit as important as its use as a source for talent for the ML club. However, in this off season, me and Theo have been communicating telepathically.

 

How many of you called me names on a daily basis as I issued my daily reminder to the FO to sign Carl Crawford. Many of you said that it was a flat out impossibility. It was very funny watching so many posters come to grips with that move by struggling to explain why it made sense in the context of what they thought was Theo's philosophy. The truth was they didn't understand Theo's philosophy. The Red Sox are a big market team that will outspend (by a lot) the rest of the competition to build a powerhouse team through the FA market. He's also willing to trade top prospects for expensive star talent. These were not low cost high value moves.

 

The proof is in the pudding. Theo has built a powerhouse using FA talent as the basis. The Bridge Year, while not a complete misspeak, had nothing to do with being a bridge to minor league talent making an impact in the majors. I had often questioned what prospects we had that would make an impact before 2013. The Bridge was to AGon and Crawford. That was his plan all along. It was a good plan-- one that the FO value types never saw coming.

[ORS]

The success of the farm system is a direct result of having prioritized draft picks over established veteran free agents. This often made you unhappy. I don't want to go back and replay old posts and you can undoubtedly look them up yourself if you don't remember your own past thoughts.

Actually, a key component to the success hasn't been so much a prioritizing of draft picks over established veteran free agents, but more of a willingness to accept the risk of moving laterally with veteran free agents. Trading a type A for a type A and gaining a supplemental pick. They've shown a willingness to continue to acquire FA at the expense of a draft position (Lugo could have been Rick Porcello), but to mitigate that, they've shown a greater willingness to let people go when they can swap them for a comparable player (the 2004 offseason is the best example of this, when they let Pedro/Lowe/Cabrera go for Wells/Clement/Renteria and picked up 3 supp picks). There's risk in taking advantage of that loophole, as the new players will not be "proven" in the league/environment of Boston, but they've shown pretty consistently that they are willing to roll the dice there.

[Dipre]

I don't speak to Theo on the phone so i often did not agree with specific moves, but I do understand the importance of a deep farm system. Unlike others, I believe that the use of prospects as trading chips is every bit as important as its use as a source for talent for the ML club. However, in this off season, me and Theo have been communicating telepathically.

 

How many of you called me names on a daily basis as I issued my daily reminder to the FO to sign Carl Crawford. Many of you said that it was a flat out impossibility. It was very funny watching so many posters come to grips with that move by struggling to explain why it made sense in the context of what they thought was Theo's philosophy. The truth was they didn't understand Theo's philosophy. The Red Sox are a big market team that will outspend (by a lot) the rest of the competition to build a powerhouse team through the FA market. He's also willing to trade top prospects for expensive star talent. These were not low cost high value moves.

 

The proof is in the pudding. Theo has built a powerhouse using FA talent as the basis. The Bridge Year, while not a complete misspeak, had nothing to do with being a bridge to minor league talent making an impact in the majors. I had often questioned what prospects we had that would make an impact before 2013. The Bridge was to AGon and Crawford. That was his plan all along. It was a good plan-- one that the FO value types never saw coming.

 

Wait, what?

 

This is the same Adrian Gonzales they've been attempting to trade for since before the start of the "bridge year" and everyone was certain they were going to sign one of the type-A FA outfielders, and a couple of relievers, so you weren't breaking new ground with the idea, but the OF they wanted (and who signed a ridiculously stupid deal) was Werth, opening up the door to a Crawford signing, specially since he was open to taking comparable money to Werth. I still don't like the contract, and with good reason. You were ridiculed because you ignored the facts about the way the players fir with the team because you "liked" Crawford better. That's not how you run a baseball team.

 

You're taking information everybody knew and trying to spin it as a "groundbreaking" discovery by yourself. That is completely and utterly ridiculous.

[a700hitter]

Like trading Lester and Pedroia for "Established starter" Dontrelle Willis?

 

That would've turned out great.

Wow, you have to go back to 2005 off season to try to find instances of me being wrong. I don't remember suggesting that trade. I also remember wanting to get Miggy Cabrera along with Dontrelle. Fla was shopping them both. Miggy has been pretty damn good.

 

I only need go back to this month to find an instance where you were very very wrong. Remember Carl Crawford. I think you told me that I was being a whiny baby for hoping for Carl Crawford. I think you told me that the move made no financial sense and you told me that the FO doesn't get players because I had a hard on for them.

 

I don't have to go back beyond 2010 to find another instance where you were very wrong-- April 2010 when they extended Beckett. We are streaking in opposite directions my friend.

[italstallianion]

Wow' date=' you have to go back to 2005 off season to try to find instances of me being wrong. [/b'] I don't remember suggesting that trade. I also remember wanting to get Miggy Cabrera along with Dontrelle. Fla was shopping them both. Miggy has been pretty damn good.

 

I only need go back to this month to find an instance where you were very very wrong. Remember Carl Crawford. I think you told me that I was being a whiny baby for hoping for Carl Crawford. I think you told me that the move made no financial sense and you told me that the FO doesn't get players because I had a hard on for them.

 

I don't have to go back beyond 2010 to find another instance where you were very wrong-- April 2010 when they extended Beckett. We are streaking in opposite directions my friend.

 

 

 

Haha, and one doesn't have to go back at all to find an instance of me being wrong, because I'm never wrong at all.