Jermaine Dye, is he the solution?

[YeAuldBroade]

you got a 2 run error from Hamilton and a lifelong scrub drove in 3 runs. You won on a fluke

So?

[Dipre]

you got a 2 run error from Hamilton and a lifelong scrub drove in 3 runs. You won on a fluke

 

But the defense absolutely sucking and a solid SP corps getting hammered wasn't a fluke at all. Seriously, shut up.

[italstallianion]

you got a 2 run error from Hamilton and a lifelong scrub drove in 3 runs. You won on a fluke

 

 

 

Throughout the season there will always be games that we win in which we deserve to lose, and games that we lose in which we should have won. It evens out throughout the season due to the law of averages. This just happened to be God giving us a break from all of the bulls*** losing from before.

[BoSox21]

you got a 2 run error from Hamilton and a lifelong scrub drove in 3 runs. You won on a fluke

 

I really start to wonder how and why someone would spend so much of their personal time for the sole purpose of agitating others. God, I pity you.

 

I'll bet when the Yankees won last season when Luis Castillo flat out dropped an infield fly, you chalked it up to the SICK BACKSPIN A-Rod put on the pop-up.

[TheKilo]

How would he know what the options were? None of us do. That doesn't mean that there were no better options. We do know that this is not a good situation. When healthy our outfield is average. We have a logjam of players at first and third base. We have two terrible defensive catchers and a so-so bullpen. The FO is accountable for this predicament. They are not victims of the lack of better options.

 

 

 

This is exceedingly weak. Don't go around saying that there were better options available when you cannot even name one. If you can't bring more to the table than "trade for someone better!!!11!" then you're just bitching for the sake of bitching, which gets tiresome to read and brings the quality of the board down.

[yankees228]

I think you guys are missing Jacko's point. He's not devaluing the victory in any way, like you guys seem to be thinking. He was responding to a post that seemed to insinuate that the Red Sox's offense was showing signs of life.

[YeAuldBroade]

I think you guys are missing Jacko's point. He's not devaluing the victory in any way' date=' like you guys seem to be thinking. He was responding to a post that seemed to insinuate that the Red Sox's offense was showing signs of life.[/quote']

Yes and they are showing signs of life. His comment was just as trollish and unnecessary whether "devaluing the victory" or "devaluing" that scoring seven runs shows signs of life.

[yankees228]

Yes and they are showing signs of life. His comment was just as trollish and unnecessary whether "devaluing the victory" or "devaluing" that scoring seven runs shows signs of life.

 

Five of the seven runs were a direct result of a misplay and enormous contributions from someone who probably won't keep it up. The offense did show some signs of life, but Jacko has a point as well.

 

Additionally, it's not like he came into the thread and just said it was all a fluke, out of the blue. He was responding to a post with his opinion, and maybe it's just me, but I thought this was the point of the board. But, by all means, continue to saturate the board with questions about Jacko's motives, and the subsequent personal insults that are sure to follow (directed, not just at you, but everyone).

[YeAuldBroade]

"by all means, continue to saturate the board with questions about Jacko's motives, and the subsequent personal insults that are sure to follow (directed, not just at you, but everyone)."

 

and if we do that all the Yankee fans will get pissed off and leave? And things would be all sugar plums and daisies for a Sox fan on a Yankee board that makes the kind of statements Jacko does? They'd ban the Sox fan in 10 minutes.

 

I really don't have a problem with Jacko overall but I do with that comment. It was inappropriate and instigatory and people let him know it. That's that.

[yankees228]

"by all means, continue to saturate the board with questions about Jacko's motives, and the subsequent personal insults that are sure to follow (directed, not just at you, but everyone)."

 

and if we do that all the Yankee fans will get pissed off and leave? And things would be all sugar plums and daisies for a Sox fan on a Yankee board that makes the kind of statements Jacko does? They'd ban the Sox fan in 10 minutes.

 

I really don't have a problem with Jacko overall but I do with that comment. It was inappropriate and instigatory and people let him know it. That's that.

 

You haven't been here long, but one of the prevalent themes on this board is everyone taking issue with all of Jacko's comments. The content of his posts seems to be widely ignored, and people just focus on his username. In my opinion, things like this are a direct hindrance to the quality of the board, and become increasingly annoying for people who are only looking to engage in intelligent discussion.

 

The way I see it, he made a comment that holds some truth. I really don't see how that's in doubt. If that's 'inappropriate and instigative', I expect that you'll have a problem with many other posts.

[Palodios]

I don't know how he keeps it up. Even on the rare occasion when he makes a good point, he still gets bashed. Keeps things interesting at least?

[YeAuldBroade]

I'm not getting into a pissing match over this because I don't consider it a big deal - and I regret even responding to you. I'm new here but I've been on Sox message boards for 20 years and this is one of the tamest boards I've ever been on. Yankee fans that post on Sox message boards always need to tread lightly or on even the politest boards they're going to receive a smackdown. It would be no different with a Sox fan on a Yankee board (and why I wouldn't be caught dead on a Yankee board - well one of the reasons LOL). I do see that Jacko gets picked on often, I also see that much of it is uncalled for. That being said some of that is to be expected and will happen anywhere a Yankee fan posts in RSN.

 

I don't have a problem with Jacko, I had a problem with that post and if you don't see why - I don't care, we'll just have to live our lives with this minor conflict between us.

 

EDIT: This post was in response to Yankees228, my apology for not quoting his post.

[yankees228]

To each their own I guess - hope you're enjoying the board.

[Emmz]

Jacko tries to diminish the accomplishments of the Red Sox like no other Yankee fan. He'll basically say our biggest minor league star is probably extremely overrated, has a 95% chance of being injured severely and never playing again, and if he were to play, just would be a complete bust.

 

The same guy on the Yankees is more like he's so great, probably the next Albert Pujols, and his durability is incredible, he could end up breaking Cal Ripken Jr's record by his second season.

 

That's really what it boils down to. Jacko's done this to himself.

[yankees228]

Jacko tries to diminish the accomplishments of the Red Sox like no other Yankee fan. He'll basically say our biggest minor league star is probably extremely overrated, has a 95% chance of being injured severely and never playing again, and if he were to play, just would be a complete bust.

 

The same guy on the Yankees is more like he's so great, probably the next Albert Pujols, and his durability is incredible, he could end up breaking Cal Ripken Jr's record by his second season.

 

That's really what it boils down to. Jacko's done this to himself.

 

Couldn't disagree more with this. Either way, this discussion is clearly going nowhere, and I'm prepared to drop it.

 

I realize, lately, I've contributed to a couple threads going off course, but it's just frustrating to see various different threads being derailed because the collective board (but specifically a few people) has a legitimate issue with Jacko.

[Emmz]

He's made a name for himself doing this, I don't even post here much, but the issue they always seem to have is that he rates his team/players in such a different way from everyone else, and the Red Sox the completely opposite way.

 

Do you think that the members of this board take issue with him, instead of other Yankee fans, for no reason at all?

 

Anyways, I too am prepared to drop it, but like I said, there's a reason people take issue with what he says so much.

[a700hitter]

This is exceedingly weak. Don't go around saying that there were better options available when you cannot even name one. If you can't bring more to the table than "trade for someone better!!!11!" then you're just bitching for the sake of bitching' date=' which gets tiresome to read and brings the quality of the board down.[/quote']The bottom line is that there seems to be a number of teams that have better lineups than the red Sox. I guess you must chalk that up to luck or something else out of the control of the FO. I'm not buying. Stating that the Red Sox did not do a good job of constructing the team is proved by comparison to other teams with better personnel. Did the teams with better performing offenses have more and better options than the Red Sox? No they did not. They did a better job. Period. Asking us for options available to the Sox is a ridiculous question. Not one of us would have any knowledge one way or the other. There were a couple of acquisitions made by other teams that would have improved our outfield: Holliday (free agent) and Granderson (trade). There were options to improve the bullpen: Soriano (trade). There are probably countless other possibilities about which we would have no knowledge. Did the FO do a bad job? We will know soon enough-- another month or so-- by comparing the Sox to other teams. The Sox FO has more opportunities and less limitations than most other teams, so your "who was available" argument rings very hollow. As far as bringing down the quality of the board, asking questions for which there can be no reliable or verifiable answers doesn't elevate the level of discussion.

[yankees228]

a700, would have you been in favor of the Red Sox signing Holliday, and not acquiring Cameron, Beltre, and Scutaro? Only reason I ask is that, money wise, I'm not sure there would have been any other way.

[a700hitter]

a700' date=' would have you been in favor of the Red Sox signing Holliday, and not acquiring Cameron, Beltre, and Scutaro? Only reason I ask is that, money wise, I'm not sure there would have been any other way.[/quote']Beltre was not needed. We could have survived with Lowell, Youk and VMart rotating at 1st and 3rd. In fact, I think we would have been better off, because VMart is a terrible liability behind the plate (a catching too many games also hurts his offense). Cameron would not be needed if we got Holliday. As for Scutaro, we could have saved money by taking on O Cab. I think he would have been every bit as good as Scutaro for much less money.

[redsoxrules]

O-cab stinks

[a700hitter]

O-cab stinks

So does Scutaro.

[redsoxrules]

So does Scutaro.

 

at least Scutaro can hit , O-cab CANT

[a700hitter]

at least Scutaro can hit ' date=' O-cab CANT[/quote'].721 Career OPS for Scutaro vs. .719 Career OPS for O Cab.

 

Edit: I'd live with the difference between Scutaro and O Cab to get Holliday in the OF

[Gom]

What you guys should have done is move Vmart to DH, sign Molina [either of them] to catch with Varitek, and sign Bay/Holliday. Shortstop really doesn't matter. Just pick a good fielding one. However, you stuck with the weakest defensive catcher in baseball, got rid of offense at a corner OF spot, and increased the logjam at the infield corners.

 

A bad plan for any that understand/value [pick your word, I'm not interested in reopening a debate I'm sure to win by July 1st] defense at the catcher's position and the decreased importance of defense and consequently the importance of offense as you move farther away from the middle and home plate.

 

Who's catching for the Sox today? If it's Vmart, it's at least 5 or 6 runs for Texas.

[a700hitter]

What you guys should have done is move Vmart to DH' date=' sign Molina [either of them'] to catch with Varitek, and sign Bay/Holliday. Shortstop really doesn't matter. Just pick a good fielding one.

 

Who's catching for the Sox today? If it's Vmart, it's at least 5 runs for Texas.

...and 8 stolen bases even if Texas only gets 5 base runners.

[Gom]

...and 8 stolen bases even if Texas only gets 5 base runners.

 

Don't say that!!!!

 

Catcher's defensive importance is unimportant...well...because we don't know how to quantify it! It was the pitcher! ERA goes up, but the pitching and defense improve? It's the pitcher! Or the, um...the dirt. Infield dirt! Maybe humidity! Possibly bad tacos? Would you believe it if I told you a change in the gravitational pull of Alpha Centauri?

 

We can't quantify it, because no one has told us what to think, so it doesn't exist! Let's ridicule those that actually WATCH THE GAMEZZ!! [Mainly because the internet hasn't told us what to think].

 

Fools.

[Dipre]

Don't say that!!!!

 

Catcher's defensive importance is unimportant...well...because we don't know how to quantify it! It was the pitcher! ERA goes up, but the pitching and defense improve? It's the pitcher! Or the, um...the dirt. Infield dirt! Maybe humidity! Possibly bad tacos? Would you believe it if I told you a change in the gravitational pull of Alpha Centauri?

 

We can't quantify it, because no one has told us what to think, so it doesn't exist! Let's ridicule those that actually WATCH THE GAMEZZ!! [Mainly because the internet hasn't told us what to think].

 

Fools.

 

You don't know what a strawman is, but this is a perfect example of one. What people have been debating you on is your ridiculous notion that V-Mart will cost the Red Sox at least .5 runs per game. Feel free to declare victory now.

[Palodios]

Why mention Cabrera when Toronto picked up Al-gon for 2.7 million? We'd have a gold glove infield for a fraction of the price without really hurting the offense much at all.

[Dipre]

Why mention Cabrera when Toronto picked up Al-gon for 2.7 million? We'd have a gold glove infield for a fraction of the price without really hurting the offense much at all.

 

Believe it or not, this is actually what i advocated for in the first place, but i think the downgrade in D is not nearly as big as the upgrade in Offense. Al-Gon will be back to being completely lost at the plate soon enough.

[jacksonianmarch]

the thing about Scutaro is that he's been an upgrade for exactly one season. Scutaro, for the most part, is a sub .700OPS player.