2011-2012 Offseason Thread

[FredLynn]

I just don't think there is any reason to rush him up. They already have a weak-bat' date=' sure-glove guy in Nick Punto. If the infield is healthy, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to call Iggy up quite yet. He'll be up eventually.[/quote']

 

They can't rush him. He cannot hit the baseball. If he cannot play effectively in AAA he isn't going to EVER smell the majors. He has potential, like so many of our prospects. Thats it: potential.

[example1]

I really don't think we should be comparing any minor leaguer to Ozzie Smith. Ozzie was the best ever. It's just crazy to be mentioning this kid in the same sentence as Ozzie.

 

This is the essence of it. When Jose wins as many gold gloves in the majors as Ozzie then we can start comparing the two. Until then, its absurd to do so. Their playing styles are similar: all defense, no offense. No one is debating the POTENTIAL of Iglesias with the glove, but before we elect him to the Hall of Fame, lets see him play for a few seasons.

 

Jesus, nobody is electing him to the Hall of Fame, we're arguing that he might, might be suitable hitting 9th and gobbling up balls at SS for the current Red Sox. The arguments that he doesn't have enough bat is what prompted the discussion about Ozzie Smith.

 

You and a700 love this kind of strawman though. Take a valid point (superior fielders can survive at SS even if they are hapless with the bat) and then take the most absurd conclusion of it ("he's arguing he will be Ozzie Smith") and stake your chips on that. It's typical of the types of discussion around here.

[a700hitter]

I just don't think there is any reason to rush him up. They already have a weak-bat' date=' sure-glove guy in Nick Punto. If the infield is healthy, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to call Iggy up quite yet. He'll be up eventually.[/quote']It would force them to cut either Aviles or Punto. I don't think they will carry all 3.

[example1]

Why should I do you any favors? You have a hard time differentiating Hall of Famers from rookies. With that kind of disability its hard to explain things logically.

I never claimed to be an expert at baseball. But neither am I stupid. With proper training and access to data I could probably do just as good a job as some of these talent evaluators that you worship.

All I am willing to grant Iglesias so far is that he shows some promise defensively. Thats it. Any more accolades represent hyperbole.

 

And you have a hard time differentiating talented baseball professionals from amateurs who think they know what they are doing but don't.

[a700hitter]

Jesus' date=' nobody is electing him to the Hall of Fame, we're arguing that he might, [i']might[/i] be suitable hitting 9th and gobbling up balls at SS for the current Red Sox. The arguments that he doesn't have enough bat is what prompted the discussion about Ozzie Smith.

 

You and a700 love this kind of strawman though. Take a valid point (superior fielders can survive at SS even if they are hapless with the bat) and then take the most absurd conclusion of it ("he's arguing he will be Ozzie Smith") and stake your chips on that. It's typical of the types of discussion around here.

I'm not using any strawman. Stop being so condescending. I have said early on, way before today's discussion that Bobby V will give this kid every opportunity to play everyday, because that's what he did with Rey Ordonez. I just think comparisons to Ozzie Smith are way premature and plain dumb. Like I said earlier, that would be like comparing a minor league hitter to Ted Williams. I'd be happy if he fields as well as Rey Ordonez. How am I employing the use of a strawman in any argument? If you are going to make your post about me, be accurate.:harhar:

[User Name]

Okay' date=' so let's say park factors negate that final 0.25WAR difference. So effectively, what you are saying is that right now, you havent upgraded the RF position. Okay then, my point stands. If Iglesias is your starting SS, then your team has downgraded[/quote']

 

Not if his defensive runs saved overcome the lost value on offense. It would require a lot of runs saved though.

 

Also, Red Sox RF's last year put up a combined OPS+ of 88. If Ross repeats last year and doesn't improve at all, he's already an upgrade. WAR is unwise to use in this situation by the variation caused by the plethora of players that played there for the Sox, among other factors.

 

Funny how WAR is marginally effective when it doesn't help your argument and the be-all, end-all when it does.

[User Name]

From everything that has been said about Iglesias, his fielding prowess is off the charts. No one disagrees with that. The question isn't whether he is in Ozzie Smith's class and no one has said that to my knowledge. Ozzie is the best fielding shortstop of all time in my opinion and Iggy doesn't need that kind of pressure handed to him. My argument is his bat, or lack of it, his poor plate discipline, his total

absence of power and his wasted speed where he cannot use it to steal bases.

 

As Palodios said, though, IF six or seven of our hitters are hitting it is possible we could carry such a weak bat for the defense he gives us, but, again, we better be ready to pinch hit for him in the late innings of a close game. However, if we have some of our batters imitating Crawford, Youkilis and Drew, circa 2011, no way we can carry such a weak bat.

 

The good thing is that now we don't have to carry 'Tek around of an extra catcher for Wakefield amirite?

[FredLynn]

Jesus' date=' nobody is electing him to the Hall of Fame, we're arguing that he might, [i']might[/i] be suitable hitting 9th and gobbling up balls at SS for the current Red Sox. The arguments that he doesn't have enough bat is what prompted the discussion about Ozzie Smith.

 

You and a700 love this kind of strawman though. Take a valid point (superior fielders can survive at SS even if they are hapless with the bat) and then take the most absurd conclusion of it ("he's arguing he will be Ozzie Smith") and stake your chips on that. It's typical of the types of discussion around here.

 

Forsythe said that "expert talent evaluators" are comparing him to Ozzie Smith. The discussion was not about his suitability for this year's roster. It was about comparing him to a Hall of Fame player. Sorry you cannot grasp that fact. There is NO comparison other than both players rely/relied on defense to make their contribution. So far Iglesias hasn't even done that.

It is correct to say that he has POTENTIAL defensively because that is what he has showed us so far. He has NOT showed us that he is any kind of Ozzie Smith facsimile whatsoever. To compare the two is absurd.

[FredLynn]

And you have a hard time differentiating talented baseball professionals from amateurs who think they know what they are doing but don't.

 

Epstein was regarded by some as a "talented baseball professional". Look how he left this franchise-laden with overpaid spoiled ineffective bums, to a large extent. The list of his failures is overwhelming; the list of his successes, slim. Yet he is one of those "experts".

You too should learn to question anyone who calls himself an "expert". They are often wrong.

[example1]

I'm not using any strawman. Stop being so condescending. I have said early on' date=' way before today's discussion that Bobby V will give this kid every opportunity to play everyday, because that's what he did with Rey Ordonez. I just think comparisons to Ozzie Smith are way premature and plain dumb. Like I said earlier, that would be like comparing a minor league hitter to Ted Williams. I'd be happy if he fields as well as Rey Ordonez. How am I employing the use of a strawman in any argument? If you are going to make your post about me, be accurate.:harhar:[/quote']

 

It's a straw man argument because you are basing your refutation on a bogus claim that is falsely and superficially related to my actually claim. I'm not comparing him to Ozzie Smith. If I was comparing him to Ozzie Smith it would be very, very clear.

 

I presented Ozzie's numbers because I'm quite sure that most people aren't aware of just how mediocre his offensive numbers were. People who argue that someone with a .650 or .700 OPS can't be viable SS are misguided. If Iglesias turns out to be 75% of the fielder of Smith and hits the same he won't be a HOF, but he doesn't need to be. He just needs to be a starting SS who doesn't have a negative impact on the team's wins.

 

At times you treat discussions like this as if we are discussing Jesus. Ozzie Smith is a data point, not a deity. If you're going to have a data-driven discussion, you don't take data points off the table based on some arbitratary view that the player in question was really good. Yes, Ozzie was really good. That doesn't invalidate the larger point: namely, a player with a tremendous glove and no bat at SS can be a net-plus for his team.

 

It's a complete diversion to assert that I (or anyone else) is making a legitimate comparison to Ozzie Smith. That would be foolish.

[example1]

Epstein was regarded by some as a "talented baseball professional". Look how he left this franchise-laden with overpaid spoiled ineffective bums, to a large extent. The list of his failures is overwhelming; the list of his successes, slim. Yet he is one of those "experts".

You too should learn to question anyone who calls himself an "expert". They are often wrong.

 

Your argument isn't going to have traction with me. I think Epstein was a very good GM. I think he will end up in the Hall of Fame some day if he sticks in the game.

 

The list of successes, slim huh? 2nd most wins during his tenure of any team in baseball? Tied for the most World Series during that time? 2nd in playoff appearances? That's a slim list of successes?

[a700hitter]

It's a straw man argument because you are basing your refutation on a bogus claim that is falsely and superficially related to my actually claim. I'm not comparing him to Ozzie Smith. If I was comparing him to Ozzie Smith it would be very, very clear.

 

I presented Ozzie's numbers because I'm quite sure that most people aren't aware of just how mediocre his offensive numbers were. People who argue that someone with a .650 or .700 OPS can't be viable SS are misguided. If Iglesias turns out to be 75% of the fielder of Smith and hits the same he won't be a HOF, but he doesn't need to be. He just needs to be a starting SS who doesn't have a negative impact on the team's wins.

 

At times you treat discussions like this as if we are discussing Jesus. Ozzie Smith is a data point, not a deity. If you're going to have a data-driven discussion, you don't take data points off the table based on some arbitratary view that the player in question was really good. Yes, Ozzie was really good. That doesn't invalidate the larger point: namely, a player with a tremendous glove and no bat at SS can be a net-plus for his team.

 

It's a complete diversion to assert that I (or anyone else) is making a legitimate comparison to Ozzie Smith. That would be foolish.

What am I refuting? You are going overboard here to prove what point?

[Bellhorn04]

Your argument isn't going to have traction with me. I think Epstein was a very good GM. I think he will end up in the Hall of Fame some day if he sticks in the game.

 

The list of successes, slim huh? 2nd most wins during his tenure of any team in baseball? Tied for the most World Series during that time? 2nd in playoff appearances? That's a slim list of successes?

 

And the guys who call him Blunder and Inepstein are also the guys who say Francona was a lousy manager who cost 5-10 games a year. Which would put us at 95-100 wins every year of Epstein's tenure. I love that part.

[mvp 78]

Coming from a moron such as yourself' date=' I guess I could just disregard much of what you have to say.[/quote']

 

Wow. I'm guessing your grade school reportcards said "doesn't play well with others."

[mvp 78]

Come on guys' date=' get it in check. Comparing a minor league SS to Ozzie Smith would be like comparing a minor league hitter to Ted Williams. It's incredible hyperbole. There is no reason for the name-calling.[/quote']

 

I remember people comparing Ells to ted after 07.

[mvp 78]

I swear to god' date=' I'm going to break my f***ing laptop if I keep reading this thread.[/quote']

 

Just wait til the season starts. I bet it'll be worse. If they lose the first game, it will be brutal on here.

[Muggah]

Your argument isn't going to have traction with me. I think Epstein was a very good GM. I think he will end up in the Hall of Fame some day if he sticks in the game.

 

The list of successes, slim huh? 2nd most wins during his tenure of any team in baseball? Tied for the most World Series during that time? 2nd in playoff appearances? That's a slim list of successes?

 

Wow! That's all I can say.

[Bellhorn04]

Wow! That's all I can say.

 

All he said were facts, Muggah.

[Muggah]

All he said were facts' date=' Muggah.[/quote']

 

It still just baffles me, Bob, how anyone can look at that guy, all the circumstances surrounding his tenure in Boston, and make those statements about him. But hey, to each his own.

[Emmz]

Just wait til the season starts. I bet it'll be worse. If they lose the first game' date=' it will be brutal on here.[/quote']

 

Anybody who thinks this team will win is a rumpswab. Blunder and Big Diva reuined it.

[Emmz]

It still just baffles me' date=' Bob, how anyone can look at that guy, all the circumstances surrounding his tenure in Boston, and make those statements about him. But hey, to each his own.[/quote']

 

The circumstances of success, or the circumstances of having the worst nickname ever?

[Emmz]

Okay, Varitek needs a Muggah/pumpsie/fred nickname.

 

Leading candidates:

 

Craptain Noleadershiptek

 

Blunder 2.0

 

Vaginatek

 

Weinerneck

 

iFraud

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

It still just baffles me' date=' Bob, how anyone can look at that guy, all the circumstances surrounding his tenure in Boston, and make those statements about him. But hey, to each his own.[/quote']

And there goes whatever credibility you had left. If any.

[Muggah]

Okay, Varitek needs a Muggah/pumpsie/fred nickname.

 

Leading candidates:

 

Craptain Noleadershiptek

 

Blunder 2.0

 

Vaginatek

 

Weinerneck

 

iFraud

 

If I had to vote i'd say #3 fits him best but since we haven't heard from him and he hasn't reported to camp let's hope to god we're finally done with him once and for all--and if that's the case a new nickname won't really be necessary because he'll become and after thought very quickly.

[Muggah]

And there goes whatever credibility you had left. If any.

 

No need to worry, my friend. My credibility is in very good standing wherever I go. Yours?

[mvp 78]

Okay, Varitek needs a Muggah/pumpsie/fred nickname.

 

Leading candidates:

 

Craptain Noleadershiptek

 

Blunder 2.0

 

Vaginatek

 

Weinerneck

 

iFraud

 

I've seen "Putritek" a few teams. High comedy.

[BSN07]

No need to worry' date=' my friend. My credibility is in very good standing wherever I go. Yours?[/quote']

 

Try compairing Theo's resume to the previous 10 Red Sox gm's. /argument

[Muggah]

Try compairing Theo's resume to the previous 10 Red Sox gm's. /argument

 

Completely irrelevant.

[mvp 78]

I've seen "Putritek" a few teams. High comedy.

 

"times"

[Emmz]

Completely irrelevant.

 

How is it relevant, other than that being the convenient thing to say?

 

He was one of the most successful GMs in baseball during his time with the Red Sox. Your only argument against him is that success is irrelevant. Because he didnt sign a few guys he's a bad GM.