A Realistic View at 2016

[iortiz]

Don't tell me what I think. It's not about defending Cherington. Cherington, as a topic, is done. He's gone, se fue, it's over, goodbye.

 

It isn't done, unfortunately for u, LOL!

 

Time to time people will talk about him, just like other players who are not here anymore or some situations that happened in the past.

 

Again, you are the only one here who always point out when the topic comes up... For some reason you don't want that the topic isn't touched anymore... And it won't happen... Time to time it will come up for different circumstances... Like the recent discussion began by sk.

[S5Dewey]

That's what Ben did and I'm critical of him for it.

 

Yeah, maybe Ben should have traded Shaw to avoid the basement 2 years in a row.

 

Or maybe Chiccini. Or maybe the guys we traded to get Kimbrle. There are any number of players who could have been traded in an effort to make the team better but he didn't. Instead he stockpiled them in AAA while the team spiraled to the cellar. And that's why I'm critical of him.

[iortiz]

Don't tell me what I think. It's not about defending Cherington. Cherington, as a topic, is done. He's gone, se fue, it's over, goodbye.

 

It isn't done, unfortunately for u, LOL!

 

Time to time people will talk about him, just like other players who are not here anymore or some situations that happened in the past.

 

Again, you are the only one here who always point out when the topic comes up... For so,e reason you don't want that the topic isn't touched anymore... And it won't happen... Time to time it will come up for different circumstances... Like the recent discussion begun by sk.

[User Name]

It's because Cherington is a polarizing subject. Y'all (and I'm including you) have a certain black/white way of looking at Cherington's tenure that illustrates the absolute worse in people.

 

I don't understand why it's so hard to acknowledge he made mistakes (I'm looking at Kimmi) while also acknowledging he did some great things for this organization (I'm looking at you). If there was some level of objectivity regarding the subject, it wouldn't be such a sore sight whenever it's discussed.

 

A lot of it is also written specifically to piss the other side off. Now I f*** around with the Papelbon s***, but that's between maybe 3,4 members and it dies down almost immediately. The Cherington idiocy has been going on for months. For the love of God, do like Elsa and let it go.

[a700hitter]

It's because Cherington is a polarizing subject. Y'all (and I'm including you) have a certain black/white way of looking at Cherington's tenure that illustrates the absolute worse in people.

 

I don't understand why it's so hard to acknowledge he made mistakes (I'm looking at Kimmi) while also acknowledging he did some great things for this organization (I'm looking at you). If there was some level of objectivity regarding the subject, it wouldn't be such a sore sight whenever it's discussed.

 

A lot of it is also written specifically to piss the other side off. Now I f*** around with the Papelbon s***, but that's between maybe 3,4 members and it dies down almost immediately. The Cherington idiocy has been going on for months. For the love of God, do like Elsa and let it go.

i think Cherington will continue to be a dead horse topic, because he presided over a very bizarre period in Red Sox history -- a cherished World Championship sandwiched between 3 disastrous s*** show last place finishes in which there were no meaningful August games.

[Dojji]

you know something, if you don't make the playoffs I don't care if you finish last or second to first.

 

Cherington had a ring and 3 years where the team DNQ. Adding "last place finishes" to that pretends that the AL East is any other division. It is not. A last place finish in the ALE is by no means last in the American League, and put the same talent in a less competitive division (that would be all of them) and the outcome of that schedule would be a lot different.

[a700hitter]

you know something, if you don't make the playoffs I don't care if you finish last or second to first.

 

Cherington had a ring and 3 years where the team DNQ. Adding "last place finishes" to that pretends that the AL East is any other division. It is not. A last place finish in the ALE is by no means last in the American League, and put the same talent in a less competitive division (that would be all of them) and the outcome of that schedule would be a lot different.

I disagree. Last place seasons are like a living hell. You can't make the playoffs every year, but you want to watch competitive meaningful baseball into August and hopefully September. In those last place years, there was no competitive meaningful baseball throughout most of the season.

[a700hitter]

you know something, if you don't make the playoffs I don't care if you finish last or second to first.

 

Cherington had a ring and 3 years where the team DNQ. Adding "last place finishes" to that pretends that the AL East is any other division. It is not. A last place finish in the ALE is by no means last in the American League, and put the same talent in a less competitive division (that would be all of them) and the outcome of that schedule would be a lot different.

The ALE in those last place years was not all that. The West division and Central division was kicking our ass.

[iortiz]

It's because Cherington is a polarizing subject. Y'all (and I'm including you) have a certain black/white way of looking at Cherington's tenure that illustrates the absolute worse in people.

 

I don't understand why it's so hard to acknowledge he made mistakes (I'm looking at Kimmi) while also acknowledging he did some great things for this organization (I'm looking at you). If there was some level of objectivity regarding the subject, it wouldn't be such a sore sight whenever it's discussed.

 

A lot of it is also written specifically to piss the other side off. Now I f*** around with the Papelbon s***, but that's between maybe 3,4 members and it dies down almost immediately. The Cherington idiocy has been going on for months. For the love of God, do like Elsa and let it go.

At this point, and the more I think about the subject, I don't care about Cherington since I think he was nothing but a puppet.

 

On the other hand if the topic come up, I have no problem reading other people debating it as u do.

 

The same goes for Papelbon, Porcello, Panda, Farrell, etc. - I have no problem reading people debating about those issues.

[iortiz]

... But again, other than u, no one complains when the Cherington thing comes up.

[Kimmi]

I do not think the advantage you get late in games, when opposing managers bring in a lefty then a righty every batter makes up for the loss you may get innings 1 through 6, 7 or 8, if ever.

 

That depends on whether the non lefty-righty line up is set up correctly or not. Alternating L-R-L-R just for the sake of doing that is not necessarily correct, but it is more beneficial than the prototypical line up.

 

Just the fact that each slot usually gets 20 to 30 more PAs over a season than the one below it, makes a big difference.

 

It does, no doubt. The better hitters need to be at the top of the order.

 

I do think the 3rd batter should be your best OPS guy.

 

Have to disagree here. Your best OPS guy should bat 4th. The best OPS guy is "wasted" in the 3 hole since that slot statistically comes up to bat with 2 outs and no one on more than any other slot.

[Kimmi]

Your best hitter should be batting 2nd. At least statistically it does the best job balancing "lots of plate appearance" with "lots of plate appearances with baserunners". Over a season the differences between 2nd and 3rd are small, but they can add up. But few teams do it - there are still significant silly little baseball princples old timey sorts have.

 

Bingo.

[Kimmi]

He can breathe just as well from any spot in the batting order. I'm not concluding anything about Mookie's ability or potential. I'm just questioning his current utilization and how it potentially affects team performance.

 

Besides the SSS, the team is currently doing very well. The offense is not having difficulty scoring runs, for the most part. If the offense were scuffling, then perhaps it would not be too soon to think about some line up changes.

 

Because line up changes make such little difference, moving Mookie out of the lead off spot might do more harm than good. That would be for Farrell to decide should it come to that.

[Kimmi]

You apparently don't like my use of the word "wallowing". That's ok. Would you have preferred that I use the word "allowed"? I certainly wasn't accusing any player on the 2014 or 2015 teams of "tanking". The players did what they could do and it wasn't enough. My criticism is of Ben for "allowing" the team to finish last in two consecutive years while stockpiling prospects in AAA. I agree with you that the FO tried some things to make the team better. However, when something doesn't work the smart thing to do isn't to retreat into your foxhole and lick your wounds, it's to try something different. We have watched players like Garin Chiccini go from "almost untouchable" to "bust" while in AAA.

]

One never knows how a prospect is going to work out. Travis Shaw is a good example of that. Were it not for Panda, Shaw would be stockpiled in AAA awaiting....what? Being traded? Waiting for him to "age out"? Instead the FO gave him a chance to play rather than making a trade for another third baseman. Thanks, JF & DD!

When a team is faltering the GM shouldn't say, "Well, we tried something and it didn't work so let's see how it plays out". What he should be doing is something else. One of the greatest observations I've ever heard is that "It's a funny thing about people. When they find something that doesn't work they do the same thing only HARDER!" That's what Ben did and I'm critical of him for it.

 

Ben had the difficult task of "rebuilding" while trying to keep the team competitive. That means filling holes with short term free agents and not trading away the farm while giving some of our youngster time to develop. In 2013, his plan worked to perfection. In 2014 and 2015, not so much.

 

As far as I recall, the players that most teams were asking for anyway were Bogaerts and Betts. Those two were not going anywhere.

[Kimmi]

It's because Cherington is a polarizing subject. Y'all (and I'm including you) have a certain black/white way of looking at Cherington's tenure that illustrates the absolute worse in people.

 

I don't understand why it's so hard to acknowledge he made mistakes (I'm looking at Kimmi) while also acknowledging he did some great things for this organization (I'm looking at you). If there was some level of objectivity regarding the subject, it wouldn't be such a sore sight whenever it's discussed.

 

A lot of it is also written specifically to piss the other side off. Now I f*** around with the Papelbon s***, but that's between maybe 3,4 members and it dies down almost immediately. The Cherington idiocy has been going on for months. For the love of God, do like Elsa and let it go.

 

Don't look at me. I have acknowledged his mistakes several times over. Just because I don't think he is responsible for the Pablo signing doesn't mean that I haven't acknowledged mistakes. Pablo just doesn't fit his MO, at all.

 

I have never said that he was perfect. I do, however, think that he gets far more blame and far less credit than he deserves.

[Palodios]

... But again, other than u, no one complains when the Cherington thing comes up.

 

There are probably a dozen posters on here who are sick and tired of you jabbing about Cherrington. Some of us have a lot of respect for Cherrington, but most of the others are tired of the same old argument.

 

You don't like Cherrington's job here. We liked Cherrington's job here. We have established this. Everyone knows this. Why bring it up over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

[Kimmi]

People should be able to debate the topics that they want to debate. Anyone who is not interested in a topic can simply ignore it.

[iortiz]

There are probably a dozen posters on here who are sick and tired of you jabbing about Cherrington. Some of us have a lot of respect for Cherrington, but most of the others are tired of the same old argument.

 

You don't like Cherrington's job here. We liked Cherrington's job here. We have established this. Everyone knows this. Why bring it up over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

 

Actually I didn't start this, pal. Go figure.

[iortiz]

People should be able to debate the topics that they want to debate. Anyone who is not interested in a topic can simply ignore it.

 

This X 100000

[User Name]

People should be able to debate the topics that they want to debate. Anyone who is not interested in a topic can simply ignore it.

 

The keyword is "debate". "Debating" and "baiting" or "beating a dead horse with the express intent of annoying a group of posters" is not the same thing.

[User Name]

This X 100000

 

Unless it's something you don't like. You were the one calling me out earlier (for reasons I don't understand) for bringing out old stuff (what?) Be consistent.

[User Name]

There are probably a dozen posters on here who are sick and tired of you jabbing about Cherrington. Some of us have a lot of respect for Cherrington, but most of the others are tired of the same old argument.

 

You don't like Cherrington's job here. We liked Cherrington's job here. We have established this. Everyone knows this. Why bring it up over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

 

"This x 10000"

[iortiz]

Unless it's something you don't like. You were the one calling me out earlier (for reasons I don't understand) for bringing out old stuff (what?) Be consistent.

 

I have no problem if you talk about Papelbon, Panda, Cherington, etc.

 

I called you out because you don't let people debate on things you don't like. For instance, the Cherington thing-- topic that I didn't even bring to the table.

Edited May 1, 2016 by iortiz

[iortiz]

The keyword is "debate". "Debating" and "baiting" or "beating a dead horse with the express intent of annoying a group of posters" is not the same thing.

 

So you can beat a dead horse-like Papelbon, Panda, etc.- and other people can't talk about Cherington or other topics you consider dead horses? Follow your own advise, be consistent.

[User Name]

In short, and to put this stupid issue to bed:

 

People should be able to debate what they want, but the Talksox rules state (they should bring those back) that posts and topics specifically designed to antagonize or create flame wars are a no-no on site. I freely admit to creating controversy with the Papelbon posts, but those last a couple of posts and go away. This Cherington BS has been one giant buffet of antagonism for the last eight months.

 

If you want to seriously debate the merits and problems of Cherington's tenure, go right at it, no one has a right to complain. If you want to antagonize another group of posters, make dumb black-and-white assertions and continue on a train of idiocy because neither side will budge on their viewpoint, cut that s*** out. It clutters the board, it's against the rules, and it's not interesting, current or funny.

[iortiz]

Normally you do, so I assumed.

 

Well, I haven't for a while. As I said, IMO he was only a puppet, so he doesn't require my attention anymore LOL!

 

On the other hand if a debate takes place regarding Cherington and I'm pleased to debetae it, I will, whether you or U? or whoever like it or not.

[jad]

Well, I haven't for a while. As I said, IMO he was only a puppet, so he doesn't require my attention anymore LOL!

 

On the other hand if a debate takes place regarding Cherington and I'm pleased to debetae it, I will, whether you or U? or whoever like it or not.

 

Wow. Another no-nonsense internet tough guy. I guess we better be careful and talk about something else.

[iortiz]

In short, and to put this stupid issue to bed:

 

People should be able to debate what they want, but the Talksox rules state (they should bring those back) that posts and topics specifically designed to antagonize or create flame wars are a no-no on site. I freely admit to creating controversy with the Papelbon posts, but those last a couple of posts and go away. This Cherington BS has been one giant buffet of antagonism for the last eight months.

 

If you want to seriously debate the merits and problems of Cherington's tenure, go right at it, no one has a right to complain. If you want to antagonize another group of posters, make dumb black-and-white assertions and continue on a train of idiocy because neither side will budge on their viewpoint, cut that s*** out. It clutters the board, it's against the rules, and it's not interesting, current or funny.

 

As I said, I haven't talked about him for a while. Also if I find an interesting debate regarding Cherington and I'm pleased to participate, I will.

 

The problem is that some of you take so serious the jokes about Cherington and other players for some reason.

 

Furthermore, those jokes are not even close to what you do with Papelbon, and no one is suggesting you to stop, so again... please be consistent.

 

both are irrelevant to me.

Edited May 1, 2016 by iortiz

[iortiz]

Wow. Another no-nonsense internet tough guy. I guess we better be careful and talk about something else.

 

Tough guy? Naaahhh quoting Lionel Richie "I'm easy like a Sunday morning"

[cp176]

Wow. Another no-nonsense internet tough guy. I guess we better be careful and talk about something else.

 

There is very little vindictive nastiness in iortiz. tough guy - whatever the hell that means - probably not but who cares. My guess is that he is a pretty good guy.