Hernanez vs Pablo

[a700hitter]

I have stated what I believe are Ben's bad moves many, many times. And yet, every time I say that Ben was not responsible for the Pablo signing, I get this comment from you.

And you will continue to get this comment. If someone else in the organization suggested the signing an Ben thought it was a bad move, it was his job as the GM to convince them why it was a bad move. Either way, the fact that Pablo was signed is on Ben either. Because it was his idea or he was ineffective in doing his job of controlling personnel moves.

[Spudboy]

I have stated what I believe are Ben's bad moves many, many times. And yet, every time I say that Ben was not responsible for the Pablo signing, I get this comment from you.

 

Well Ted is consistent at least! That has to count for something in such a random world!

[Kimmi]

And you will continue to get this comment. If someone else in the organization suggested the signing an Ben thought it was a bad move, it was his job as the GM to convince them why it was a bad move. Either way, the fact that Pablo was signed is on Ben either. Because it was his idea or he was ineffective in doing his job of controlling personnel moves.

 

I have no problem with you disagreeing with my opinion that Ben is not at fault for the Pablo move, and supporting your opinion with your own argument, as you did in this post.

 

The snarky and incorrect comment, complete with an eye roll, in your previous post serves no purpose.

[a700hitter]

Well Ted is consistent at least! That has to count for something in such a random world!

I have repeatable skills, and I am clutch.

[Spudboy]

I have repeatable skills, and I am clutch.

 

Maybe even clutch!

[a700hitter]

I have no problem with you disagreeing with my opinion that Ben is not at fault for the Pablo move, and supporting your opinion with your own argument, as you did in this post.

 

The snarky and incorrect comment, complete with an eye roll, in your previous post serves no purpose.

Lighten up. It is just fun.

[Kimmi]

And you will continue to get this comment. If someone else in the organization suggested the signing an Ben thought it was a bad move, it was his job as the GM to convince them why it was a bad move. Either way, the fact that Pablo was signed is on Ben either. Because it was his idea or he was ineffective in doing his job of controlling personnel moves.

 

As to your argument, Ben can try to convince ownership all he wants about whether a move is bad or not. Ultimately, ownership will do what they want. Even the best GM would not be able to 'control' personnel moves if ownership has their minds set on it.

[a700hitter]

As to your argument, Ben can try to convince ownership all he wants about whether a move is bad or not. Ultimately, ownership will do what they want. Even the best GM would not be able to 'control' personnel moves if ownership has their minds set on it.

You build excuse upon excuse for Ben. First of all, you have no reliable evidence that Pablo wasn't Ben's idea except that you think it wasn't his type of deal. Then when I point out that he would be an ineffective GM for not being able to convince ownership that it was a bad deal, you suggest that he was bullied into it. Again, you have no knowledge or evidence regarding the dynamics of his relationship with ownership. Also, if what you say is true, why would he get any credit for the good moves. Weren't those just as likely dictated by upper management?

[cp176]

Old school and traditional here - i like a little more power coming out of my third baseman but their is no doubt in my mind but what Hernandez can get it done in the field. When Eck was talking about it the other night, i was listening. Sandoval will get another shot I'm sure but for how long that is the question. I don't think that it will be the $ that drive the decision. They want the best players on the field! lol

[Fisk]

Old school and traditional here - i like a little more power coming out of my third baseman but their is no doubt in my mind but what Hernandez can get it done in the field. When Eck was talking about it the other night, i was listening. Sandoval will get another shot I'm sure but for how long that is the question. I don't think that it will be the $ that drive the decision. They want the best players on the field! lol

 

They proved it last year that money was not the driving force, When they played Holt over Castillo and Shaw over Sandavol to start the season.

[notin]

I have no problem with you disagreeing with my opinion that Ben is not at fault for the Pablo move, and supporting your opinion with your own argument, as you did in this post.

 

The snarky and incorrect comment, complete with an eye roll, in your previous post serves no purpose.

 

I blame Cherington for Sandoval, as well as Castillo. But really, like the Reset Button Trade (which i also credit Cherington for), we do find out Henry and Co. were calling a lot of shots then. Crawford being another. But it's just so much easier to credit/blame the GM for his tenure.

 

Overall I still think Cherington did a good job despite my immediate dislike of the Sandoval signing..

Edited April 29, 2017 by notin

[mvp 78]

Henry said that he adamantly didn't want Crawford.

[moonslav59]

Henry said that he adamantly didn't want Crawford.

 

I read that, but I also think it was Henry who gave Lucchino more power than Ben (and too much with Theo).

[cp176]

I blame Cherington for Sandoval, as well as Castillo. But really, like the Reset Button Trade (which i also credit Cherington for), we do find out Henry and Co. were calling a lot of shots then. Crawford being another. But it's just so much easier to credit/blame the GM for his tenure.

 

Overall I still think Cherington did a good job despite my immediate dislike of the Sandoval signing..

 

I'm just always amazed that people still blame anybody for any of the crap signings. i am much more concerned with what we do with what we have. I'm hoping that Bogaerts feels the same way. Papi is gone- end of story.

[cp176]

I'm also going to add that some of you think that Hernandez is barely average in the field. Based on what precisely? He looks better than just average to me over there.

[Station 13]

He's done ok, no bad throws or anything like Pablo. We need a bat from that position.

[dustcover]

Back on March 19th, I introduced a thread entitled 'On Second Thought' in which I suggested the idea of shifting Bogaerts, if he was willing, to 3B and giving Hernandez a shot at SS. I took all sorts of backlash for even thinking about moving Bogaerts. But I'd certainly, at this point, be more than happy to see Hernandez as the every-day 3B.

[Kimmi]

I blame Cherington for Sandoval, as well as Castillo. But really, like the Reset Button Trade (which i also credit Cherington for), we do find out Henry and Co. were calling a lot of shots then. Crawford being another. But it's just so much easier to credit/blame the GM for his tenure.

 

Overall I still think Cherington did a good job despite my immediate dislike of the Sandoval signing..

 

It's rare that I disagree with you, but of all the moves made during the Cherington era, signing Pablo is one that I would least likely credit/blame Cherington for. It just doesn't feel like a Cherington move to me at all.

 

Castillo, I can see as a Cherington move.

[Kimmi]

I'm also going to add that some of you think that Hernandez is barely average in the field. Based on what precisely? He looks better than just average to me over there.

 

Marco has done well in the field so far this year. But I'm guessing that the opinions of him being barely average in the field are based off of what he did defensively last year, which was terrible.

 

All that said, the sample sizes in both years are way too small to make an accurate assessment, whether using the 'eye test' or stats.

[cp176]

Marco has done well in the field so far this year. But I'm guessing that the opinions of him being barely average in the field are based off of what he did defensively last year, which was terrible.

 

All that said, the sample sizes in both years are way too small to make an accurate assessment, whether using the 'eye test' or stats.

 

I don't think that it is fair to judge any player based on very sporadic playing time at best. In a regular routine of play, what's not to like so far. He hasn't undergone a transformation. He is the same fielder that he was last year.

[cp176]

Back on March 19th, I introduced a thread entitled 'On Second Thought' in which I suggested the idea of shifting Bogaerts, if he was willing, to 3B and giving Hernandez a shot at SS. I took all sorts of backlash for even thinking about moving Bogaerts. But I'd certainly, at this point, be more than happy to see Hernandez as the every-day 3B.

 

 

You got no flack from me. That said, i would not move Bogaerts in order to experiment to find out whether anyone could be an everyday player. I think Hernandez could do it but it would still just an experiment that just isn't necessary.

[Kimmi]

I don't think that it is fair to judge any player based on very sporadic playing time at best. In a regular routine of play, what's not to like so far. He hasn't undergone a transformation. He is the same fielder that he was last year.

 

I agree. We can't say that he will be a poor defender based on the small sample size. OTOH, we can't say that he is going to be a good defender based on a similarly small sample size. He has looked good and done well so far. I like what I've seen.

[cp176]

I agree. We can't say that he will be a poor defender based on the small sample size. OTOH, we can't say that he is going to be a good defender based on a similarly small sample size. He has looked good and done well so far. I like what I've seen.

 

I am not a big believer in the simple expression - sample size. Playing twice a week would probably provide what some might feel is an adequate sample size. It is still not the same as everyday play.

[moonslav59]

Back on March 19th, I introduced a thread entitled 'On Second Thought' in which I suggested the idea of shifting Bogaerts, if he was willing, to 3B and giving Hernandez a shot at SS. I took all sorts of backlash for even thinking about moving Bogaerts. But I'd certainly, at this point, be more than happy to see Hernandez as the every-day 3B.

 

I have had no issue with the idea of moving Bogey to SS, but not for someone who is not a plus defender at SS right now, Marco.

 

Someday, maybe.

[Kimmi]

I am not a big believer in the simple expression - sample size. Playing twice a week would probably provide what some might feel is an adequate sample size. It is still not the same as everyday play.

 

Not sure what your point is. I never said that playing twice a week is the same as playing everyday.

 

I'm just saying that you can't know for sure what you have in a player based on 16 games.

[cp176]

If a player played twice a week over the course of a full season, would you consider that a fair amount to qualify as a legit "sample size"? If you do, good. What I am saying is that he might look average at best playing twice a week even though to some that would be an adequate sample size to judge what his felding ability going forward might be. I don't. My sample size is all about playing daily on a regular basis. I think people who said that he is average at best based on what he did last year at the ml level, very well might be wrong. Actually I think that they are wrong. i hope that is clearer.

[cp176]

Kimmi - Why did you think that i said you said anything at all about playing on a regular or part time basis? I don't remember you saying anything about playing time.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi - Why did you think that i said you said anything at all about playing on a regular or part time basis? I don't remember you saying anything about playing time.

 

I guess I just didn't follow what you were saying. I agreed that last year's sample size was not adequate, but that was all people had to go off of, so I can understand the statements that Marco might not be any better than Pablo defensively.

 

At the same time, this year's sample is too small to make a definitive assessment, even though Marco has been playing every day.

[cp176]

I guess I just didn't follow what you were saying. I agreed that last year's sample size was not adequate, but that was all people had to go off of, so I can understand the statements that Marco might not be any better than Pablo defensively.

 

At the same time, this year's sample is too small to make a definitive assessment, even though Marco has been playing every day.

 

I agree although I do have a special bias for Hernandez. i am surprised honestly though that he has looked that comfortable to date at third. When i saw him a few years ago in Portland he was playing short. i thought he looked very good but i guess I didn't see a potential third baseman there.

[Kimmi]

I agree although I do have a special bias for Hernandez. i am surprised honestly though that he has looked that comfortable to date at third. When i saw him a few years ago in Portland he was playing short. i thought he looked very good but i guess I didn't see a potential third baseman there.

 

He has looked good so far, both offensively and defensively. I know you have a special bias for him, much like mine for Vazquez.

 

I hope they both do well.