Fire alex cora

[notin]

Manny was suspended twice and Papi failed a drug test. Keep pretending your team is clean. Keep trying. I’m only giving you facts

 

Papi failed a drug test? You might consider revisiting the history on that one...

[jad]

Ignore him. Yankee BOT.

[jacksonianmarch]

Papi failed a drug test? You might consider revisiting the history on that one...

 

https://www.bostonherald.com/2009/07/31/david-ortiz-failed-drug-test/

 

Really?

[jacksonianmarch]

Manny was tested while in Boston. Who knows, if he used in Boston, or not, but it's entirely possible that he began using as he aged and started getting hurt more often.

 

I'm not pretending our team was always clean- just that I know we were and are cleaner than the Yanks by a long shot is good enough for me.

 

Manny also failed his drug test in 2003

[notin]

https://www.bostonherald.com/2009/07/31/david-ortiz-failed-drug-test/

 

Really?

 

That's not "revisting the history" when you use 10 year old articles and don't look at the more recent ones, is it?

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/commissioner-david-ortizs-positive-ped-test-in-03-may-not-have-been-reliable/

 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qky9ew/mlb-commissioner-gives-david-ortiz-a-pass-on-failed-ped-test-from-2003

[jacksonianmarch]

Stop the strawmanisms. I said cleaner than the Yanks NOT everyone.

 

That being said, I think we have been one of the cleanest, but I don't keep track of every team's PED count.

 

And what do you base that supposition on? A feeling? Does it make you feel good to know the sox did it the right way? Sorry to burst your bubble, but they didn't. Heck, EVERY TEAM since the beginning of baseball have used some form of PED. Nicotine is a stimulant, guys used to chew. Greenies (amphetamines) were used for decades. Steroids had been used with impunity since the 70s. Designer drugs started coming out for sports that actually tested with the benefit that they wouldn't be caught well before baseball started testing. Heck, AFraud didn't get caught due to a positive test, he got caught for being on a mailing list.

[jacksonianmarch]

That's not "revisting the history" when you use 10 year old articles and don't look at the more recent ones, is it?

 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/commissioner-david-ortizs-positive-ped-test-in-03-may-not-have-been-reliable/

 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qky9ew/mlb-commissioner-gives-david-ortiz-a-pass-on-failed-ped-test-from-2003

 

And how would he know that?

 

Listen, Manfred has a vested interest in killing this story. This was a contractual violation that the list even came out and the MLB was liable for that violation of privacy.

[notin]

And what do you base that supposition on? A feeling? Does it make you feel good to know the sox did it the right way? Sorry to burst your bubble, but they didn't. Heck, EVERY TEAM since the beginning of baseball have used some form of PED. Nicotine is a stimulant, guys used to chew. Greenies (amphetamines) were used for decades. Steroids had been used with impunity since the 70s. Designer drugs started coming out for sports that actually tested with the benefit that they wouldn't be caught well before baseball started testing. Heck, AFraud didn't get caught due to a positive test, he got caught for being on a mailing list.

 

No you're just clouding the waters. Might was well say taking a shot of cortisone to heal pain is a PED.

 

There is a big difference between using nicotine and stanislozol. And that difference is one of them is breaking the rules. And these rules were not in place until 1991...

[moonslav59]

And what do you base that supposition on? A feeling? Does it make you feel good to know the sox did it the right way? Sorry to burst your bubble, but they didn't. Heck, EVERY TEAM since the beginning of baseball have used some form of PED. Nicotine is a stimulant, guys used to chew. Greenies (amphetamines) were used for decades. Steroids had been used with impunity since the 70s. Designer drugs started coming out for sports that actually tested with the benefit that they wouldn't be caught well before baseball started testing. Heck, AFraud didn't get caught due to a positive test, he got caught for being on a mailing list.

 

Again, you are inventing positions I do not hold.

 

Saying we were cleaner than the dirtiest team in MLB is not saying we are or were clean, ever.

 

Where did I ever come close to saying the "Sox did it the right way?"

 

Can we stop this?

[notin]

And how would he know that?

 

Listen, Manfred has a vested interest in killing this story. This was a contractual violation that the list even came out and the MLB was liable for that violation of privacy.

 

So you're fallback is conspiracy theories?

 

The real problem with the drug tests in 2003 is that they tested for many drugs that were actually not illegal in MLB. It was a survey just to see how rampant the usage was and whether or not any policy was needed. MLB's original drug policy from 1991 was done with the intention of getting illegal drugs out of the game and cleaning up the massive black eye MLB took in the 1980's from rampant cocaine abuse, and basically said "No illegal drugs, including illegal steroids.". The goal here was to update it to cover some of the PED's that were not classified under the Controlled Substance Act. And avoid future embarrassments like the Pittsburgh Drug Trials (highlighted by Tim Raines' confession of playing with glass vials in his back pocket, which necessitated sliding into second head first), the death of Rod Scurry, the imprisonment of 4 KC Royals during the offseason, and the multiple lifetime suspensions for players like Steve Howe.

 

So the 104 failed tests, not only were the names withheld, but also the drugs tested positive for, and some of those drugs were not illegal in MLB at the time. So unless you can fill in all these blanks, you're just trying to keep alive a myth that was debunked a long time ago...

[cp176]

True 'nuff.

 

Plus, bigger is not always better.

 

In general, this is absolutely true. The but is the Seadogs were overpowered by a bigger faster stronger lineup. I like talented little believe me but I also think that there is some truth to this statement -Little people help big people win games.

[cp176]

this one is easy CP: yankees give their players steroids. see: clinic, Miami

 

i forgot

[moonslav59]

In general, this is absolutely true. The but is the Seadogs were overpowered by a bigger faster stronger lineup. I like talented little believe me but I also think that there is some truth to this statement -Little people help big people win games.

 

Our "big guys" never work out, anyways.

[notin]

Our "big guys" never work out, anyways.

 

He might have seen the 2015 Trenton Thunder, that had Gary Sanchez and Aaron Judge. They panned out ok...

[moonslav59]

He might have seen the 2015 Trenton Thunder, that had Gary Sanchez and Aaron Judge. They panned out ok...

 

Meh.

 

Probably work out better than David Chester, Luis Diaz & Kyle Martin will.

[cp176]

Our "big guys" never work out, anyways.

 

Sad but true to a great extent. I think that there is a talent level that is being overlooked by some of our super scouts possibly. Just big = 0

[cp176]

He might have seen the 2015 Trenton Thunder, that had Gary Sanchez and Aaron Judge. They panned out ok...

 

 

yup - the night i watched them, I'm glad an on field fight didn't break out.

[moonslav59]

yup - the night i watched them, I'm glad an on field fight didn't break out.

 

LOL. We had some big guys on the bench, so maybe they were better at fighting than B-ball.

[notin]

yup - the night i watched them, I'm glad an on field fight didn't break out.

 

Why not? Judge might be big, but he is made of glass...

[Kimmi]

i know you hated those years. but outside of the one where our SPers looked abysmal...on paper we were a division contending team every year. i think most of us thought we had a shot at the division (or WC at the very least) in every year Ben was GM. obviously in 3 of those years we ended up way below expectations but he did have a killer Farm in place at the end of his tenure. i can honestly say that he built that Farm without me feeling we were throwing away seasons. on paper we looked good every year. IMO.

I respect that you are not a Ben fan/supporter and the 3 last place finishes under his tenure give you the ammo. that said, i think its also fair to say that each of those years we had a MLB team that was expected to do better. and it's fair to say that when he left we had a very very good Farm.

 

Post of the day.

[moonslav59]

Post of the day.

 

Ditto.

[a700hitter]

In each of those last place years, I was very vocal about the glaring shortcomings of those teams and they finished in line with my expectations. It had nothing to do with liking or disliking Ben. I was also very vocal about the shortcomings of this years’ team and placed most of the blame on DD for not making the playoffs. It has nothing to do with like or dislike of the GM.

^Post of the Day.

[cp176]

^Post of the Day.

 

The way I see it - the "post of the day" has to be one that espouses your viewpoints almost expressly whether they are meant to or not. Ben cxerington is being made out to be some kind of wonderman minor league builder. His proponents can't be satisfied with simply saying that he did a good job. On the other hand DD is being represented as a farm wrecker by the very same people because he traded role players for the most part to strengthen our team going forward. That is silly. There is always a middle ground. Also it is the constant refrain of "win now at any cost" that annoys me. I have to believe that that is why it is repeated. Doesn't the same old song ever get tiresome?

[cp176]

^Post of the Day.

 

 

i like your post primarily because it is an equal opportunity criticizer. lol Ben is gone - DD is gone - but the beat goes on.

[cp176]

i know you hated those years. but outside of the one where our SPers looked abysmal...on paper we were a division contending team every year. i think most of us thought we had a shot at the division (or WC at the very least) in every year Ben was GM. obviously in 3 of those years we ended up way below expectations but he did have a killer Farm in place at the end of his tenure. i can honestly say that he built that Farm without me feeling we were throwing away seasons. on paper we looked good every year. IMO.

I respect that you are not a Ben fan/supporter and the 3 last place finishes under his tenure give you the ammo. that said, i think its also fair to say that each of those years we had a MLB team that was expected to do better. and it's fair to say that when he left we had a very very good Farm.

 

I'll tell you what type of a dopey old fan I am Slasher. Since 1955, I have always believed that the Red Sox have had a chance every single time. It is just who I am. I don't believe in cliffs either. what is going to be for me - 1. I am just not being realistic 2. I will never admit defeat until the games get played. yup - it is always about choice number two for me. The way i was raised the way i played and the way I coached.

I'm going to support the GM no matter who he is too.

[moonslav59]

^Post of the Day.

 

Such "...great and unmatched wisdom..."

[moonslav59]

The way I see it - the "post of the day" has to be one that espouses your viewpoints almost expressly whether they are meant to or not. Ben cxerington is being made out to be some kind of wonderman minor league builder. His proponents can't be satisfied with simply saying that he did a good job. On the other hand DD is being represented as a farm wrecker by the very same people because he traded role players for the most part to strengthen our team going forward. That is silly. There is always a middle ground. Also it is the constant refrain of "win now at any cost" that annoys me. I have to believe that that is why it is repeated. Doesn't the same old song ever get tiresome?

 

Usually, those defending Ben are responding to someone talking about only the bad he did- like the horrible draft he had while signing Devers and DHern in the IFA market. Nobody is saying Ben was even near perfect. We all know he made some major blunders, as did every GM we've had. Both songs are tiresome, and not many sing a balanced tune.

[S5Dewey]

^Post of the Day.

 

Isn't there a rule someplace that one can't call his own post the "Post of the Day"?? :D

[Bellhorn04]

Usually, those defending Ben are responding to someone talking about only the bad he did- like the horrible draft he had while signing Devers and DHern in the IFA market. Nobody is saying Ben was even near perfect. We all know he made some major blunders, as did every GM we've had. Both songs are tiresome, and not many sing a balanced tune.

 

Ben Cherington's record as a GM is difficult to assess. For every point there's one or more counterpoints.

 

Point: He won a championship.

Counterpoint: 3 last place finishes.

 

Point: He made 3 albatross signings in the same year (Pablo, Hanley, Castillo).

Counterpoint: At least one of those was forced on him by Lucchino.

 

Point: He left the team in great shape for the next GM.

Counterpoints: He left those albatross contracts. He left very little in major league ready pitching. Some of what he left, like Betts, was left to him by the previous GM.

 

Adding to all that is that he has never had any other GM job you could use for further evaluation.

[Bellhorn04]

Isn't there a rule someplace that one can't call his own post the "Post of the Day"?? :D

 

That's a fair rule. Another is that Kimmi has to vote for a post other than one that's adamantly pro-Ben.