CrespoBlows

Pinella bailed out big time in tonight's game. I don't get this. You walk Freddy Sanchez, to pitch to Jason Bay. Why.....?

Craig Hansen II.

Added a pick. Angels > Guardians Santana is a very good pitcher at home, and Lee is rather hittable.

Did I tell you the story about David Bush being a total dick? Depending on what unfolds, I will go into further details.

f***er. Quickly surrenders a bomb to the leadoff man.

Tonight's games: Detroit > Seattle Bonderman's blister is a bit of a scare, but the Tigers should knock Ramirez around. Boston > Toronto. Looking good so far. Cubs > Pirates The Cubs at home are a pretty good pick. The anemic Pirates offense should have trouble supporting Snell, who's been kind of lucky. (15 BB's so far) Brewers > Nationals No explanation neccessary. (Though, Bush is a candiate for an explosion)

Call it mercy rule?

Dude, you totally flipped out on everyone when you brought up the Drug War. You have no right no tell Pedroia what to do.

Ortiz, if you ever took steriods, I want to say on behalf of Red Sox nation. Thank you.

That way of thinking is really short-sighted. To correctly judge a move, you have to look at everything involved. Baseball is a business, stuff like dollars tend to go into that equation. I'm also curious why you went beserk when we brought up the finances of the Red Sox. All we did was question a contract value. I mean, you did the same thing with J.D. Drew: http://www.talksox.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7668 You aren't very consistent. They were told to make an offer then and there. That figure was easily subject to change. Oh, and when since $18 million isn't a serious offer?

Why not? It's a hypothetical. That's what the whole basis of your theory. What if this? What if that? :joke: The luxury tax threshold goes up every year. If they seriously planned on spending $10,000,000, they will spend that money. They didn't seriously plan on spending $30,000,000 on a 45 year old pitcher who averaged less than 6 innings a start last year. I still can't believe this. You seriously think that Roger Clemens is worth a $30,000,000 investment. I don't care if you're a welfare whore, or Bill Gates, that's not a good move. I can't stress this enough. Roger Clemens averaged under 6 innings a start last year. He's acknowledged that he cannot pitch a full season, because the stress of it would kill him. That inspires confidence in you? Do you remember in 2005, when he began to break down in September? There's a serious risk you're taking with Roger Clemens. I'd give $30,000,000 million for a full year of Johan Santana, but for four months of Roger Clemens? No way in hell. You're not getting the Roger Clemens who won a Cy Young in 2004, you're getting a 5-6 inning pitcher. Reality is going to strike Yankee fans when Roger Clemens hands the ball to Luis Vizcanio in the 6th inning of a close game.

Meeting with Chris Hansen running overtime?

Totally under your skin. I win. f*** you.

$15 million per win. Seriously $15 million per win. You can keep saying that, but there's no way in hell does a baseball team does that.

It's been verified. Spending $10 to $15 million per win isn't a good business decision. Maybe if you realized that this isn't 1957, you'd began to realize it, and that the game of baseball has evolved. Looking like an idiot? Seriously, you're overmatched here. Even worse it's to a bunch of Generation X'ers.

I don't know how he doesn't see that. I mean, it's right there.

I can't afford them. I only make $8 an hour. :dunno: (Again, weak...) I tell what I have never done before. I never solicited a teenage girl for her picture, after she offered a blowjob on the internet.

I think you and I already know his answer. He's going to back his player. Again, this is inane rambling that doesn't even come close to sniffing the point. You don't even get the analogy. I don't know what else to try.

How else do you want to base it? Stats are a measure of performance, we use these to make rational decisions. Like this was?

OK, because Chamberlin blows Russell away in pure stats, you insert him in the Celtics lineup, and they are an even better team. OK, you have to understand what you are talking about first. You clearly don't. I'll try again: THE DEBATE IS WHETHER THE BENEFIT OF UPGRADING FROM CLEMENS TO LESTER OUTWEIGHS THE COST. For example, Player A is a free agent in CF. He is a .283/.393/.498. hitter. He is worth approximately worth 9 wins over the average player. He happens to command an average salary of $14 million. You already have Player B in CF. He is a .268/.374/.395, he is worth about 4 wins, but wants $7 million. Is it worth the upgrade?

You brought up Chamberlin and Russell and compared it to Lester and Clemens. Seriously, there is no valid comparison. This is probably the stupidest things I have ever heard. Ain't no f***ing ballpark neither. Giving a bitch a foot massage, and sticking your tongue in the holiest of holies, ain't even in the same league, it ain't even the same f***ing sport.