CrespoBlows

Hi, BM11, we haven't seen you in a long time.

Only 16 pitches, too.

Turn out the lights......

Great investment for $4 million dollars, huh?

Because the Rangers pinch hit Catalanotto

This may be the most blatant misrepresentation of a position ever. Oh, and you call yourself "settled?" Hypocrite.

Paul Bako is clutch, now? Jesus, do you throw that tag on everybody?

My definition of loaded, is a dominant team. A team loaded with talent, tends to dominate. You get it? It's not that hard. Brilliant. Thanks for pointing that gem out. Oh, I didn't? Because when I said loaded = dominant, I think you should be able to use that equation. Since you're stupid, I'll say it again. All of the teams I listed WERE LOADED. Having one or two players that are weak is completely different then having, a whole bullpen that is weak, Papelbon excluded, a bottom part of the order that is weak, and a weak four and five starters. Yet, you continue to do it. YOU CALLED THIS TEAM LOADED. I'm calling you on your ********. The Braves were third in the league in runs scored. The Mariners, first. The Astros, first. Oh, and to top it off, every single one of these teams were first, or second in pitching. If the Red Sox are in the top two in both categories, I will give you $1,000. BTW, Mark McLemore and his 116 OPS+ played 69 games in LF, Stan Javier and his 110 OPS+ played in another 62. Martin was a pinch hitter/defensive replacement. As for Ausmus and Wilson, you know as well as I do, that they were in their for their defensive skills. The Red Sox have several weak spots, those teams didn't. If you can honestly say that one or two Mariners players who are below average takes them down from being dominant, then I can honestly say that you are a moron. We can settle this quickly though. Ladies and Gentlemen of the board, who here, would call the 2007 Boston Red Sox, a loaded baseball team?

Again, I say nowhere that winning a WS is a prerequisite to being a dominant team. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2001.shtml This team was loaded. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CLE/1995.shtml So was this one. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/1997.shtml And this one. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/HOU/1998.shtml This one was too. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/1998.shtml What about this one? Sure, they can, but that bullpen and lack of balance in the lineup will probably hold them back. What the f*** are you talking about? I did say loaded teams don't start Julian Tavarez, Coco Crisp, Jason Varitek, and have a s***** bullpen. I included all aspects of the team.

Oh, I get it. If you have a few stars, you're loaded. That makes A LOT of sense. More babbling. I don't recall calling the 2004 Red Sox loaded. They were better than this team, but they weren't loaded. Oh. My. f***ing. God. You're in absolute denial. You're saying the bullpen is well constructed? The back end of the rotation? The 6-9 hitters? C'mon, lose the f***ing bias.

No, I was calling your ********. If you don't want to have the discussion, quit responding. Oh, and after further examination, the Red Sox aren't loaded.

2004 Millar FRAA: +8 2004 Millar EQA: .296 2004 Millar OPS+: 117 2006 Youkilis FRAA: 0 2006 Youkilis EQA: .290 2006 Youkilis OPS+: 108 20 times better? Youkilis isn't even the better player.

OK, now we have the criteria set. Are the Red Sox a loaded team?

You did say that you'd take the 2007 Red Sox pitching staff over the one in 2004. That usually means you think it's better. Talent, or lack thereof. Age related decline. No one said that. If that's what the team is hoping for, I hope Theo is fired by tommorow. You've got to be kidding. He was expected to have another great year. Have you looked at Foulke's career? Probably not. Foulke ERA+: 2004 - 225 2003 - 205 2002 - 159 2001 - 198 2000 - 174 1999 - 215 He had been dominant for six consecutive years. From FJM.com. Sure, I think they have a chance, but what does the prove? Ask me this question in October. Agreed.

I did say maybe, and it appears they were not. No, no, maybe, yes, and maybe. No, Varitek will probably match Pierzynki's numbers. If not be slightly worse. No. Where did I say a loaded team was perfect? A loaded team is a dominant team. Like these: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/1927.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/1998.shtml

The 2004 Red Sox Bullpen ERA+ Foulke - 225 Timlin - 118 Embree - 118 Leskanic - 136 Williams - 388 (!) Mendoza - 138 Dinardo - 115 Malaska - 116 Myers - 116 With the exception of Myers, all of these pitchers threw 20 innings. Combined, these pitchers would throw 364 innings of quality ball. That's pretty freaking good. The 2007 bullpen will be hard pressed to match that. Consider the 2006 ERA+ numbers for the current bullpen. Papelbon - 500 (!) Timlin - 106 Donnelly - 111 Romero - 65 Snyder - 77 Lopez - 171 (probably a fluke, as his DERA was 4.71) Pineiro - 64 These guys better have career years for your prophecy to come true. If the results are tremendous, it's not a gamble. Foulke had a 2.17 ERA, and a WHIP under 1.00, he also had an outstanding strikeout rate. So will every team in baseball. No, they only won the World Series, and completely shut down the Cardinals. Why are you shrinking the size of the games and rotation? That isn't the question.

Overall, you're right. Matsuzaka's deal is a big plus for the future of the team, but it doesn't have lot of strength when talking about this year. I also don't think Schilling is the ace of the staff, anymore. If you're going to arrange it this way, I would have Matsuzaka as an upgrade over Martinez. If you're comparing these two, I agree. I would put Beckett over Arroyo. Speaking strictly about 2007, would you still have this overall pitching staff (bullpen included) over 2004?

The Red Sox team in 2007 is certaintly not loaded. Loaded teams do not have shaky middle relief, and shaky set-up men. Loaded teams do not start Julian Tavarez as their fifth starter. Loaded teams do not have Jason Varitek, and Coco Crisp in their lineup. Lowell and Pedroia are average hitters as well. The Red Sox are a good team, but they are very flawed. Jason Varitek OPS+, 2006: 85 Mike Lowell OPS+, 2006 : 106 Coco Crisp OPS+, 2006: 80 Again, I like the team, but they have a little work to do.

Bronson Arroyo was the Red Sox third best starter in 2004, so you have to include him in the comparison between the two. If I had to break down the rotations between the two it would look like: Number one starter 2004 Schilling vs. 2007 Matsuzaka Schilling is no longer the ace of the rotation. The best pitcher is clearly Matsuzaka. Anyway, in 2004, Schilling posted a 150 ERA+, which was good enough for second in the AL. I absolutely loved what I saw from Dice-K against KC, and I think he'll be a top five starter in the AL, but he won't match what Schilling did. Edge: Slight 2004 Schilling Number two starter 2004 Martinez vs. 2007 Beckett Pedro slumped badly from his 2003 form in 2004. He posted a 125 ERA+, a 3.90 ERA, and a 1.17 WHIP, which is pretty damn good by anyone's standard. I expect Beckett to match these numbers. He's shown he's bettered his curve and changeup, and is learning to mix them in. I've got Beckett posting an ERA slightly below 4.00. There's no significant difference between the two. Edge: Even Number three starter 2004 Arroyo vs. 2007 Schilling Bronson Arroyo was very good in 2004; he posted a 121 ERA+, which was five points higher than Schilling's 116 ERA+ in '06. I think everyone expects Schilling to regress a little bit in 2007, and he confirmed it, when he said he's pitching to contact. (See: more hits, higher WHIP, less K's) If Schilling puts up an ERA around 4.30, I'll be pleased. Edge: 2004 Arroyo Number four starter 2004 Wakefield vs. 2007 Wakefield Wakefield was exactly average in 2004, posting a 100 ERA+. He hasn't really moved off that number the last three years, and I don't expect him to change that any time soon. He may be the most consistent Red Sox starter every year. I'm tempted to make the 2004 Wakefield the favorite, because his battery mate didn't suck nearly as bad as he does now, but that isn't fair. Edge: Even Number five starter 2004 Lowe vs. 2007 Tavarez Derek Lowe was terrible in 2004, posting a 90 ERA+, why they didn't punt him out of the rotation is beyond me. Tavarez was surprisingly competent in 2006, posting a 103 ERA+, but you can't be average if your WHIP is 1.56. The advantage of the 2007 Red Sox is that they won't allow Tavarez to suck as long as they allowed Lowe to. Jon Lester will replace Tavarez in July, and will represent a huge upgrade. Edge: Even for the first two months, Lester the next three. So, I have it at: 2004 Red Sox - 2 2007 Red Sox - 1/2