CrespoBlows

What adjustments could the Guardians have possibly made, to make that lineup better? Remove Perez? Bat someone one spot higher? C'mon, be honest, you didn't know the personal, so in an attempt to discredit Randy Johnson, you said the Guardians offense sucked. No more ********. You're really making yourself look bad. BTW guys, anyone who disagrees with a700hitter is learning impaired. Read his first sentence.

Holy s***. You're reaching like hell. Those same nine players were in the lineup (save for Blake). What does it matter where they were hitting? It's not like Wedge went nuts and batted Sizemore ninth, and Boone first. The Indian offense was still SECOND in MLB in runs scored. Are you incapable of saying "Gee, maybe I am wrong?" You make Donald Trump look like Mother Teresa. (BTW, moving Peralta out of the three hole, made the Indian offense BETTER then they were at the beginning of the year.)

I guess Jimmy Conners gave him some balls.

The funny thing is, you said 1-9, even after I provided the links. Here they are again, in case you didn't see them. Seriously man, I know lobotomy patients that can reason better then you can.

:lol::lol: Holy s***. You're an idiot. 1-9 means, order of lineup. One through nine, I should have said. Dumb as a rock, folks. They were actually, 6-4. They lost when the pitching staff gave up 10, 11, 9, and 5 runs respectively. Please, just stop. This is embarrassing. You're over the hill, just like Pedro.

BTW, since I'm always wrong, how do you spell the guy's name in your avatar? Wasn't it L-U-K-A?

Ha! I also said that it was obvious that some players dominate others. You must have missed that. f***ing moron. The main point was, Kennedy is no longer a good player, so I'd rather face him, because he's worse then Kendrick. You're missing my point. He's hitting .333 this year. Kendrick, .750. Yankee fans, which player would you rather face?

http://cleveland.Guardians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20060404&content_id=1383514&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=away http://cleveland.Guardians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20060405&content_id=1385141&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=away http://cleveland.Guardians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20060407&content_id=1388311&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home http://cleveland.Guardians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20060408&content_id=1390351&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home http://cleveland.Guardians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20060411&content_id=1395882&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home http://cleveland.Guardians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20060412&content_id=1397473&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home http://cleveland.Guardians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20060413&content_id=1398774&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home http://cleveland.Guardians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20060414&content_id=1400438&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=away http://cleveland.Guardians.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20060415&content_id=1401667&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=away About the first two weeks. Feel free to take a look.

Keep digging that hole. For the first month, that lineup was 1-9. Before the Guardians started to suck, that lineup was still out there. LOOKS LIKE I'M WRONG AGAIN!

Kendrick's already more of a Red Sox/Yankee Killer. Kennedy, is hitting below the Mendoza line against the Red Sox this year. He still kills them? Oh, if you don't care what anyone else does, if it isn't relevant to the Red Sox and Yankees, why would you care would Sutton does? Sutton never faced Seaver when he was with the Red Sox. Besides, everyone knows that sometimes one player often kills another one. That's obvious, but when Kennedy was beating up the Red Sox, he was a good player. He no longer is.

Who cares what happened in that small of a sample size? This year, Kennedy is a below average offensive player. Kendrick is already one of the best offensive second basemen, I'd rather face Kennedy, he's the inferior player. Small sample sizes!!! vs Red Sox Kennedy: 3-16 Kendrick: 10-19 vs Yankees Kennedy: Who cares, he's not going to match a .750 average. Kendrick: 12-16 You did research, but not anything relevant. YES!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M WRONG AGAIN!!!!

It was the same lineup all year. Do some research. (The only difference in the Beckett game was the switch of Perez and Broussard)

I just pulled up your quote. You said they were a bad offense, despite being second in MLB in runs scored. You were clearly trying to insult him, just as you are now. Also, weak pun. You dodge everything. You're keeping score, as well? You really are one pathetic man. Oh, it wasn't because he only completed one inning against the Phillies right, when he could only muster an 85 mph fastball? No, of course not, he's incapable of failure. You'd be an excellent politician, sir.

This is when they were 2nd in the AL in offense, folks.

Ha! Remember you said the Guardians offense sucked, when they ranked #2 in MLB in runs scored. You don't look up your claims, you just ad-lib a lot. Plus, you're a hypocrite. You said, that I was harsh when I blasted you for being a moron, when you said the Guardians sucked, but you called ksushi a masochist (I know not, why) and me, wrong all the time. But, we probably misunderstood your statement, right? BTW, Pedro Martinez on the DL. Still a bad move?

Are you serious? You are an idiot. Kennedy .683 OPS. Kendrick .825 OPS. Great idea.

You're so full of s***, it's laughable. I'm tired of responding to this. (Remember the Guardians offense? You thought they sucked, because you never heard of the players, it spills into every other point. You never heard of Kendrick, so he sucks.) BTW, where have I been wrong all the time? You're really reaching. Oh, Kennedy, .743 OPS RISP, Kendrick, .822 OPS RISP.

There you go again. You want Kennedy. Now you don't. Look in the Angels game, where the Red Sox blew a lead and ended up losing 12-5. You said, "I'd rather have Kennedy, because he has big hits, and more experencied (cliche)." You're wrong, so you flip-flip, or accuse the other guy of not understanding your point. It's getting old, man. You can't be right all the time. As players move toward their prime years, they tend to get better. As players reach 35+, Father Time kicks their ass. Plus, you're saying that Pedroia is nothing special after a whopping 15 AB's. Am I the only one who sees the faulty logic here?

C'mon, enough dodging. You clearly have a preference for older talent. You even said that you'd prefer to have Adam Kennedy then Howie Kendrick. When pressed for reasons, you struggled to come up with one, except he's more experienced, or in other words, older.

He hits for average, has an excellent eye, and plays good defense. He has tools.

Neither do most scouts. The proof is in the pudding though. Pedroia, has constantly hit over .300, walked more then he strikes out, and plays above average defense in the minor leagues. If he didn't have any talent, he'd be gone by now.

15 AB's, and 700hitter writes the guy off. That's got to be a record.

And you have? The only thing I've said tonight is that you massacred the English language. I've called you an idiot in the past before. Put 2+2 together. http://www.talksox.com/forum/search.php?searchid=94152 See how many times you use "E-Rod." That got old the day after he was traded to the Yankees. If you can't see what you're doing, then it's useless to have an argument. I'll give you one thing. You may be a rich guy, but it's either because, you're a heir, or you got hit by a car and got a large compensation. Actually, I'll go with the latter. You got hit by the car, which in turn caused your stupidity, and you got the money, which made you rich.

Are you really this stupid? No one can be this dumb. It's not possible. Do you really think you have something here? I'm ripping you, because you often make lousy points, make stupid overused references to Alex Rodriguez, you make four year olds look like English experts, and you're full of s***. (See below) Sorry, you're unable to understand more than what's actually written. Wow. I can't believe, I actually read this. Do you actually expect anyone to swallow that and believe it?

Way to make yourself look dumber. (You've done this before, as well) In your previous posts, you have a tendency to add an excessive amounts of exclamation points, which is why I commented on it. In fact, I've actually, sarcastically, followed one of your old post with one that is deliberitly filled with exclamation points. Also, nowhere in that post you quoted, did I say that I only had an issue with that one post. So, you have no reasoning skills, and can't spell well. The Return of YankeeHater