ORS

I would prefer a wait-and-see approach with Ellsbury. I think he's a safe bet to maintain whatever value he currently holds, but he's also still young and could improve. As is, he's about league average with the bat, which is perfectly fine from a starter playing a middle of the field position above average defensively. He's also made some adjustments and had better results after a bad two first weeks. From 4/7 to 4/18 his line was .217/.265/.217. From 4/19 to 5/8 it's been .342/.363/.447. Between those windows the XBH and SB split have been 0:6 and 4:11. Yeah, both are small samples, and all thrown together he's about what he was last year. That said, his flashes of brilliance are good enough that I'd prefer to hold on to him to see if he can finally break-through and find consistency at this level. And, again, he seems a safe bet to hold his current value, so seeing what the future holds doesn't seem like a big risk (ie him tanking and losing any value).

Tainted boobs.

You can't apply the simple concept either. Not surprising. Comparing two players on raw numbers is folly, that is unless they are very comparable in physical size, strength, and talent. If they aren't, you need to look at baseline and make increases relative to the baseline talent. Gom's conclusion was that 20 HR is such a low number that it should be beyond suspicion. This is stupid. If you agree with him, you are stupid. Derek Jeter unassisted by PEDs does not have the same baseline power as David Ortiz unassistend by PEDs. I'm not saying either used, but if the standard is increased power, as Gom suggests, both are equally guilty.

Gom, stupid is stupid. I don't care what someone does for their career, if they write/say something stupid, it's fair game. You are free to disagree, but you seem to lack the capacity of understanding that the title of a person espousing an idea doesn't make the person right. For the record, I think Simmons sucks. Any writer that makes points about sports by relating them to 80's sitcoms blows goats, IMO. There is one area where he does have some chops, but I don't care about it. He's pretty good when he's breaking down basketball. For all other sports, I tune him out. I accepted a long time ago that every single one of the Sox championship teams could have been using. Simmons isn't stupid for thinking the same thing. It's how he gets there and the conclusion he makes. He assumes the 2004 team all used, which is fine, but he does so by stating that his assumption is based on them having good years. Guess what so did a shitload of other players on other teams that year. This is at odds with his reason for writing the article, coming to grips with a tainted championship. The failure of logic there is pretty clear. If the standard of evidence is that a good year constitutes using, then you have a lot of players using on a lot of teams, and every playoff team must be chock full of users. Hindsight is revealing this to be the case. However, if it's pervaisive, there's no taint, other than the original opinion.

Ortiz hit 20 in Minnesota, 40 with the Sox. That's, wait for it, 100% more. Now look at Jeter's baseline outside the window Rician highlighted. Inside the window it's, wait for it, about 100% more. Funny how that works, right? Apply your standard of proof equally, and he's guilty. You painted yourself in a corner.

Forget a magic arm, how about we don't let the f***er on base. Can't steal 2nd from the bench.

They tried. They made an offer, one that reflected the current market.....the value you refer to in your post. Bay declined stating he would wait to see if the market for talent recovered a little over the next year.

Why is it the buddy system when/if someone shows you the deficiency of your thought?

I see no change. In one post, he stating what he wants, in the other what he thinks will happen. Those are two different things.

No, I've never said the good and evil stuff. This is the fantasy you keep telling yourself to place yourself on the false pedestal you do. Look at the path Simmons takes to get to his conclusions, and it's not just about Ortiz or Ramirez. It's thoughtless, mouth breathing drivel. It's the same path you take to your conclusions. There's no surprise they are the same. Look, I have no problem accepting the possibility that any and all players from that team were using something. I just need something more than, "They were good, so they were using". If this is the criteria, every good team is suspect, and therefore, none of them are tainted since they all share the same assumed source of success. Get it. So, that great comeback, came on a level field, right?

How can it not be great? It's full of completely thoughtless assumption that the drooling masses eat up like ice cream, and on top of that, it's all bad for the Red Sox. With those two criteria met, the only way it could suit Gom better is if he wrote it so he could pat himself on the back for it.

Aaron Hill ...against everyone but the Yankees.

Doubtful. He's pretty bad, and I don't think anyone who relies on either statistical analysis or scouting will miss this. Meanwhile, he has a chance to pitch meaningful innings, something that is bad for the team, as they wait for some team get interested. Again, they are better without him on the 25 man roster, so addition by subtraction should apply here.

If you give a person "chocolate" chips made out of rabbit turds and tell them to bake some cookies, then whose fault is it when the cookies taste like s***, the cook's or the person who gave him the chips?

Longoria's turn.

"Revenues at an all-time" high is a bit misleading. Yes, in recent years they set new records for revenues. No chance this coincided with the massive expansion of the connected world and a period of economic expansion? I can get why you think interest wouldn't be sufficient to support united action, but I don't think recent revenues are a good reason to support that. Unless it is expressed as some sort of rate/ratio, gross numbers, particularly ones concerning money, will be misleading. Inflation alone makes this so.

It isn't whether or not you would stop watching if a single player was identified by the testing program. Fans would unite, IMO, behind forcing the MLBPA to stop obstructing efforts to rid the game of PEDs. They'd get behind allowing owners to be more aggressive in identifying and penalizing users. At least, I think they would.

Anyone care if he clears waivers? IE, anyone care if we lose him for nothing? Addition by subtraction. Case closed.

If that's the drug, that is a smoking gun, IMO.

Serious question, did you notice who you were quoting?

Are you following the reported story at all or at least reading the updates in the thread? The substance he tested positive for is neither a steroid or HGH, thus not a PED in the contemporary use of the phrase. The sentence in bold is a complete assumption without all the information. I stand by my previous assesment. For the gloves, go to the gardening section at your local Lowe's. You can fashion a screen out of materials found in the window seciton.