ORS

Not in the least. And, I'm also right, like usual.

Not that interested.

You have abosolutely no idea how revenues are shared in MLB. The jerseys, the hats, the promotional baseballs....ie all the merchandise, and, this is important, all outside the US revenues are split 30 ways with each team getting an equal share. The only, ONLY, place an MLB team has a chance to differentiate from the competition in revenues is in the local market. Most "big" market teams actually own the broadcast network that airs the games to the local market. If what others have posted is correct, and I haven't gone back far enough to check because I simply don't care enough to, and this discussion started because you said the Nats are a "small market team", then they are right. The Nationals ownership is part owner of MASN (shared with the Baltimore Orioles), the regional network that airs their games, and their media market is massive.

Why is this in the Sox section of the forum? This belongs in the general MLB section.

I don't think you know how sports betting works.

With all this talk about staying under the cap, and since benefits are included in the cap figure, maybe they are on a quota for reduced premiums?

Did the article mention whether or not this was reported to the medical staff at the end of last year? Not that it would have necessarily mattered, I guess. You know how crack the medical staff has been the last few years. "What's that, your wrist is sore? Take 2 Tylenol and see how it feels in 3 months."

All those sound aggressively optimistic. Even the Rotochamps projections look optimistic to me. I'm thinking somewhere around 150 IP and an ERA somewhere between 4.00-4.50. And I consider myself somewhat optimistic. EDIT: All of which would still be a massive improvement at the back of the rotation. He needs to learn to trust his stuff a bit against the bottom of lineups, IMO. I'll be very concerned if I see a trend of trying to get too cute and wasting pitches against crummy hitters.

It's not about having the last word. It's about responding to an incorrect accusation. Read the thread. I had discussion with iortiz on two separate issues last night, one had to do with his comical "no excuses" absolutism where he was trying to eliminate the impact of injury from the discussion, the other was about a comment he made about planning to recover from injuries. You jump in half cocked and start pointing fingers at me and I am going to ask that you inform yourself when you are wrong.

Read the thread.

I've read your posts. My point is not an attempt to allow injuries as an excuse. It was a direct rebuttal to one of the points you made about how they failed to plan for injuries, and how 2010 should have impacted that plan. I directed you to the consequences of that action. That's it. You are reading way too much into this.

On topic, I'm very excited about this happening (if it does). Bard gets his easy gas because of a good frame and effortless mechanics. After conditioning and getting stretched out, he's the type of guy that could still be bringing it in at 96-97 deep in the ballgame. I think his slider is an excellent complimentary pitch. Improvement of his change-up will be the key to make or break success as a starter, though. It's true, he struggled as a starter in the minors. However, those struggles were well documented by a complete lack of control. Which is something he has improved drastically as a reliever. His ability to improve in this regard makes me opitmistic about his ability to improve his change-up. So, if forced to guess at this point, I think he ultimately succeeds as a starter, but not without some bumps in the road. It will be interesting to how much patience management has here. He will be missed in the bullpen. I'm not as confident as others that Bailey/Melancon can approximate what Papelbon/Bard did at the back end of the bullpen for the Sox in 2011, although, I wouldn't discard it as something that was highly unlikely. I think the bigger issue in the bullpen will be depth beyond the 1/1a relievers. I think a big part of the reason the good relievers tanked at the end of last season was over reliance on their talents throughout the year. The middle tier of the bullpen needs to show they are capable of being reliable in tighter spots, and if the current candidates cannot do that, they need to get active in the market or bring up a kid with the stuff to succeed as an MLB reliever.

Sure, I do. It means an inconsistency. Your thoughts about having Pineda in the rotation, love was the word, are not consistent with your current outlook on the rotation, where you consistently talk about having only 3 credible pitchers and make no positive mention of the player with a skillset similar to the one you "love". That's an incongruity.

This would be interesting, and worthy of discussion, if it was actually what I was doing. When have I ever shied from admitting my intent? I haven't. I've told you in the past when I was taking shots at you. I would tell you now if I was. And, I'm not the only one who noticed this incongruity. E1 noticed it too. His point about how you have ignored Bard in our discussions about the pitching projections for 2012 is right on the point. As I said, I acknowledge your past comments in favor of trying Bard in the rotation. But, as you even mentioned, you had a caveat, that Papelbon was kept as the closer, that has not been met. Since then, your commentary about the 2012 pitching has focussed primarily on what the loss of Bard will mean for the bullpen. Then, you made a comment about "loving" to see someone with specific talents in the rotation. I was genuinely curious about how you currently felt, after all that has transpired, with a player with similar talents being in the Sox rotation. No "gotcha", just an attempt to get you to talk about the potential positives from this move. You took it totally out of context.

No, he didn't. Nice try, though. Way to jump in and prove yourself incapable of getting things straight without being shown your error, Captain Hero!

Vanity, again. It wasn't a veiled shot at you. You really have sensitivity issues. Not that you are sensitive to the feeling of others, but you are as thin skinned as they come, and you see potential insult in everything I post. You're paranoid.