ORS

I'm saying he is an option, in response to a comment about there being no option. Now, given a unique situation like the one you present, where they are trying to convert two relievers into starting pitchers, I think there needs to be more than one backup plan. So, yes, I think he is a good depth option, but that depth needs to have more than one piece, IMO, and I'd prefer it if Wilson wasn't at the top of the depth list. All that said, he should be included.

This is a bit much. Who does Wilson have to blow to get a nod as potential help? He's coming off a very solid year in AA/AAA. I have no high expectations for him in the long-run, but it's not absurd to think he could be a contributor along the lines of a pitcher like Ivan Nova. Not a stud, but solid.

I too don't get the Ga-Ga-for-Garza bonanza. Is he good? Yeah, he's a solid pitcher, but he's not the kind of guy that deserves this level of excitement, IMO. He's got a lot of what Lackey had going for him in his FA year. Best guy available. That does not necessarily mean "Guy You Set the World on Fire to Get". Buyer beware. And, yeah, if they did get him, it would annoy the ever loving s*** out of me having him on the team. I hated having to watch him spit 38 times between every pitch when I only caught 5 or 6 of his games a year. I would not look forward to seeing it every 5th day.

It is a weakness, I don't think anyone would argue that it isn't. I contend that it's not as dire as you claim (given the omission of the names I added). Well, if you have made a full analysis, why don't you include it in your post? Seeing you say that makes me think that you are primarily interested in providing confirmation of your opinion (as you stated), and less interested in testing the validity of that opinion by reviewing the credibility of confirming evidence. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to measure twice and cut once prior to making such strong statements about the overall state of something.

Well, that is a different complaint than the one I quoted. I quoted you saying our system was weak because of some guy's ranking list and what players he had listed for some of the higher spots. I wasn't saying that there was no weakness in the farm system, just that the method you used to arrive at the conclusion that the farm is, overall, "weak", isn't a very good one. It's true, most of the kids with better tools/talent are at lower, undeveloped levels. That's going to be the case following acquisitions of prime-time players like Gonzalez (and Victor Martinez only 1.5 years earlier), and deadline roster help like Bedard. I don't think it fair to demerit the system for lack of ready talent when the system has recently been used to subscribe to your preferred philosophy - that the ultimate value to the MLB team is to use their prospects to acquire stars (like Gonzalez and Martinez), or at least established veterans when there is need(like Bedard). If your point is that the farm should produce enough quality prospects to both land stars and provide ready talent to back up the big club, then I think you suffer from unrealistic expectations. Also, I don't think the upper levels are as weak as you are suggesting. Alex Wilson is coming off a very solid year in AA/AAA and will start the year in the Pawtuckett rotation. Brentz is coming off a monster year in A/A+ and will start the year in the OF in Portland. These guys, Middlebrooks, Lavarnway, and Kalish are all realistic expectations of potential help if the big club needs help at their respective positions. Then, there's always to possibility of a highly regarded talent like Ranaudo, Iglesias, or even Tazawa showing improvement and being ready to contribute. I don't think it's anywhere near as dire as you are putting it.

That depends. If this is a ranking that most would agree with, then yes, having those 4 players at spots #4-7 is not good. However, I think most have 3 of those guys well into the mid-teens with Anderson not even in the top-20. This is a bad list to draw a conclusion from.

Now we've really come full circle, as you are telling me how I am thinking. Am clear to call your behavior obnoxious now, or is the double standard absolute?

The roasting is done here, in Texas. Although, the pickling is only slightly underway. My brain only needs one more liter of Ommeggang to achieve full saturation.

E1, you weren't the one I quoted that he was referring to. Anyway, I hope everyone has a Happy Holiday. All the best to you and yours, to everyone on this site.

Well, as to the "knows nothing part", his quote describes that condition as something you've admitted to, and he's right. Do you consider it an insult when someone describes you in a way that you also describe yourself publicly? If so, anything said to you must be an insult. His comments after that state the incredulity he finds in the situation. My comment was intended to share that I too thought it was incredulous and provided my own example of what I found to be incredible behavior. I realize it might not be nice to hear. Unfortunately, I have very little sympathy for feelings when I speak my mind. Lack of sensitivity on my part does not make what I said a personal attack. You know if and when I launch a personal attack on you....you won't have to look for it.

What personal attack? You are reaching.

Where have I insulted him? If it's the "obnoxious", then why does he get a free pass from you for when he did it? He finds it obnoxious when someone tells him how he thinks, and he has a point. Strawmen are annoying, although ex1 does have some ground to stand on here, since after 30k posts, a700 has kind of defined his prevailing philosophy quite well. I find it obnoxious when someone snipes a thread regarding a subject they pay little attention to. He shared his opinion, I shared mine. Only one of us is playing the victim card here.

There is no difference. You fall back onto the lame, "Nice baseball discussion", every time the impact of your smartass comments run their course. You are perfectly fine having the tenor of the coversation drift away from the intended purpose of this board, but only as long as it is on your terms, which is kind of hypocritical.

Right up there with commentary about Hazelbaker's name.

So what if he was in a top-10? The players available to fill out the list had to come from the Sox farm system. Again, every team's top-10 minor league player list is going to have some guys with some serious warts. It's like making a top-10 list of the hottest girls at a Star Trek convention. Sure, there may be a few real gems in there, but consider the selection pool if there are a few you wouldn't poke with your buddy's pole, you know? I mean, that's what this thread is about.....make a list. Discuss your list. The purpose of the thread isn't to find some player who you think will clearly never amount to anything (and you are likely right) and degrade the quality of a team's entire MiLB organization just because he made someone's top-whatever list. No team has a top-10 chock full of blue-chip prospects.

Yeah, landing Gonzalez is the type of thing that you want to do. That said, at some point they could have also traded for Johan Santana by giving up Lester and Ellsbury, which they'd still be trying to recover from at this point. There are no hard/fast rules for these things. Why does Hazelbaker raise such a reg flag for you? I don't see many here touting his future. Is it because he made some scout's top-whatever list? FYI, every team's top-10 list has 3-4 guys that will never make the bigs. There's nothing to see here.

Wins as an analytical is bad enough when used for pitchers, which is discussed ad nauseum in baseball forums across the great world wide web. Applying it to position players might be one of the silliest things I've seen (no offense intended). When you say you got revelation from that stat, I think you've confused it with confirmation - which from the last sentence of of this quote, it appears to be what you were looking for.

Should have been Kemp.