ORS

Really? When I lived off Franconia Rd the older kid across the street went to Edison. This was like 1980. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson HS, off Braddock Rd, was the 10-12 smaht kid school. I tested to go there and got in, but they offered the same cirriculum at Robinson, so I stayed there.

Yeah, we moved from Alexandria to Burke when I was 9.

TC Williams vs. Hayfield on TBS right now.

Thom Jeff, right? Edison was just a regular HS on Franconia Rd close to the elementary school I went to for 1-4.

Franconia Elem (1-4)/Fairfax Villa (5-6) Robinson Secondary (7-12) I used to play Bball for Braddock Rd youth sports leagues. Many, many games and practices at Cardinal Forrest.

West Springfield High School?

I never said he was a world-beater or even a prospect, just that he wasn't terrible.

Going from an elite 40 yd sprinter to an elite marathoner is unlikely. But are we asking Papelbon to improve his endurance by that type of magnitude? The marathon is, get ready for it, 1144 times longer. We want Papelbon to go from an average of 15 pitches to an average of 100+. If you round it up that's 7:1. A more apt scenario would be trying to turn an elite 200-yd sprinter into an elite 1-mile runner. That's certainly possible. And, of course, we are talking about runners here, not pitchers. Endurance is only one variable of what makes an elite SP great. Your examples of Jenks/et al are good ones, but that doesn't mean Papelbon couldn't extend his outings. He wouldn't be 95+ like he is now, but I don't think it outrageous to think he could sit at 92-94 and turn into an elite starter. I agree, it wouldn't be this year, but now we'll never know. I can live with this decision. While I think it's shortsighted, there are good reasons to be in "Go For it Now" mode. I just hope that if they are going for it, they go all out, and don't pull up lame at the deadline if there are, and probably will be, holes to fill before October.

Julio Santana? Sign me up.

If it's any consolation to everyone here, Steve Phillips also picked the Sox to finish 3rd. I, for one, think Gom and Phillips display the same level of smarts.

We'll see. Damon didn't become a 10+ HR regular until he was 24. Ellsbury is 23 this year. I think this year is the most important year in terms of getting a true sense of his power potential. Last was his first full year with wood bats, so the adjustment period should be over.

Terrible? .880 OPS at AA, admittedly as a 25 y/o, the year before he was left unprotected. I think it had a lot more to do with the fact that the D-Back system is loaded and they had bigger/brighter future stars to protect on the 40-man. You should make thebaseballcube.com a link in your favorites menu so you can refrain from putting your foot in your mouth so often.

That's not exactly accurate. He didn't sell it to RSN. A lot more people would be skeptical, myself included, if the medical community offered contrary advice. Since they've, for the most part, supported it, it lends credence to the Sox medical staff's opinion being on the up and up. Here's something I find a little funny. Jacko is quick to cite the "David Eckstein without the talent" quote re: Pedroia, but positive comparisons are immediately dismissed. The Ellsbury/Damon comparisons are coming from the scouts. I would think a guy who seems to value their opinion so much would just let it be. I guess their message only rings true when it's unfavorable for a Sox prospect.

Two of three? Jacko should be doing back-flips if they don't sweep with those pitching matchups.

Repeat of January. Same schools, different sport. Anyone think the Florida AD is having a good year?

Springfield, VA? Stones throw from where I grew up. The kid who served up a meatball that became the hardest hit I've ever put on a baseball lived in Springfield.

This is the meat of your argument? People haven't supported my point, so it must be wrong? Haven't supported yours either, care extrapolate there too? All I know is, when your argument goes to tatters, you employ public opinion (well before it was the Anonymous Army). Since it matters so much to you, why not solicit everyone's thoughts? I'm game.

Nice. Apparently, if they think relieving is more stressful the reports are contradictory, but they are also contradictory if they think starting is more stressful. I guess that is the ideal scenario for someone who is looking for contradiction from the FO. f***ing hilarious. Read what you just wrote. I'm not making this up.

Signs of life from Varitek.

Suspect pitch call to a guy that loves the inside FB. Burrell was sitting dead-red there and he jacked it.

Coco's getting it together at the right time.

I know it's only ST, but he makes the game look so easy. Our 3/4/5 is going to chew pitchers up.

I didn't see the last start 700, but, and take this with a grain of salt because it's coming from message boards, the bottom half of the strike zone was inexistant in that game. Dice-K seems to live right at the bottom of the zone, so that may account for something. Today, he just couldn't throw a strike to the 1st two batters, but has been better since.

Couple-a ribs for Pedroi-er. In the reg. season, would you want Tito to have Crisp steal second in that situation? I have to think the Phils would have IBB'd Pedroia with 1st open and the pitcher on deck.

Not surprisingly, you have a hard time reading. I've never said going back to relieveing is "better" for him, just that, according to the people who have been a part of his shoulder rehab, the risk is reduced. If you can show me where I say it's better, then you'd be right, but you can't and thus continue to lag behind in this discussion. Nobody has flip-flopped, Gom. That is another fabrication of yours due to your inability to pull content from what is written. None of the above have reversed their opinion and said relieving is the lesser risk now. None. What has been stated is that the strengthening program has reduced the risk, and given his quality as a relief pitcher, the reduced risk is worth the value gained. No position change, but a change in variables of risk analysis. This discussion might be worthwhile if you could refrain from fabricating opinions I have expressed. You do this time and time again. Sorry, but that's just not how it works. You have to debate what I have said, not what you want me to have said so that it fits your point. I'll tell you, this is all kind of disappointing. I was under the impression we were going to get, what was it, some enlightenment from you Gom. Still pretty dark in here.