seabeachfred

Based on what?????? I've seen him pitch a number of times which is a helluva lot more than you, mvp or any of the others have and it uis my opinion that while he has a good arm, his mound work needs some adjustent. His fastball is as straight as an arrow and when he pitched for the Dodgers two years ago he was constantly getting behind hitters and then getting lit up. Any good hitter can hit a 95 MPH fastball this lacks movement, just look at Bard last season. Now he does have a good fastball and with experience could be a help to the team, but in my opinion it is as a reliever and not a starter. Any person on this board who even hints that he could become another Pedro Martinez needs his head examined. But, of course, mvp will now say otherwise.

It is still encouraging Sox Sport. Listen, we need all the good news we can get. As for Bard, here's hoping I was 100% off on him.

Lighten up lady and stop taking yourself so seriously. I even said you and SFF were right. That's more credit than you've ever given me.

Sox Sport----When I get back from my walk I will answer your post on the history thread, and I suggest you, Dojii, me and any other history buffs do the same. Seems my one trick pony friend and the Dragon Lady are taking umbridge at the goings-on here, but they are right. Let's do the history over on the new history thread that Palodios put out.

That's interesting to note Palodios and thanks for the update. I have to keep my opinions of Webster to myself since I have never seen him pitch and know very little about him except what I read, like the info you just posted. Notice the bottom of your posts??? NEED PITCHING!!!!!! Well, you're right and what we need is a great one-two punch of horses who are threats to shutout opponents any time they take to the mound. You win with solid starting pitching. I wonder if Webster and Barnes could be the duo for us in the future? To me, DLR is better suited as a reliever.

Again for the fourth or fifth time, the Dodgers did NOT give us their best pitching prospect. He is Zack Lee and he is still with the Los Angelenos. DeLaRosa pitched some for them two seasons back and I saw him pitch on TV a number of times. Pardon me if I say I wasn't overly impressed. Now that was two years ago and he is older and more developed now, but I wonder if his ball is as straight as an arrow still and whether he gets his pitches up and gets tagged? Apparently he still does. I think we will have to wait on this guy and hope he develops further and can finally do something for us down the road a year or two or three. As for Webster, I hope 700 will get a line on how he throws. I've never seen the guy pitch and wonder if he is all hype as well.

I have to admit that I was laughing MFAO when I read your post BSN, but I certainly hope the reports by my friend Ted are not that dismal. I do have to remember the baboon testicle. Mind if I use it sometime if things so South later in the season?

I certainly care Ted and hope you will fill us in on what's going on down there in Florida. I just will keep my fingers tightly crossed and hope that we suffer no major injuries while you're down there. Hearing about the Yankees is bizarre; they are going down like flies in their camp. Today it was Teixeira and it might be Hughes tomorrow. BSN made a parody of what he thinks you'll say and I thought it was funny as hell because I was LMFAO when I read it. You take a tough stand; I certainly know that but I'll let you in on the worst secret around. I don't want anything sugar coated. Let me have plain and to the point. If we look unimpressive tell me; if, OTOH, you see soe things that make for some upbeat feeling on our part be sure to let us know that too. I love to hear good news.

Sox Sport, this is getting interesting as the Civil War buffs are now coming out of the woodwork. Great post. Please, though, do not compare any president to Lincoln. He stands so far above the others that IMHO they would get nosebleeds looking up at him. Grant, though, was very pro Freedmen as was Sheridan. Until the Great Depression African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Republicans. In 1880 when Hancock lost to Garfield, it was the black vote that put Republican Garfield in office. He won the election by less than ten thousand votes You know if a few more people come on this thread with Civil War stories and facts I'm going to suggest we start a separate thread on it.

Pope got the big head when he captured Island No. 10 (no longer exists) early in 1862 that opened up the Mississippi to a thrust downward to the capture of Memphis in June of that year. When brought East to temporarally take the grieving McClellan's spot, was beaten to a pulp in the Second Battle of Bull Run on August 28-29, 1862 that opened up the possibilility of Lee's invasion of the North. Pope was then sent West to fight Guardians and I believe he was in on putting down the Sioux uprising that fall. As for Hood, when he was with Lee in Virginia he comported himself well as an adjunct commander. When he was sent West the water didn't agree with him or something because he suffered one defeat after another, including the loss of Atlanta which almost guaranteed Lincoln's re-election victory two months later. As for Thomas, glad you recognize him. You'd be surprised how many people who think they know about the Civil War, and do in many instances, don't know anything about George Henry Thomas, who, as it happens, never lost a battle and destroyed two Confederate armies.

I agree with that---but here's my question about another thread. Think some of the posters are going to get pissed off about us talking about the Civil War? As soon as I hear something about it I just can't help myself and go off the deep end, just like I do the Red Sox. Still, it's great someone else is on to it as I am. I wish a few others would climb aboard that subject, though I think many of us would have to go the PM route just in case someone gets ticked as us being off topic. What do you think? :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Well alright!!!!!!!!!! We're on the same page here and great to know you're a Civil War fan as well. Yes, Scott saw at the beginning of the war what was needed to end the rebellion. He called it the Anaconda Plan........1. Blockade the Southern Ports--2. Divide the Confederacy along the Mississippi River--3. divide it further through Georgia---4. Capture the Rebel capital of Richmond.........one and two were done pretty much by 1863, three was done by Sherman in late 1864 and four was accomplished in April of 1865. (I wonder if mvp is going to disagree with me on this one too. Probably not. He will not agree either and just keep silent.) What you seem to know well is that the CW was for a long time a political war, and to keep the War Democrats support Lincoln had to appoint Democrat generals like McClellan and Buell. He had to appoint some conservative Republican generals like Rosecrans and Pope, and eventually elevate a Radical Republican like Phil Sheridan. Grant, Sherman and George Thomas, probably the best general of them all, were not politial in the very sense of the word; they became Republican as the war progressed but they were not in the pocket of any of the politicos in Washington. When Grant came East he brought Sheridan with him, left Sherman in charge of the Western Theatre with Thomas as one of his commanders. Within a year the rebellion was crushed..............Again, good to know you love the Civil War Dojii----and for that I will not mention Rolen or that thread again.....promise.

As bad as Burnside was rj, he at least tried to fight. Of course, we all remember the slaughter his army suffered at Fredericksburg in Dec. of 1862, but when he was sent out west to fight on that front he did win a big battle and captured the East Tennessee city of Knoxville in the fall of 1863, then beat General Longstreet when the traitorous general tried to recapture the city. If Britton is like any union g eneral it was George Brinton McClellan who always had an excuse for not fighting, then when he did usually came up with a bad case of the shorts. Good to see some Civil War stuff thrown in here. I am a big CW buff myself.

Spitball, my rant came this time when Dojii kept saying that I said there was tension between Rolen and Baker. I never said that----and the guy kept saying that I did. 700 jumped in only when camp follower mvp jumped in and carried the wood and water for Dojii. Of course, keep in mind that mvp hasn't agreed with one thing I have ever posted on this board---and you can look that up if you doubt it. As for driving off some posters, t hey went on their own Ex1 was a strong personality and he most likely had reasons for leaving and it wouldn't surprise me if he returns when the season begins. As for User, wasn't he knee deep in his studies? Why not use your influence with Doj to stop this damn thread. It has caused nothing but trouble between a lot of us, and in my opinion was a ridiculous to post in the first place. We cannot afford to block our young players by threatening them with over the hill veterans. Middlebrooks must play, when Bradley is ready he must play, when Brentz is ready he must play, when Swihart is ready he must play, and if and when DeLaRosa, Barnes and the young pitchers are ready they must be allowed to take their turns. The time is fast approaching when he have to turn the page and put some new blood on the field. Of course, that is just my opinion on the matter, but maybe you might agree with that. I know mvp won't.

If Rolen is suddenly interested in playing again Jung, that's fine with me as long as it is NOT with the Red Sox. Anyone on this board who thinks he would settle for a backup role on our team is simply out of his damn mind (no name mentioned). A player who has been a regular, and in his case, a star for much of his career, would rarely be content with being a substitute. What this thread has done is start a near war between posters. Dupree suggested that we end this topic once and for all and if all agree I would be more than willing to cooperate.

It is certainly worth looking into any possible deal for Ric Porcello, especially if the Tigers are looking for a closer and we have two of them. The Rangers have Frasor who is not that much of a deal closer and in fact didn't close for them last year. Yes, Bailey was hurt and didn't distinguish himself all that well when he came back but he has the background and past success with his work with the A's. I never look away when a potential deal for a seasoned starting pitcher is bandied about. I just wish Cherington would get involved in this. We might pick up a pretty decent starter, one who is better than at least two of the ones we currently have, and maybe even three of them.

Maybe you ought to take a hiatus after coming out with a thread that was absolutely idiotic in its idea. Bring Rolen in to push Middlebrooks????? I can see you haven't played much baseball or ever did any kind of coaching because if you had you would know that you never bring a veteran used to starting to back up a young promsing player who is counted on to perform......and that's what you suggested. You have right to suggest that and I have right to say it was a dumb idea. Moreover, you still insist that I said there was tension between Rolen and Baker and if you still hold to that you obviously need more bran in your diet. Rolen DID have problems with his managers in Philly and St. Louis and those are facts. The Jan. 8 and 13 articles state that Baker was moving on and no longer had a need for Rolen----and if he really had he could have asked Jocketty to sign the guy back up. He didn't and now he is gone from the Reds-----AND WE DON'T NEED HIM!!!!!!!

True for the most part, but I don't consider Victorino's bloated three year $39 million contract short term. The reason is that most likely Bradley, Brentz and maybe even Swihart might be ready to move up to the Red Sox, and while the latter is not an outfielder who knows if he might be switched to another position---and what if they decide to move Bogey to the outfield? I'm hoping Victorino's bloated contract doesn't turn out to be a yoke around the Red Sox's neck. Still, I would not have traded those prospects for the guys the Jays got. We need to get younger and might have the right players to it with.....if they are given the chance to show what they can do.

What is between your ears Dojii????? Never once did I say that there was tension between Baker and Rolen. I said Baker now didn't want Rolen back, and that article from January 8 that 700 referred to pretty well says most of what I had been saying. It wasn't God's truuth either; it was a statement that was backed up by that Jan. 8 article and the fact that the Reds did not offer Rolen a contract before January 8 to entice him or afterward. Besides, you first brought this topic up with the suggestion that we think of signing Rolen to "push Middoebrooks" and to me that was just plain dumb. You hire a reserve who is used to being a reserve to man such a spot. Rolen has no interest of coming to Boston to be such a factor.......and he shouldn't come here. We don't need him. We have enough reserves with what we have. If we need anything it is another starter.

Have a terrific time down in Fort Myers Ted. Of course, be certain to keep abreast of the two soap operas taking place down there.....As The World Turns On Ortiz' Achillies Tendon, and The Adventures of Daniel Bard's "Comeback". Looks to me that Cherington's mindless two year contract he gave Papi might be another case of a brain misplaced. It is appearing that he might not be ready to start the season and is one step away from having his whole Achilles and his career explode on him and our team. As for Bard, I get the impression the front office wants him to succeed in his "comeback" but I have always believed his collapse last season was the beginning of the end for him. We'll see. Have a great time.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

And Dojii, if you are going to out on a limb be sure you know what the hell you're talking about. I mention NOTHING about Rolen's conflict with Dusty Baker. I don't know whether there was or not. If you were reading this correctly you will have noticed that I said he had problems with Larry Bowa when he played for the Phillies and with Tony LaRussa, one of the greatest managers in the past quarter century, when he played for the Cardinals. It was my opinion that the Reds did not w ant Rolen back because he is not back with them and right now is searching for a place to play, just as it was your opinion that Rolen should be signed by the Red Sox "to push Middlebrooks", which to me is a recipe for disaster. Dupree said this thread should end so this is my last missive on this topic. IN MY OPINION, Rolen would be a bad fix for the Red Sox. We don't need anyone pushing Middlebrooks. That is no way to show confidence in a player we are going to need going on from this point forward.

You're beyond hopeless, just a very sad case of frustration and stupidity bringing up coaching 13 year olds which I haven't done in 50 years. I know if Baker wanted Rolen he would sure as hell prevail on the Reds front office to get him resigned to either a minor league contract or a new Major League one. Since neither was done it stands to reason for someone who can reason that Baker did not want Rolen that badly, more likely, he didn't want him back at all. That's simply common sense 101, but you are so out to lunch that you can't even see it for what it is. You've become pathetic.

Unless Cherington comes clean we most likely never know who we offered or even if there was a serious exchange of prospects mentioned. What I do know is that if our young players prove that they are ready they must not be blocked anymore. If that means sitting the fast fading Victorino or the sloppy fielding and one trick pony Gomes, that's the way it has to be. Give Epstein credit for one thing. When Henry benched Lucchino from on field developments Theo made sure that Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester and Papelbon got their chances instead of some old veterans long past their prime aka, Lucchino types. Now that Larry the Lizard is back in control and using Cherington as his errand boy, we have to hope that these young guys get their chances when they need to instead of almost being buried as Youkilis was until he was 27.

Unless Cherington comes clean we most likely never know who we offered or even if there was a serious exchange of prospects mentioned. What I do know is that if our young players prove that they are ready they must not be blocked anymore. If that means sitting the fast fading Victorino or the sloppy fielding and one trick pony Gomes, that's the way it has to be. Give Epstein credit for one thing. When Henry benched Lucchino from on field developments Theo made sure that Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester and Papelbon got their chances instead of some old veterans long past their prime aka, Lucchino types. Now that Larry the Lizard is back in control and using Cherington as his errand boy, we have to hope that these young guys get their chances when they need to instead of almost being buried as Youkilis was until he was 27.

Once again you're talking out of your ass 78. What was Baker supposed to say...GLAD HE'S GONE? WE DIDN'T WANT OR NEED HIM ANYMORE? Dusty was being classy and politically correct in lauding Rolen. The fact is if he really wanted him back they could have offered him a minor league contract with an invitation to Spring Training. T hey didn't do that and they didn't do it because they want Todd Frazier to play third base and not have Rolen around for a distraction because he would not he satisfied with sitting on the bench. Once again you let your personal feelings clog your brain. You also have spent too much time reading how the Red Sox do it. They are the ones who usually chase a guy out of town with denunciations and bad feelings