a700hitter

I thought the Sox were picking up almost the entire salary. How much were they agreeing to eat? That's not a rhetorical question.

In recent years (since 2004), the only year that I can think of where we didn't start the season with one or more of these retreads was 2007. Teams that enter the season in that crap shoot position don't win Championships. They just don't. The good news is that we don't have any of those yet that the FO is expecting to play a role on the major league team. If we start seeing those acquisitions, then it will be rough going.

Re-signing him after 2007 has turned out to be a bad move. Now, we can't even unload him while paying his salary.

Wang being floated as an intriguing possibility. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/12/wang_would_be_a.html Sure throw $5 million at him. Sounds like a low risk high reward opportunity. Not.

... and Example is a little too much in love with Theo. He will not allow questioning of Theo's moves or motives.

If a question is so bad that you are not allowed to ask them it on cross-examination when you are allowed to treat the witness as being hostile, then it is a pretty bad question. Although this is not a court of law, a question that can't pass the low bar of cross examination where hostility is acceptable, it shouldn't be asked in a civil discussion outside a courtroom. I realized that you were calling me on the fact that Kilo only asked one of the questions, and I acknowledged it in my post, but since you brought it up, I took the opportunity to tell you what I though of those questions. You should have stopped the mind-numbing discussion several post ago, because just inflamed the situation without accomplishing anything. .

If you can't see that those two questions are what would be called argumentative, then you are not as smart as I thought you were. Those questions would not be allowed on cross-examination, because they are objectionable as "argumentative." If Dipre were here, he could back me up on this point. They are in the vein of the textbook argumentative question that we learn in Law School: "When did you stop beating your wife?" Asking if I think Theo sits around and does nothing is argumentative and does not lend itself to a full discussion of any issues. Sorry that you can't see that. BTW I answered both of your argumentative questions several posts ago. The answers were no and no. So, as you can see that I answered those ridiculous questions and was not dodging anything. Here's one for you: Do you think Epstein wears a halo? Do you see how ridiculous that is? It's just as ridiculous as you asking me if I think that Theo sits and does nothing. BTW I wouldn't answer a valid question if it were included in a post that starts with a personal insult, nevermind an argumentative question following an insult. That's just me. If you want to talk, don't start with an insult. I'm not saying that you insulted me, but those questions which were almost identical in their offensiveness were initated by another member in a post where he was defending a personal insult against me. It was only because you asked them that I answered them at all. Again, the answers were no and no.

Both questions were in the same vein. I am aware that he asked only one of them. They were both ridiculous, and I was surprised that in your post you had repeated his question and asked the second one.

Read the thread. I was asking a ridiculous question in response to these two ridiculous questions that I was asked: I believe that you originally asked these questions, and yes they are ridiculous. Unless you want to discuss baseball or football today, again I'm telling you to piss off.

First of all, if you were to check the "What do you do?" thread, he describes his occupation as "freeloader", so I was just reminding him of how he described himself. Secondly, that post was in response to an unprovoked insulting post, i.e, I was defending myself. Nevertheless, you decided to throw in and defend the unprovoked attack. Piss off

Would he ask it if he knew? If you don't want to answer his question, why do you feel it necessary to type out an insult? I thought that you are supposed to be the voice of reason. Start acting like it.

This is what I feared the minute they traded Lowell. Everyone knows how I feel about Kotchman. There are so many options at 1B that are better than him. Let's face the fact, he is a bottom of the order hitter, with little or no power and Fenway will kill what little power he has. He's the slowest non-catcher on the team now that Lowell is gone. I can't see how they want a slap hitting lead foot in the lineup at any postion, nevermind first base where there are lots of power options. I guess he would platoon with VMart at 1B when he needs a rest from catching. The trickle down effect of a platoon with VMart is that we will probably see Tek behind the plate for about 60-80 games. This type of platoon rotation will weaken the team offensively from where it was at the end of 2009.

I agree.

This doesn't sound good. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/12/frustrated_bay.html I'm hoping we don't see a platoon of Hermida and Gomes. If Gomes would be platooning with Hermida, who would be available to play for Drew when he is on the rag.

Which way would you like to see them go, or is that fluid too? If you don't have an opinion on the issue, I'd find that more than a little funny in light of your "We're Gonna get King Felix" drum that you beat in August and September during a pennant race. That was a pretty strong opinion, so I am hoping that you have an opinion on this, or are you opinions limited to agreeing with the FO after their moves have been completed? Since the train has left the station regarding reading comprehension, I'll give you a little clue. The "nugget(s)" about which I would like to get your thoughts almost always have a question mark at the end. Note, that there is no question mark after the prior sentence, so I am not asking for your thoughts about it.

When they make a trade, I assume nothing, because I would have no evidence to back up the assumption other than managements own statements. When they make a trade, I analyze what the trade does for the team.

No luck. In the past I have found that the # of tabs don't seem to help.