That's right I don't. You are wrong on both counts. That's why your attempt at baiting me have been unsuccessful on this issue and you continue to let me own you. I don't think that I have posted anything positive about Nixon in more than 2 years.
In the 2006 off-season I thought that Drew was way over-priced, and I thought the Sox should have signed Nixon on the cheap for one year and saved themselves $11-12 million until better OF options became available in 2007. The issue was $. It had nothing to do with this "Dirt Dog" issue that you are obsessed with. I was very critical of Drew's performance in 2007. At the end of July that year, he was batting under .250, with 6 Hrs and a .728 OPS. No one was happy with that. In the middle of that summer, I read an article about his son who had a disease or condition that required surgery where they had to break his bones or something horrendous and that he had to be in a full body cast for months. At that point, I realized that something else was probably affecting his play, so I didn't criticize his play for the rest of that year.
So, again you are 100% wrong about both of your assumptions about me being anti-Drew and Pro-Nixon, but you continue to beat that drum anyway. My continued ownage of you on this makes me giggle to myself.
So the FO office will not consider that his advancing age might go hand in hand with an increased probability of injury resulting from physical wear and tear, including his prior injury problems to his knee and wrist? You don't think that would reduce his market value? Well, I am glad that you are not running the organization.