a700hitter

Don't be so sensitive. Spud and I are good buddies here and on FB and he yawns at me too every so often. He's a good barometer to let us know when we are getting tedious. At least he doesn't look to shut down the discussion like others do.

You should get a second opinion.

I doubt that he has sought help. If you put down stakes in Vegas, you are not interested in giving up gambling. He is pulling down a ton of money each year from personal appearances Vegas, and his gambling has never caused him financial hardship, so he probably doesn't think it is a problem except for his baseball ban which he probably attributes to bad luck in getting caught. That is how degenerate gamblers think.

Maybe it is the Traditionalist in me that just says Yuk!

This much tougher on Hanley and his attitude than anything posted on TalkSox. I am very concerned about this years' defensive experiment. It is a horrible legacy left by Ben http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2016/01/29/yes-hanley-ramirez-still-the-red-sox-plan-first-base/KWmf8Qj6aFPiOkIVmCIIMO/story.html?p1=takeover

But you understand the rationale in signing Pablo, so it is only a bad move in hindsight. Ben is not to blame, because it was a Larry move.

I agree. I don't recollect much in the way of attacks on his character from TalkSox members -- certainly nothing that would rise to the level of giving him a "bad rap." The biggest rap against him is that he stinks as an OFer -- one of the worst that I have seen. Only Daniel Murphy can challenge him in that category. Being a bad OFer is not a character rap.

And because I have had the cable baseball package since year 1, I listen to broadcasts from every team. Jerry imo is the top color analyst in the game. He is very instructive about what is going on in the game without over analyzing. So many color guys, overdo it by analyzing ridiculous minutiae that adds nothing to the broadcast or they are repetitive with their pet issues. Jerry walks the perfect balance, plus he is very entertaining. When he was out sick, none of his replacements could fill his shoes.

He has made a career out of being an outcast by selling memorabilia like crazy, mainly in Las Vegas- because he is a degenerate gambler. There is gambling for fun and then there are degenerate gamblers. Rose has always been a degenerate gambler. He did not play fantasy sports or bet some games for fun. He bets on everything and anything. He would bet on a cockroach race. That is why he has never been reinstated. His gambling was and still is out of control. I do agree that being banned from getting a job in baseball has been a punishment, but a delay in making the HOF is not a punishment.

Yeah, I know. Just wanted to set the record straight.

I will keep an eye out for Sam Travis.

Will either of them be at the big league camp in March?

Okay, no reply because you want to keep your goalposts mobile. LOL! You can never be wrong if you never take a stance.

Jerry is aces. During Spring Training at the old facility at City of Palms Park fans would stand up on the seats in the last row in front of the announcers' booth and roll him baseballs between innings which he always signed. I never saw him leave his chair between innings to avoid signing or to wave anyone off.

I am not sure whether he should be banned or not, but letting him in after 25 years isn't like serving a sentence. It doesn't matter whether a player becomes a Hall of Famer on the first ballot or by vote of the old timers committee. They all receive the same distinction. If the baseball establishment decides that Rose needs to be punished, it has to be a lifetime ban-- a delay is not a punishment.

I have no problem with Hanley. I had a big problem with Ben signing him for big bucks for 4 years to play a position that he had never played without knowing whether he could make the transition. That was an obvious train wreck from day one of Spring training. I saw it first hand and sent up warning flares about it here on TalkSox. I am unsettled about whether he can play 1B, and if that defensive experiment fails, it can wreck 2016. I was hoping that he would get moved to avoid that, but I have no problem with Hanley. He seems like a fun guy.

Being a jackass has always been a Clemens hallmark.

The Abraham's statement doesn't say which of the bad moves may have come from above. They all look bad at the present.

It seems to me that you often talk out of both sides of your mouth with the "I can understand the rationale behind the deal." Usually you make that argument to exonerate the GM from criticism, because you argue that the deal was only bad in hindsight. Just for the record, I don't think any GM makes any significant deal without some rationale. After all, he has to sell it to his boss. I don't think they are picking names out of a hat. That doesn't change a bad deal into a good deal imo. I don't want to misinterpret what you have been saying so let me see if I can get this right for proper context for future discussions. Feel free to edit. Sandoval -- you didn't like the deal, but you could see the rationale so not a bad move by Ben? Hanley -- You didn't like the deal, but we needed offense so you could see the rationale (not a bad move by Ben). With regard to both of these moves, these were LL moves so Ben is blameless based on Peter Abrahams' stated consensus of unnamed sources? Porcello extension -- you admit that it is a bad deal at the present time, but you understand the rationale and think that this deal will produce good value. You are convinced that unlike Pablo and Hanley, that this was a Ben deal. No proof on that one. Lackey -- I am confused on this one. You think that it looks like a terrible deal right now, but again you could see the rationale at the time of the deal, so not Ben's fault. You are still hopeful that this trade will produce value.

It would be a 1 year commitment. It would be an extra $2.7 million on the base contract. It would be an expensive dumpster dive, but I don't think Lee suits up for chump change.

Speaking of #2's, what do people think about Cliff Lee? He would be a very expensive dumpster dive and a very risky move. If he would take a deal very heavily weighted with incentives, would you give him a $9 million plus incentives deal? We threw away $9 million on Masterson last year.

Be honest, you have hated Ben since he slighted you when he dropped you from his Christmas card list.

Almost very move made last year was bad. She is dividing the moves up along the lines of those she likes (Ben Moves) and those that she doesn't like (LL moves), but to clarify they are all bad. She just expects the Ben moves to work out.

She likes the Porcello move and has long argued about understanding the rationale of the Lackey trade.

I am writing one.