a700hitter

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.

I get your position. The moves that you like you think were Ben moves and the moves that you don't like you attribute to others. I think that is unreasonable.

I have no doubt that he will bounce.

You can't have it both ways. You throw bouquets at Ben for the moves you like and blame LL or JH for the moves you don't like. That doesn't sound like a rational operating model. Ben was either making the moves and the recommendations or LL was running the show. If you claim that LL was making the personnel decisions, basically Ben was a puppet, not the GM. @ Username with the douchery comment. You are the biggest douche here. You need to stop. I hope that wasn't a subtle insult or veiled in any way. @Username -- as far as your accusation of making things up, I am just assuming that Ben had the responsibilities of a GM. I am not the one cherry-picking the bad moves to exonerate him or elevate him. That is making stuff up. Also, please respect the ignore feature and stop taking free potshots at me that I don't see unless someone else posts them. It is not in the spirit of the ignore feature. The Ignore feature is not there to give the ignored poster free reign to take unanswered potshots.

Leyland would not be permitted in Fenway because he smokes cigarettes.

DD should clean house. Three last place finishes in four years cannot all be hung around Ben's neck. The organization has been a failure on many levels over that period. The biggest deficiency has been the inability to scout or develop top quality pitching.

Yankee Stadium's right field is a joke and a mockery of the game. It is a good dimension for Slow pitch Softball.

Unnamed executives. Was this such highly sensitive information that each of the execs needed to be off the record? Maybe Abrahams just needed to put something in a column. But like I said before, if you are right, Ben was a puppet, not really the GM. It is impossible to evaluate the performance of a puppet.

Mo is the first weight challenged Red Sox guy that pops to mind and he dropped like a stone at age 30.

I don't doubt it either, but the quote was not about that. I doubt that the projected standings influence any FO in any meaningful way.