Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

a700hitter

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    70,232

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by a700hitter

  1. a700hitter
    Each of those other guys was Willie Mays compared to 2015 Hanley... seriously.
  2. a700hitter
    When David Ortiz is your DH, any other acquired bat has to be able to play a position.
  3. a700hitter
    It is astonishing to think that $88 million was invested on this basis.
  4. a700hitter
    It wasn't worse. Both pitchers faced 12 batters both allowed 9 base runners. And Bard didn't even make 8 of them earn their way on. He walked 6 and hit 2. Beckett walked only 2. I am pretty sure that the author of the article that I cited would have been able to find a 2006 start by Beckett. So, now that you are clear on the criteria; i.e Base runners allowed/batters faced, go fish. Let me know if you find anything later than 1923.
  5. a700hitter
    Your mind is mush from your recent trios. The factoid dealt with Red Sox starters, not all starters. Here is an article that I found from around that time. I am still pretty sure the 1910's were mentioned, but this article claims that you have to go back only to 1923: http://fenwaypark100.org/2012/06/04/of-bard-and-odoul-and-ehmke/
  6. a700hitter
    No wrong again. It is just an article that I found. They factoid communicated at the time was that it was the worst Red Sox start since some time in the 1910's. Apparently, there had been a worse start. This link presents a different factoid altogether.
  7. a700hitter
    I still can't find the reference to the 1910's but I did find this: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8134086/handing-baseball-midseason-awards
  8. a700hitter
    That is what they said at the time. There are two reasons that I remember that factoid. First, is that it was a traumatically bad start. I tend to remember lots of details about traumatic things I have witnessed. Second, the factoid also was surprising to me. I mean the 1910's... goodness? But I stand by my recollection.
  9. a700hitter
    I hope that if it was me, that I wasn't too harsh. You were way ahead of the curve. It didn't take me too long to get very concerned about the acquisition. While I was at Spring Training, I did warn that he was going to be a problem in the field. I didn't think his hitting would be such a nonfactor, especially after his 2 Homers on Opening Day.
  10. a700hitter
    We need to keep reminding you as your mind has clearly been scrambled by your recent sexual escapades. Heck, you had no recollection of 2012 and Bard's epic fail game. You had to look it up and still couldn't comprehend the significance of the fail. I'm here to alert everyone when Pablo falls on the resin bab or the foul line and comes up looking like a powdered donut or a zepole.
  11. a700hitter
    Mets playing Home Run Derby tonight. They have 6 home runs in the 5th inning.
  12. a700hitter
    Rusney with a 2 out 3-run Home Run. Red Sox up 3-1.
  13. a700hitter
    Hopefully, DD can find a way to send a couple of our starters to Japan.
  14. a700hitter
    As I have said, Ells deal is hard to swallow, but we wasted $170 million on Hanley and Porcello. People think there is time for those deals to work out. I think they are a sunk cost. Porcello is at best a #4 pitcher not worth $20+ million/year and Hanley is a waste. If we kept Ells and didn't sign those 2 bums, we would have an OF of Betts, JBJ and Ells plus $28 million saved to go along with the $72 million spent on Castillo who wouldn't be needed. That would be $100 million to spend on pitching. If we let Ells walk and used $156 million to retain Lester, we would have an OF of Betts, JBJ and Castillo with Lester spearheading our staff. Either scenario, is better than the direction which Ben went -- 2 contracts that are albatrosses for players who will contribute very little.
  15. a700hitter
    Game time: 8:10 EDT (7:10 CDT) Joe Kelly vs Jeff Samardzija Go Red Sox! Shut up the Hawk!
  16. a700hitter
    it would assure disaster. I also agree with Kimmi that we can't have 2 rookies in the rotation. Unless they are this generation's Kerry Wood and Mark Prior, two rookies in a rotation always ends up with a noncompetitive team. The only way we could be competitive with 2 rookies would be if we get 2 top shelf starters. As you point out, we will still have Miley, Porcello and Buch. There is no room for two top of the rotation pitchers and two rookies. We have room for one rookie and on top starter. I would let our kids compete for 1 job and the other 2 would be depth options as Kimmi said. We need to bring in a top of the rotation guy-- at the least. I would prefer getting rid of Buch or Porcello and adding 2 pitchers by trade or free agency. That would make us a genuine contender.
  17. a700hitter
    It was never an either/or proposition. An OF of Betts, JBJ and Ells would have been speedy and dynamic. Also, opposing batters would have trouble finding hitting gaps. Too clarify, I am not saying that paying Ells a huge contract was the right move. I am just pointing out that the different direction taken by the FO has been just as expensive and a big failure. Two years into Ellsbury's deal, we have done nothing with those savings to improve our team. Those bad decisions and contracts will take us through to the last year of Ells contract, so I view it as a total squander unless one or both of Hanley and Porcello turn it around.
  18. a700hitter
    ^ This. The economics were out of whack in most people's minds. It was impossible to see the value for a guy that lands on the DL so regularly. Unfortunately, Ben took the money that was saved on Ells plus more and squandered it on Hanley and Porcello.
  19. a700hitter
    It may be time to bite the bullet and realize that Matt Barnes is another Craig Hansen.
  20. a700hitter
    If the extension was not signrd, we never would have had to look at him after this season. The whole extension is a bungle before it starts.
  21. a700hitter
    They redeploy the payroll. And Ben kept the payroll as one of the highest. As high priced players left, he redeployed the funds very poorly. We saved no money by getting rid of the guys who walked. The money $170 million spent on Hanley and Porcello could have been spent on keeping either Lester or Ells. Either one looks better than the garbage we have in the 2 guys we signed. It is just a very poor use of massively large sums of money.
  22. a700hitter
    The front end of the Porcello and Hanley contracts are looking quite bad.
  23. a700hitter
    JBJ with another booming extra base hit.
  24. a700hitter
    The money saved was redeployed for Porcello. Money is fungible.
  25. a700hitter
    Well then you are arguing with yourself. I haven't said that signing Ellsbury was the right move. I just said that Ben would not have done worse if he did resign him. He spent $82 million on Porcello and $88 million on Hanley for a total of $170 million for 2 complete wastes. That is how he redeployed the money saved on Ellsbury. That is a huge failure. A squandered opportunity.
×
×
  • Create New...