rician blast

Not sure I get where you're coming from exactly. If someone says he's fragile, I think that's a fair opinion...he has missed a lot of time during his career due to nagging injuries. I stated earlier that I wasn't sure if that label really applied to him, although he had some low games played numbers earlier on and seems to require some care to stay healthy. When this most recent report about a disc problem came out, I commented that perhaps another poster was right in labelling him fragile...still I did not call him fragile or pussy or anything. If you are upset that even though he's been playing through pain he is not getting the respect that playing through an injury deserves, then you have a valid point. If he has had this thing all year, then I tip my cap to him and appreciate his efforts. I'll say it once agin. I like Drew. I like what he brings to the team. I think he approaches the game as a professional. I'm ok with him playing 140 games per year. While I hope he remains healthy enough to hit that level of games year in and year out, historically I think there is some reason for concern given he's averaged 120 games a year through last year. I really don't think we're that far apart on Drew, to be honest.

anti-christ? I don't think anyone has come on that strong. The bulk of what I've read (and said) here centers around Drew's inability to stay on the field during his career and whether it's exagerrated or not. It's Drew's injury history, not this particular injury, that he's taking a little heat for. I know the AL has the DH and that's got to help a players games played, but Manny has 6 season of 150+ games played, Drew has zero. Since his first full season through the year when he was 33 Manny averaged 143 games played. Drew, from his first full season through last year (at age 31) averaged approx. 121 games played. Manny is 36, Drew is still only 32 still Manny has not been nearly as impacted by injury as Drew. I'd expect him to start feeling his age...at least more so than I would a 32 year old. I've said before, I'm ok with a Drew who gets on the field 140 times per year. But it sure seems like it takes a lot of work to get to that number. Just saying.

I think you have a point IF it is the Yankees philosophy that they're going for it every year and intend to outspend everyone by $70-$80 million and be willing to sacrifice the farm system to some extent. Let's face it, farm systems have evolved, to a degree, into trade bait...perhaps they always have been. I don't think it's solely an issue of being ABLE to spend, but more being willing to spend. But yes, if the Yankees are able AND willing to spend whatever it takes to win, then they should be a contender every year...so does maybe the fact that they didn't make a deal for Santana say that there are other considerations in their decision making process? FYI, I looked to see if I could find the articles in which the 7 of 1o yrs. statements were made. Best I could find is where Larry Lucchino said he thinks the Sox can contend 8 out of 10, and Theo warned that the team might occasionally have to step back from that goal : "You’ve got to keep your eyes on both goals,” Lucchino said. “You can’t go for broke without some longer term perspective and you can’t have a longer term perspective, particularly in Boston, without some kind of annual focus on getting to the postseason. We have to operate on both dimensions every year, and I think we have. There’s a lot of focus on what we’ve done at the major league level and our post-season success and all that but if you look below the surface, we’ve had a pretty good couple of drafts the last couple of years. And commitments to player development.” "That was Lucchino talking, not Epstein. It’s true that Epstein warned of the possibility of needing to take half a step back before the team could take a step forward."

A herniated disk, now. Crunch, what was the "f" word you were using? Maybe it does apply after all, huh?

If you're very comfortable that the team you follow will continually do whatever it takes to be a contender, than I suppose you'll want them to make these big deals, regardless of the risk. When they work out, it's obviously huge in terms of today. When they don't you're assuming the team will simply make other big moves in order to contend, regardless of how it taxes the farm system or the team's financial resources. If, however, you fear that your team has limits in terms of spending and trading away young players, you're more likely to view long-term contracts for big dollars with a bit more skepticism. I think the Sox FO attempts to balance financial issues (maintaining some sort of salary structure and cost certainty while providing its investors an ROI) with winning. Epstein has stated in the past that the team's philosophy is that they can contend 6 or 7 out of every 10years. Those 3 or 4 years where they acknowledge they may not contend are for strengthening the farm system, re-tooling the roster, etc. When there are big $ signings that don't work out, the organization with a philosophy as stated above will not totally abandon their philosophy...something has to give and that something very well could be competetiveness. With this view of the organization, it is totally understandable for a fanbase to want the team to exercise caution when considering trading young talent for proven success when the price tag is so high. There is no right or wrong, none of these deals are no brainers and to understand why an organization does or doesn't go through with a big signing one would really have to be in the know regarding every aspect of the potential deal. We're not in that postion so we do our best to speculate, evaluate and discuss..and that's the best we can do. Back to the deal at hand, considering all I've said above, I applaud the Sox FO for not jumping at Santana if the deal wasn't in keeping with their long and short-term plans. I also think that sometimes FO feel pressed to appease the masses and make a move to excite the fans (see Mets signing of Pedro Martinez, cited by many as the Mets trying to put a big name on the team as they move toward opening a new stadium in the near future and the launch of SNY). Perhaps the fact that so many Sox fans "get it" minimized that variable in terms of the Red Sox considering Santana?

This is purely speculation. No one knows what the ultimate asking price was. Many rumors had Lester as the key pitcher coming back to the Twins. There is absolutely no way to be sure they wanted Buchholz over Lester. You've touched on an earlier point I made with your use of the word "ability." As I said, the Sox may have the ability to take on the risk of a contract like Santana's and the ability to absorb the hit if he falters...but I fear they do not have the WILLINGNESS to take that hit...and if the chips fell such that Santana, or any other pitcher signed to a big deal, busted, potentially they would pull back and not be competetive for a few years as they regroup and recover. You are cherry-picking here, assuming that those three are the ultimate package when, at the same time the names you mention were rumored to be in a potential deal, so were the names Lester and Lowrie and Crisp and I think Delcarmen as well. Read Crespo's post regarding the holes that would have existed had this deal gone down, I think it offers some insight into the concerns that the Sox FO probably considered.

You mean the 71-57 Mets who hold a 2.5 game lead over the, gulp, Phillies over there in AAAA? Yeah, they're a juggernaut alright. FWIW, ignoring for the time being WHIP and ERA and this and that Santana is currently 11-7...Lester is 12-4. Many trade rumors had the Sox giving up a combo of players that included Lester and Lowrie and either Crisp or Ellsbury. Is it your position that if Lester and some combo of these other players had been part of a Santana deal, that the Sox would definitely be at least one game better than they are now? I'm not sold on this theory.

17881, I think you are absolutely entitled to feel that way. For any player to occasionally pull s*** like he did with the Sox is enough to piss someone off, but it is compounded when they go elsewhere, at least to some extent, become a better citizen...especially after saying the Sox don't deserve him. Essentially, in his Sox tenure, we looked the other way because he could hit and probably also because we feared asking him to comply would result in a poorer attitude and reduced performance.

perhaps she's chasing masterson's tool now

The Sox traded for Josh Beckett, moving top talent in Hanley Ramirez and perceived talent in Anibal Sanchez (ignoring Lowell for now). The difference between that and a potential Santana deal? Beckett had already thrown a team on his back in winning the W.S. and was under contract at "only" (if I recall) $4m for '06, $6-7m for '07 and around $10m for '08. HUGE difference.

From age 23 through 27 he averaged 117 games per season. Not great for a young guy. That's fragile. In '04, '06 and '07 he managed to play in 140+, but has never played more than 146 games. That's not fragile, but it ain't being a bull either...and I'm guessing the rising games played is due to him learning to manage his injuries better and the organizations he is with recognizing there are going to be health issues that will likley crop up, so they're taking more preventative measures. This year he's on pace for 137 games (he'd need to play 30 of the next 36 to maintain that pace). Not horrible, but not great for a guy making $14m per year. I think we're talking semantics here, but bottom line is many Sox fans, and probably the Sox FO, inevitably find themselves anticipating/fearing JD's next tweak, pull, pop, break,hang nail or yeast infection. Not saying I don't like the guy, 'cause I do, I just hope he stays in the line-up enough to help the Sox make the playoffs and make a solid run...cuz they need him.

This post is from 3 days ago? How did I miss this jewel? I'm biting my tongue.

I was just going to comment on that. The risk associated with locking into an 8 year deal worth nearly $140m was as much a deterrent to making the deal as the loss of young talent. BTW, anyone remember Mike Hampton? Kevin Brown? How 'bout Denny Neagle, Chan Ho Park, Matt Clement, and Barry Zito?

I was wondering about Bowden too then thought the same thing...i.e. would that be rushing him and going down the same path they just went with Clay? One could make the same case for Craig Hansen, IMO.

Ahhh, the unnecessary use of sarcasm. Perhaps my Betsy Ross comparison was a bit off the mark...we all know she couldn't hit the curve ball...plus rumor has it she was "a little sew and sew." Quoting what was clearly a joke and labelling me uninformed because of that joke is a little weak, though, dontcha think? There are better ways to make your point than through sarcasm Jokes aside, this was my take (not nearly as uninformed as you implied) when I looked at his numbers: Ross is a career .223 hitter, career OBP of .310. His current line of around .230/.380 is well above his norm, and at 31 I'm of the mind that he isn't going to start peaking now...I think he is what he is and that's a very average backup catcher who has had numerous chances to grab a permanent slot with 4 NL teams in the last 4 years but for some reason can't stick. Yes, his numbers are better than Cash (historically and this year) and better than Tek (this year). But I don't recall hearing any glowing reports about his defense (just going on recollection) and it's likely he doesn't call a game as well as Tek, so I'm thinking he'd represent a lateral move in terms of a backup. I'd like to see something more from the Sox FO. That said, is it possible he learns to catch the knuckler, or that Wake is gone after this year and it's not an issue? Sure. And does he, maybe, start to put it together in terms of offense and get to where he can hang in the realm of .230/.350? I suppose so, but don't expect that level of performance. So maybe he works out in the long run...at the moment, however, I don't see it. As one who roots for the name on front of the jersey, with him in the mix, I hope I am totally off base and that the guy flourishes, to the benefit of the Red Sox. JOMHO (just one man's humble opinion)

Nah. 37 yrs old and declining. Still a player with some value, but there are likely options with equal or better talent who are 10 yrs younger than the 37 yr old Loretta. Intriguing player, no doubt, but every time I watch him play he reminds me of a wounded water buffalo being chased by a lion...all gangly and looking like he'll fall apart at any moment. I have this sinking feeling that Vlad is going to enter an era of injury and decline...just based on what I see of him. No to DLowe. Dempster - team option Sabathia-me thinks he's in pinstripes next year Sheets - He's the only guy here I can see as a potential FA acquisition, but like someone said earlier, the plethora of young arms in the Sox organization might preclude the Sox from going after him. That combined with Beckett's looming FA and I think it becomes even less likely. Santana costs approx $17m per year for 8 years...if Sabathia or Sheets gets a contract that long, I think it'll be less per year than Santana's...but if the best they can do is get a 5 or 6-yr deal, they'll be up in that annual salary range (maybe $17m for Sabathia, $15m for Sheets). And if Beckett commands $13-$14m, it'll be awfully tough to justify that much payroll, even though pitching wins.

Anyone see Bolt in the 200m last night? He's neck and neck with a U.S. runner and casually looks over to see how hard the guy is working...and cruises along side, no problem, Mon. The final should be interesting although I think Bolt is the odds-on favorite.

Hey, Pat Healy, how are ya? "Those goofy bastards are about the best thing I've got going."

This a.m. on NESN Eckersly called Buchholz start a "do or die" for him, noting that with days off in weeks coming, there will be some weeks where no 5th starter is needed. With Colon and/or Paul Byrd as 5th starter options, I think there's some validity to Eck's comment. Get it fkn done, Clay.

I think Diana Ross hits the ball better than this f***er. No thanks.

How to get last minute tickets? be a hot girl and give head.