RobZombie

To be fair the Red Sox under Theo so far, have not done a good job of developing Latin players or any hitters who have great tools but no idea how to use them. Its certainly possible that the Sox aren't doing a good job of developing these players. But to turn it around and say try to imply that Lugo had even close to the type of first half that Youkilis had is simply outrageous. Saying that Latin players aren't treated properly in the Sox system is one thing, and who knows it might be valid. But turning that into some sort of hatred for every white player who takes walks, while falling in love with every player who comes from Spanish speaking country is taking it too far.

Scaffolds- With all due respect. I completely agree that tools and projection should be taken into account when evaluating prospects. But it seems that you dismiss production entirely. Jed Lowrie is currently putting up an OPS that is 150 points higher than Chiang's and has a walk to strikeout ratio that is more than 4X as high. Not to mention that he's doing this two levels higher than Chiang is. Its ludicrous to dismiss this regardless of the hitting mechanics of both players. Once a player gets to the high minors production has got to be paramount. If Jed Lowrie keeps hitting the way he's been hitting, he will have gone a long way towards answering all of the questions about him. How exactly does a guy like him have questions and a guy with a .25 BB/K ratio not have questions? A few years ago you were famously quoted as saying that Kevin Youkilis would soon be passed by Heirberto Guzman and Chad Spann. Fast foward to today, and Spann can't handle AAA, never mind the majors, and Guzman is out of baseball. Meanwhile Youkilis was the first half MVP for the major league team! As recently as last season you said that Spann should be the 3B over Youkilis, and earlier this season you said that Hinske should start to replace Youkilis as 1B. Meanwhile Hinske can barely hit his weight! You also said that Dustin Pedroia was like "Mark Loretta". As it turns out, Pedroia is a much better player than Lorretta both offensively and defensively. You were wrong again. Meanwhile you have championed several players who couldn't even break past AA (Arias, Guzman, Gamble). How can your evaluations be trusted when you are consistantly wrong. In the end, a scout has to be accountable by the accuracy of his evaluations. In your case your record is quite poor over a substantial time period. When asked about this, you ducked the subject, why? You have even been quite snooty about your position in the game, calling into question the baseball knowledge of those who disagreed with you. Why should we listen to the evaluations of someone who has been wrong as often as you have. I appreciate your response.

In general I like Scaffold's list. But you HAVE to give some credit to guys who are putting up strong numbers especially if they are doing it in AA or above. That's where I think a guy like Jed Lowrie gets underrated. Tearing the cover off the ball in AA puts you above a guy who's not doing that well in low A, no matter their differing hitting mechanics. Lowrie HAS to be considered a better prospect than Chi right now. You have to rank Masterson higher too, because he has relatively outperformed guys like Chi and Place. A question was asked of you before Scaffolds as to why we should take you seriously, when you have touted players that performed poorly while dissed players that have performed well and recommended that they be thrown away. I understand that you think it is unfair that it seems that if the choice is between a Latin player performing badly and a Aussie performing badly that the Aussie gets the nod. But you still have to answer for touting so many players that have turned out badly while advising that the Red Sox throw away players who have gone on to become productive major leaguers.

I think Francona has done an excellent job. Most moves that a manager makes don't make a difference over the course of a season. Don't pitch to Vidro with the game on the line? Who are you supposed to pitch to? Vidro sucks. You can't judge a manger by in-game strategy. Where a manager can make a difference is in the use of his players. Use players too much, they wear out. Use them too little, you miss out on their resurgence. The Red Sox despite not playing well of late are among the top teams in baseball. Francona is the only Red Sox manager to win the World Series or to take his team to the playoffs two years in a row. The Sox seem likely to make the playoffs this year, so he'll be the first to make it 3 of 4. Its completely unfair to say that sweeping the Devil Rays is the players responsibility, but getting swept by Detroit is the managers fault. But I think we know that the team would be worse if Scaff were the manager. If he were the manager, Hinske would be playing 1st all the time and Youkilis would be ridding the pine. Where would they be if that had happened?

Scaff- To blame David Magadan for the Red Sox not scoring runs is simply ridiculous. The Padres may have fired Magadan, but they aren't scoring that many runs this year with a different hitting coach. The big problem is that they aren't hitting for power. They are 7th in SLG. Is it Magadan's fault that Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz are having sub-par power years? Both guys are stars in the majors and have been around for several years. To use a hitting coach as an excuse for guys like that is simply rubbish. As for the hit and run and stealing...do you really think that the Sox would be scoring a ton more runs if they hit and run more? That approach can lead to double plays as we saw the other night. There isn't a player on this team other than Lugo or Crisp that you want stealing every time up. How does it help the Red Sox if Dustin Pedroia takes off more often. Really Scaff with Youkilis' emergence as a star, despite your insistance that he was a bench player I'd say your credibility is pretty much shot.

Getting back to the topic of the thread at hand. Julian Tavarez has a couple of good pitches with movement that allow him to get ground balls. If he's able to do this as he was somewhat last September he should be less than terrible which is what the Sox need. Usually guys with sinkers pitch on feel. They need to pitch a lot to pitch well and Tavarez hasn't pitched on regular rest yet. I think that Tavarez at least needs a few starts on regular rest before fans start to scream for his head. I know that Sox fans aren't the most patient in the world, but sheesh give the guy a few starts on regular rest before calling for his head.

Dana why don't you give the 07 team a chance at least more than five games before you start judging them based on your gut feeling. Lets remember that the 04 team played .500 ball for a large chunk of the season. There were certainly times when my gut feeling about them wasn't very good. Especially after they got swept in NY in June. The 03/04 Red Sox were very fortunate that they were able to get three good players at rock bottom prices (Ortiz, Mueller, Millar) due to a recession that put prices down throughout baseball. Players of similar stature (especially Ortiz) would not be available at such low prices today.

If he blows his arm out in April then Papelbon is in really really bad shape to begin with.

Your examples of Jenks/et al are good ones, but that doesn't mean Papelbon couldn't extend his outings. He wouldn't be 95+ like he is now, but I don't think it outrageous to think he could sit at 92-94 and turn into an elite starter. I agree, it wouldn't be this year, but now we'll never know. No it doesn't mean its impossible. It just means the odds are long. With the analogy of the runners. Yes it does happen where top 100 yard sprinters become top medium distance runners, but its very difficult to do. Also remember that Papelbon's splitter isn't as effective if he doesn't have the plus plus fastball anymore. So we are talking about him developing another plus plus secondary pitch if he's going to be a top starter throwing in the low 90s. Again while possible, its very tough to do. If the Red Sox are reasonable they have to weigh unknown outcomes. The probability that he's going to become an elite starter versus the probability (which is as close to certain as you are going to get in baseball) that he'd be a top closer. It also matters how long it takes for this to happen. In my opinion the chances of Papelbon becoming an elite starter are low enough that it doesn't make sense to try him out as a starter. That doesn't mean that the odds are ZERO...it just means they aren't high enough to risk throwing away the season.

Your examples of Jenks/et al are good ones, but that doesn't mean Papelbon couldn't extend his outings. He wouldn't be 95+ like he is now, but I don't think it outrageous to think he could sit at 92-94 and turn into an elite starter. I agree, it wouldn't be this year, but now we'll never know. Remember that his split finger wouldn't be as effective if he was throwing in the low 90s. So yeah he'd have to develop another plus pitch to be an elite starter. Of course anything is possible and he's got a better chance of becoming an elite starter than Abe Alvarez but that doesn't mean he's going to do it. The Red Sox have to look at what the chances are that Papelbon would ever become an elite starter versus the chances, which are as high as they can be, that he will be an elite starter. I'm sure you do the same thing when you are going to Vegas and making expected probability bets. Bottom line is that for a pitcher like Papelbon who currently is showing trouble maintaining his velocity...its very difficult to turn that around especially at age 26 no matter how hard you train.

It really had more to do with that they didn't think he could play. Again for very good reason statistics aren't the only thing used to evaluate players who haven't played a day in the majors. I don't think they'd made the Glaus trade for Hudson when the time to protect him came. I for one am highly skeptical of Dan Uggla. His EYE ratio was just horrible. I don't see how he can sustain a high enough BA to be as good as it was. Trust me if you think a guy can help you in the majors in short order, you can always find a spot for him without having to let go of your future stars. There are always guys on the roster who are fungible. They let him go because despite his gaudy OPS #s in AA the previous year, they didn't feel he was a prospect. As far as Natale goes, I'd have to say that despite his gaudy OPS numbers I'm not terribly impressed either. We are talking about a guy who will likely not able to adequately field an infield position and will end up as an OF/1B type. That's fine if he continues to hit at a .950 OPS clip, but I don't think he will once he faces better pitching.

I just really can't stand that guy....he thinks he's a surfer guy because he slurs his words and thinks he's cool. He has absolutely nothing interesting to say. What does it say about a guy that is famous because he convinced a quarterback to mock attack him on TV.

When exactly would this new training occur? I'd assume that he already trained in the off-season. Besides as you know, throwing a baseball harder isn't just about getting stronger. Some people need to exert more effort to get the same velocity even if they are built the same. There's a reason why a guy like Daniel Bard can throw 100 MPH free and easy and some guys have to put in the maximum effort just to throw 95. It isn't just because Bard trains more, or is in better shape, or has a stronger arm. His pitching motion allows him to hit this velocity with the same effort it would take most of us to play catch. Do you also have evidence that pitchers gain in velocity as the season wears on and they pitch more innings then they ever have before? I'd think that if anything they lose velocity. With Papelbon you are talking about him having to add about 10 MPH to his fastball in the later innings at age 26. You just can't do that by training extra. Or perhaps you'd like to name five guys that have done so in their mid 20s? Guys who aren't steroid users. Or perhaps you'd like to also like to send me to a credible website that tells me that throwing more can increase your pitching endurance. You make it seem as though Papelbon can easily add 10 MPH to his fastball just because you gained some muscles in whatever thing you were doing. It simply doesn't work that way. Gaining some muscles in boot camp, or redeployment camp is simply not the same being able to maintain your velocity after throwing 50 pitches.

Its not a swing and a miss at all. You increased your activity by a large amount its quite simply not the same as a professional athlete who has been working out daily and preparing pretty much since he was 10. Jonathan Papelbon isn't going to go to boot camp anytime soon. That you think that a marine increasing his activity 10 fold has any relevance to a professional athlete just proves that I was giving you way to much credit in thinking that you were manipulative and not dumb. As far as your other posts go. I'm happy to respond to why I don't agree that you were putting your life on the line for me and why I have ZERO respect for anyone who chose voluntarilly to go and kill people in the name of the flat. But its not relevant to baseball. If there is an off topic thread direct me to it and I'd be happy to tell you why what you did is NOT noble or brave. You've done nothing but enhance my contempt for members of the armed forces if indeed you did serve. Oh yeah....and as for your little edit...if in fact "everyone here knows you served". Its pretty obvious that you bring it up a lot. If you do its seems to me that you are doing so to try to tell people that you are noble and rightious and therefor other posters should respect your opinion even if its complete hogwash. And besides, it doesn't make you any sort of authority on baseball. Call it sickening if you want but I if it walks like a duck and it quacks its a duck.

I don't believe he really did serve period. I think he's just saying...I'm a marine so I am right. Doesn't make it so.

It just feels that way because you are getting your hat handed to you. So lets keep track... Having my hat haded to me entails: #1 Getting told that using a source proves that my argument was false. Then like a child jumping up and yelling "point me". #2 Trying to use that you were a marine to support your argument about Papelbon which is of course irrelevant. #3 Telling me that it doesn't matter that two sources on several occasions have said that Papelbon can't maintain his velocity into the later innings. Then denying that it ever happened...because "my recollection is better than yours" Please that's not handing my hat to me...that's just proving that you are in love with the player and get angry if someone questions his abities Do you really think that if the Red Sox thought they had a contender for the Cy Young award on their hands that they would have put Papelbon in the bullpen? Do you think they would have done it if the chances were even 50/50? I doubt it. Perhaps the reason is because they also think that Papelbon's chances of being a top pitcher aren't as good as you think. Really just because you insult people, and yell "point me" doesn't mean you are winning an argument. It just means you are a loser who is upset because someone insulted your boyfriend.