Dojji

I do not understand the fascination with Justin Upton. He was never coming to Boston in the first place, and even if he was, he's NOT THAT GOOD. Not horrible by any stretch, but not a guy who makes or breaks a franchise.

I'd prefer Nava to Sweeney to be perfectly honest. He's a better hitter by a fair margin, even with the second half crapfest factored in. Look past the detritus of past arguments and actually analyze the two players. Sweeney doesn't really suck any less than Nava by any standard you want to use. And we've seen Nava do things over a stretch of several weeks that Sweeney can't touch offensively. The only thing Sweeney brings to the table over Nava is the ability to play a mediocre center field. Since we already have Victorino and Ellsbury and Bradley in the wings, I'd prefer Nava's OBP ability. And if Nava gets it going again like he did in the first half, which he has the talent to do, it's not going to be close. Since Gomes is probably our starting left field, we could use someone who can get it done on the left side of the plate. Even with the second half suckfest, Nava finished with a ~.800 OPS from the left side. That makes him useful. I'd prefer a guy like Garrett Jones who's a bit more versatile, but in his absence, I think Nava has the inside track on that bench job, and I think given the structure of our outfield, that's appropriate.

In 03 sure, they built for the home run. As time went on though you saw a slight change in strategy, and I think the 07 team was built not so much around pitching, defense and the 3 run HR, as pitching, OBP, and the two run double. Lot of 15-20 HR, 35-40 double hitters in that lineup. Lowell, Pedroia, Youk all spring to mind pretty quickly as hitters who created more runs by means of a double off the monster than a big fly. Considering that Fenway is an OK power park, but THE premiere doubles park in the nation, I can get behind the strategy.

Selection bias. We get to watch the highlights of every time smallball actually works for other teams, and get to watch every time it succeeds or fails here. Since smallbail always fails to produce a run significantly more often than it succeeds (as does every method of run creation) the impression created is that everyone is better at small-ball run creation than we are. Every team has the same perception issues within its own fanbase. Personally I don't care that much about smallball, except that I'd ask the team to be willing to try it down close and late like any team would. I consider the concept a bit overrated as a backlash to the concept of moneyball, and that makes me reluctant to take it seriously. Beyond that, I only have two questions from a team. First, how are you going to create runs? And I find here that it's almost better to have one winning strategy, nail it down, bring it home and make it yours, than to be able to score in multiple ways. I don't give a toot if your team is fast or slow, if you're playing an OBP and doubles offense in a doubles park, like we did in 03-07. you will score runs. If you play a home run offense in a home run park, you will score runs. And if you play a shooot-the-gap-and-run offense in a shoot-the-gap-and-run park, like the big ones out west, you'll score runs there too. Just have a strategy and know how you're going to get the players you have to carry out that strategy. The method itself makes surprisingly little difference as long as your players can execute it. An second and just as obviously, how are you going to prevent runs? This is where I think this team has dropped the ball since at least 08. They simply never manage to replace what they lost when Curt Schilling was done, and the defense has gotten worse and not better. This is the one area where I really agree with SoxSport. The team needs to recommit itself to playing a complete defensive game, and not just think "his bat makes up for his glove." On. Every. Position.

In a vacuum, yes. However, I can definitely see an argument in this specific instance because the kid needs to rebuild his durability. It's harder to control the innings of a great pitcher in the majors because it costs you "real" games. In the minors the games are less important than player development and everyone knows it, so it's a better way to ease a pitcher back into starting duties. Besides, a guy just coming off surgery? Coming to town with this team and this medical staff? I can see so many ways that goes wrong.

Why can't it be both? Remember, Pedro isn't just a pretty face. He started out with overwhelming stuff, but kept winning when it went away because he's a very smart pitcher. He has some things he can teach any pitcher willing to learn. You don't get to where Martinez was at his peak without having both great stuff and strong technique and savvy. Of those, only the great stuff isn't teachable. I'd be interested to see what Pedro can show these kids. Although I will say I actually think Schill would have been a better option for a pitching mentor, just based on his sheer intangibles. Pedro was a fantastic pitcher, but Schill was the one with the extra gear, and he could consistently play above himself come crunch time like no one in his generation.

http://www.soxprospects.com/40man.htm Who do you cut for an old, broken down has-been who practically never was. There's some I might cut for an actually useful veteran. For Pavano, I don't see a guy I clear.

We don't have room on the 40 for a signing of Pvano to be relevant.

I'm not sure that's as relevant as you think it is, because there are athletes that excelled at their own sport that made that sport their own and didn't decide to cross the fence. I'm not going to dismiss the work of those men just because they never took certain career risks. These men deserve credit for being competent major leaguers in multiple leagues. That's rare. That said let's not let the "hybrid" angle carry more weight than it should. There are football players that were much better football players than Deion Sanders, and much more athletic football players than Deion Sanders. There are baseball players as well that are both more skilled and more athletic. As for Jim Thorpe, he may have come in during a deadball era, but a career .648 OPS doesn't exactly scream "overwhelming success at baseball." Especially for an outfielder. He had a couple good half seasons. That's pretty much it. A lot of Mauro Gomezes have been as successful in the big leagues as Jim Thorpe. If his big league "success" in other sports is on par, then he's a jack of all trades master of none.

I think Boston has claim to a hockey player who was far better all around than Gretzky. Don't forget that Bobby Orr was a defenseman. He scored by the ton, and had to play strong defensive hockey too. I think that considering that hockey asks more of a player than any other sport as an intense anaerobic and aerobic effort, you have to give a hockey defenseman a lot of credit, especially an elite one. It's why I was on here eariler stumping for Chara. I still think Chara is a very good case when talking about today's athletes simply because of how strong he is. He frequently has to hold back physically in the most intensely physical major sports league. You can tell he does hold back too, because of the rare times someone pushes his buttons hard enough that suddenly, he doesn't. Z's big problem in a discussion like this is that he doesn't have flashy skill. Most of what he does is based on positioning, intelligence, strength, balance and coordination that can be a bit on the subtle side, so compared to the very unsubtle LBJ and other flashy offensive athletes Z is going to get a bit underrated at times.

There's a question of tactics involved, Emmz. Not trying to call you out in particular, but it's definitely possible to be right the wrong way. Even worse when you're only dubiously right, or when you're arguing a matter of opinion.

Oh for the love of God, you're smarter than this UN. Don't even pretend that you don't see a certain logic to worrying about a speed player over 30 who had a down year last year. There's a very legitimate possibility that we get nothing at all from Shame Victorino.

Pretty much. We got a very good player on a very risk-controlled deal. I was astonished at what Cherrington managed to get done with that contract, and getting that many home runs for that kind of deal is a move I'll defend Cherington for even if it backfires somehow.

LBJ is probably the other guy. I'll give him that much. The ways the NBA is different from other leagues makes him more prominent. The hockey players I'm talking up tend to grab much less limelight because a hockey player can't be on the ice for 100% of the game (goaltenders obviously excepted). In my mind though it definitely comes down to Chara vs. James. It seems wierd to talk up Z as if he's in that universe, but honestly, I tried kinda hard to find a good reason not to and didn't find one. And considering how much more the sport of hockey asks of an athlete compared to basketball (Glen Big Baby Davis and other heavyset NBAers would never make it in the NHL) I think that has to at least blunt James's advantage a bit.

Speaking in terms of athletic completness, I'd take an athletic defenseman over an athletic forward. Defensemen get no love compared to forwards, but what they do in terms of requiring skill is actually far harder. Crosby's a special talent but since we're talking pure athletics, I'd call him and Chara actually a trade-off. Z is surprisingly nimble, as well as probably being one of the best power athletes in North America. Crosby is much faster and flashier, but he doesn't even pretend to have that kind of power game. I take what Z can do over anyone in the NBA in terms of raw pysicality considering what the rules differences mean,and any running back in the National Seven Seconds Of Play Between Whistles League is not in consideration. He's a very proficient defender skillswise too, he'd be a very solid defender even without his hard-won advantage of sheer strength. Chara is probably the premiere power player across sports in all of North America.

I'd put Zdeno Chara in the mix. Hockey in terms of raw athleticism is a much more intense sport because it's both very physical (anaerobic) and very aerobic too. Z is one of the best power defensemen in a game tilted towards the offense and he can play at a high level in all three zones (for a defenseman at least). All time I think you have to give a lot of consideration to #4, Bobby Orr too. He's riiiiiight up there, and as a defenseman who wasn't afraid to "go" if the situation called for it, he's easily the more complete of him and Gretzky, even if Gretzky might have been more offensively talented. What hockey players do, I honestly think, is a cut above what a lot of athletes do in terms of conditioning and real athletics. There just isn't that much standing around or jogging from place to place on the ice relative to the other 3 major sports. A real end to end game with a lot of rushes and transitions will take the best conditioned athlete in the world from fresh to exhausted in about 3 minutes. There's a reason that even the best conditioned hockey players are only let out onto the ice for a minute or two before being replaced with fresher bodies.

Kalish isn't slated to start in the outfield actually, we're prolly going left to right Gomes-Ellsbury-Victorino. I'm sure we'll find ways to work Kalish into that group, but I wouldn't mind adding another moderate power bat to that since I really don't actually trust Victorino.. Since we're not likely to get a real thumper, a platoon guy with some pop, like Jones, makes sense for that.

Are we still under the delusion that King Felix is leaving Seattle, much less coming to Boston as opposed to other, currently much more exciting and prestigious destinations like LA or NYY? Wow people.

I think Jones and Kalish is a fine bench, all things considered. I suspect we'll regret signing Victorino.

OK this proves it was Teddy. http://www.zazzle.com/men_inspect_the_grounds_near_scoreboard_at_fenway_poster-228549365030208523 This is a picture of Fenway's left field in the mid 30's. When Yaz debuted in 1961, the scoreboard looked different. http://www.scoreboardclassics.com/scoreboards/fenway-park-scoreboard.jpg (note the different font). That said, I can't find that picture. Every image I'm seeing online of Ted Williams, he had a bat in his hand -- for very good reason. Williams was one of the best hitters in baseball history. As a fielder... he was one of the best hitters in baseball history. That and whenever I refine the search looking for "Ted Williams catch" I see the man in ridiculous rubber pants holding up a fish.

Hmm. Might be Yaz after all... Pause at about 1:30. I see a lot of similarities. EDIT: Nope. Scoreboard isn't right, it's not the same catch.

... which could easily make the difference between a shot and no shot.

Does it at least have a number on the player? That would narrow it down a ton. If it's Yaz or Lynn, it'd narrow it down ALL the way since those numbers are retired.

The big Yaz catch in 67 was my first guess too.

That's not very specific with a team as historied as ours. A lot of big catches spring to mind, especially since you didn't specify which outfield wall. The Monster is the obvious first thought, especially since we've had 3 all-time great left fielders in the last few decades, but we had some HUGE catches by the right field corner, such as Brunansky's doozy in I want to say 95. Dwight Evans made some big ones too. A lot of the all-time greats patrolled our outfield, from Tris Speaker to Ted Williams to Dwight Evans to the modern guys. So we need more than "a great catch at a wall sometime old." Telling us the name (or number and year) of the player involved would help a lot.