Dojji

Carmona's deal didn't buy out two years of free agency. I guarantee you it's that extra year that drove the price up and gave Gom his conniption. Besides, what did we spend the money on? Short answer, a guy who proved a lot to us last year as a legitimate lefthanded horse starter. You guys paid how much for the same thing in CC Sabathia? For the most part those guys don't get the big deal with 2 years of service time because they know they can get a better deal later with less time left on the arbitration clock.

Oh, the irony, the irony. The Red Sox are doomed because Mike Lowell won't recover properly from surgery on his torn hip labrum -- Jacksonianmarch

You know, and I know, that ther will be times when both the fragile Drew and the medically limited Baldelli won't be available. I suppose they could always stuff Youk in RF occasionally if that's needed.

Offensively, yes. Defensively no. Bailey nor Carter can provide Wilkerson's versatility and neither of them should try playing RF in the Fens..

Netherlands don't have a lot of offensive players but they assembled a team that can defend.

Crazy that, especially when everyone knows it's nothing of the sort.

*shrug* Spring Training. The ultimate small sample size.

Seriously, dude, are you on something? No one is disagreeing with you!

If he goes back to Cleveland and plays 4 more years (he said this offseason he wants to play for 6 more years) he changes the math and probably goes into the Hall with a Cleveland cap on, especially if the Guardians enjoy any playoff success during that time. It's the sort of thing he might try to do if he wants to put Boston behind him.

That's kinda my point. Butler's a young hitter who's talented enough to mash at the big leagues, and hit reasonably well in 2007 (enough to prove that the talent is there at least), but regressed last year. As a mater of talent and tools, he's a big league hitter but he probably was too raw when he was called up. That said, 2007 pretty much suggests that what I said of Anderson at age 21 was also true of Butler at the same age -- the talent was there if you wanted to take a flier on him. Of course the problem with Butler, and the reason you probably want to hold Anderson down a bit longer too, is that even though the talent is there, the consistency might not be yet. With that said though, again, Anderson has more than enough tools to succeed at the big league level if you're willing to give him the playing time to develop properly. The reason he won't crack the roster in April is that this team has better options and he's still a bit... wait for it... raw and underdeveloped.

What I said that kicked this off: The next post in the thread. Yeah, I'd say you conveyed your point pretty well there. That's some quality discussion of Red Sox prospects there. Hats off to you. Face it, you started this at least as much as I did by being overly snarky and too quick to defend Lars against a criticism that really stands up to objective analysis if you take a second to look at what a700 was really saying -- the same treatment you seem to be blasting me for not giving you.

Well I'm not above it sometimes, since I've been known to take unconventional positions just to see if I can defend them, especially when it comes to prospects (thus my escapades with Gabbard, Snyder, Masterson, Lowrie and Natale), but I thought you were misconstruing a700's point too -- and I thought that there was a little too much personal crap being thrown his way. He wasn't saying anything beyond what he saw himself and I didn't see him make any effort to project beyond the limited sample that he saw from the guy, and his analysis looked fairly reasonable to me (depending on how you define "raw" I suppose) so I thought that people were being a bit too quick to jump down his throat over it.

Why would we care what the Dodgers left fielder thinks about things? He's made it clear in myriad ways that he isn't a Red Sox, we need to stop following his every move as if we think he is one. Wouldn't be surprised if after his Dodgers contract is over he went to sign with Cleveland in order to get enough time there to not have to wear a B on his cap in his Hall of Fame induction (which will still happen, as jerks have been inducted before many, many times)

Considering he's 21 YO and we're contemplating a 2009 debut, don't rule it out. If he becopmes a starter in 2010 he'd have to play until he's 42 to have a real chance to pull it off -- but for a first baseman, given reasonable health, and especially if his plate discipline translates to the big league level, that kind of longevity is quite possible. Of course, we're talking about some pretty long odds, and he'll have to avoid not just ordinary injuries but also Mo Vaughnitis, but players do make it on occasion. Certainly given his ceiling, he wouldn't surprise too many people if he went on to have a great big league career, health permitting.

I just said exactly yes. I just said in so many words above that he's advanced for his age and probably wouldn't embarass himself. That said, that age happens to be 21. MLB pitchers would make him look stupid on occasion of course. I think he'd probably strike out way more than he ever has in his life if he was called up now. There's reason he's starting in AA after all. But he has the ability with his tools to get enough hits and walks to make it work. And you never know if he mightn't just blow us away. That's the way it is with rookies -- you never know. Jacoby Ellsbury's OBP in AA was what? Turns out he could have perhaps used a bit more seasoning. We're speculating about jumping a guy two levels, it's not a shock if there's a legitimate speculationj about whether the peripherals hold up. He's an advanced hitter for a 20 year old. He's an advanced hitter for a gyuy with only a handful of AA at bats. I'm not sure if he's an advanced MLB hitter yet. Not without more time in the minors to refine his style against AAAA pitching. That's really the big reason I'm not going hell-for-leather on the Anderson Express actually.

Yep, I see it. That was a assumption I made because of what DipreG was on about with me saying that during the Teixeira sweepstakes. In fairness to me, and to DipreG as well, I did say that back then too. The key phrase then was that I thought if called on he'd "do all right." Another statement implying adequacy rather than brilliance. And a part of that post you conveniently did NOT mention, was my using Billy Butler as a comparison. Billy Butler hit what last year?

OK lemme ask this: Sufficient for what? Sufficient to carry a baseball team? Sufficient to be a contributing player of a championship team? Sufficient to be a starting-caliber 1B? Sufficient to be worthy of MLB playing time? Sufficient to polish my boots and beg for a cookie? The best standard for sheer, raw sufficiency I'm aware of is replacement level. I believe Anderson to be an above replacement level ballplayer right now. That's not particularly a stretch -- there's a standing argument that replacement level should probably be reanalyzed and raised somewhat. But until it is, that's where the standard is and I think Anderson could meet it right now. The question I don't know the answer to, and never addressed or even tried to, is whether he could be worthy of a spot on a playoff team. However, Anderson's peripherals are very good and he's an advanced hitter for his age -- he could probably surpass my standard if we needed him to as long as we were willing to put up with youthful hiccups along the way. I took some heat last year for saying exactly the same thing about Masterson and that turned out pretty good so in the unlikely situation that Anderson sees significant playing time (seriously there's like 6 players ahead of him on the 1B depth chart until we know how the Spring Training cuts go) I believe he wouldn't embarrass himself. A team with limited depth at 1B that had an Anderson in their system (like the Mariners or Rangers) would probably contemplate pushing him into the majors. We're a little better off, which means that we only see Anderson as a starter for an extended period if a couple vets were on the DL or have already been dealt for kids (particularly thinking of Lowell and Bay here). That's what I meant by "punting."

Woulda thought that was a gimme. Not surprised I overshot my audience there. You guys are trying to call me out on one comment where I misspoke my position. I clarified. I cited posts similar to my true position that I made at the time. You must be really bored. That is my stand. You're the one who wants to say that I said he'd be Teixeira in 2009 if we let him. What I tried to say, and obviously did not make clear enough at the time, despite saying it clearly and repeatedly, was that he'd be above replacement level. And yes, I think he could get by on his tools at this stage in his career, for a reasonable value of "get by." That doesn't mean he isn't raw or couldn't stand some seasoning in the minors. What you fail to understand is that your "contradiction" doesn't even exist -- it's the same "contradiction" a lot of young players have when they come up and haven't reached their peaks yet. It's the same "contradiction" that makes a lot of people unduly paranoid about promoting minor leaguers in the first place. Umm no, adequate and average don't mean the same thing and aren't even particularly similar semantically. Average suggests proximity to the mean or median. Adequate merely implies sufficiency, the condition of minimally filling a requirement. Averageness can't be the standard of adequacy because semantically that results in recursive reduction -- eliminating all below average players moves the median and mean, the standard goes up, and we start over. . The originally average players become "inadequate," repeat ad infinitum until you have only one adequate player in the league. A simple Reducto ad absurdum makes your argument exactly that. Absurd. In baseball terms I take "adequacy" to mean at or above replacement level. Semantically, the implication of what "replacement level" means seems to support that position. The idenficiation of a replacement level sets a standard of adequacy that avoids recursive reduction and allows a semantic cleanness your standard never could. *waits patiently for DipreG to completely ignore this and attempt to drive the same point home several posts later... again* Indeed. Now I think I see the problem. DipreG has Alzheimer's. Which is replacement level production from a 1B. But way to completely lose your point in a total English fail.

Under the circumstances... :lol::lol: Thanks for completely hijacking the thread BTW.

Nah, that plan would be doomed from the start. Mind you they came pretty close because of Manny's absurd contract demands but sooner or later his price comes down and some team says "we can keep him motivated andh e'll put us over the top!" It's the nature of every man in the world to believe himself to be above average after all. It's not like Bonds because Bonds did something that's clearly and definitely wrong which causes a team immediate, public problems. Manny did most of his damage behind closed doors.

Difference being Garko isn't a 21 year old rookie with tremendous upside. The operative question here is, exactly why is this such an issue in the first place? Because I said that I thought a700 was right that Lars is still a bit raw? He's a 21 year old kid in freakin' AA, if he gets catapulted to the bigs for some reason and is successful it'll be because of his tools, not exactly his veteran's savvy, I don't see why this is a difficult concept. You're trying to tackle me for a contradiction that isn't even a contradiction.