Dipre

Apparently maintaining a realistic view point is frowned upon in this community. Rose-colored glasses are pretty, but serve no utilitary purpose.

I'm asking for your opinion in this particular matter though. Opinions will be called out obviously, it's a forum, but presenting your opinion as fact is asking for it.

Making statements assuring any type of outcome is fun, but getting called out on it should be expected. s*** happens, and then you die.

Let me address your post point by point before i am obligated to and get myself a bottle of Advil. Yes, and Santana was pitching in the NL East, while Lackey pitched in the AL East. For what it's worth: Santana's FIP last year was 3.54 with a .272 BABIP, his K rate was at a career low 6.5. Now he's post-surgical and you're moving him from the NL East to the AL East. Do you not see the writing on the wall? Substract the pitcher, Citi Field, Braves stadium, and add Fenway, New Yankee, Rogers, Camden Yards and two surgeries. It's simple logic. Yes, because the fact that over the last three years he's had both shoulder and elbow surgery means nothing, and the declining peripherals don't either. Magical pinstripes would fix him right? Any surgery that requires opening up the shoulder is significant. Do you know what "context" means? It means keeping a subject where it belongs. Santana is not a Yankee, so, by saying he is not a fit, i am not attacking the Yankees, which is what you did to the Red Sox when you (very stupidly i might add) tried to justify the fact that he alone at 25 million would be more valuable than Beckett at Lackey at 34 million. That is 73% of their total value combined. He couldn't provide 73% of their value by any measure you try to use. Not to mention the cost in prospects. And he had "his best years" in the AL back when his average velocity was in the 92-93 range, not 89, and he hadn't had not one, but two major surgeries. There is no logical way to justify your stance.

The same Johan Santana who's coming off shoulder surgery? Whose velocity has dipped every year since going to the Mets from the Twins? Who's under contract for 22.5 million in '11, 24.5 million in '12 and 25.5 million in '13, with a 25 million option or 5.5 million buyout for '14? Please do so. I wish you were running the Yankees.

I am now trembling in fear over the obvious superiority of the Yankees now that they have signed Freddy Garcia. Thank God for the WC or we would have nigh a hope of reaching the playoffs, since the division is all but wrapped up by the Yankees with this brilliant, high-octane signing.

This. A million times this. And with baseball programs still stubbornly teaching young pitchers Inverted W mechanics, the chances of screwing up young elbow/shoulders increases dramatically. Anyways, i think Tito's really good, but he's not LaRussa or Cox, who could do more with less. That's just my opinion though, since LaRussa is my favorite manager. Kinda like baseball's version of Bill Belichick if you will.

In all fairness, since Ital and i are fat, our votes should count for two.

First one. Tito's issue is usually not yanking the starter too early, but too late. And he keeps talking about how starters are pampered and etc etc etc. Yet makes the Schilling point completely contradicting his other statements. It's not that pitchers are pampered per se, but that the game has changed significantly, kids start throwing harder earlier, and that damages overall arm durability, they also get paid millions and teams want to protect those arms, not to mention all of the breaking pitches, and hitters wearing pitchers out. It's just a different game.

Or it could be the exact opposite, and Tito routinely lets his starters get massacred out there with a fresh bullpen, being that that's the way the rest of the world sees it and bitches about it (constantly). Pitchers are handled the way they're handled throughout the league because the game is a different game. It's not 1970 anymore. I'm going to call animal rights on you if you keep beating that dead horse. He's dead.

Marco Scutaro 2009 statistics: .282 /.379 /.409 .789 OPS, 60 RBI, 100 Runs, 11 HR, 38 2B I know you're in the middle of your "Jed Lowrie is the cure for cancer" campaign, but it takes 30 seconds to check these statements out for accuracy.

"He will bounce back, i am sure of it"is not calling it a sure thing? Well i'll be damned.

"He will bounce back, i am sure of it"is not calling it a sure thing? Well i'll be damned.

That is an opinion. There's not enough to go on to make an educated guess on which of them can or can't bounce back, is there not enough opinion in there? I'm more interested in knowing what's your opinion. Give the man what he's asking for.

And no one disagrees, but for the purposes of this thread (the rankings) Kalish exhausting his rookie status is a significant blow to the Sox system, which is what's being discussed here.

They may both bounce back, either of them may bounce back, or neither could bounce back, but how the hell would anyone here have any semblance of a clue of which one of them will or won't?

It's funny how quick Yankee fans are to qualify their excuses as valid when there are no injuries involved. A lot of players have personal problems, and saying that the reason he pitched poorly was because of personal issues or Dave Eiland not being is nothing but rationalization and assumption. There is no reason to buy into what either of you say (yes, Jacko and Divinity, two known homers) as fact. His average velocity declined for the third straight year, however, he had a pretty high BABIP and his K rate declined significantly, and it has been on a downward trend for four years, along with his velocity. His BB/9 actually improved from 2009, but an increased BABIP, decreased LOB% and increased HR/FB% pretty much justify his problems last year. Not having his binky or a divorce don't justify loss of velocity or wildness (when he was even wilder in 2009). Rationalize all you want, but Burnett simply isn't that good, and he's declining fast. If it was a Red Sox pitcher with these types of trouble, you'd be proclaiming the end of his effectiveness, so why don't you Yankee fans have at least some semblance of objectivity? Everyone here agrees that Beckett is a question mark, and he sure as hell has a better chance of bouncing back than Burnett, and no one says they're "sure" he will. Sure because of what? What information do you, Joe fan, have that makes you so "sure"? I will say this again, for the "Over 9,000th" time, no one here is a talent evaluator. You are sure of nothing.

I'm sorry, but do you have any more non-injury, non-legitimate excuses to make?

I don't get where you're coming from. The Yankees currently don't have Andy Petitte, so if we're talking about the way the teams look right now, the Red Sox look obviously superior. CC-Hughes-???-???-???.Still fearing the Yanks there BSN?

Nope. This is not a fantasy league. The whole purpose of a re-draft is to stimulate thinking and exercise logic. Using a fantasy-style scoring system denies this very purpose and denies many intangibles that should be taken into consideration.