User Name
-
Posts
18,192 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by User Name
-
Espinoza is a Cherington guy, and if he pans out, his saving grace.
-
Then vote for Mitt Romney (I'm being facetious). However, I will say this. I'm not dumb enough to think Trump's radical thoughts would fly if he actually were elected presidents. In the end, they all start to the extreme side of their party to appeal to their main constituency, then move farther and farther center in their actual executive decisions, because A) There are mechanisms in place to prevent them from doing stupid s***, It's politics, and these people are not stupid. Obama promised immediate pull out from Iraq, promoted an extreme pro choice agenda and massive wage increases, and none of those happened, because that's not how running the US (or any country) actually works.
-
With Rusney (if that is what they're doing)? Yes. With Pablo? No. You continue to ignore the fact that he's just not viable defensively at 3B right now. He can't move, he's a statue. Farrell says it, the beat writers say it, the scouts say it, so how would you (or any of us?) know better. His contract might still be salvageable, but as of today, April 1st, 2016, he is completely useless as a ballplayer to the Boston Red Sox. They have a better defensive option at 3B, a better offensive and defensive option at 1B, and one of the best hitters in the game at DH.
-
I personally don't think more than one of Benintendi/Moncada/Travis heads North with the team next year. The more plausible scenario is that Porcello and Hanley earn and keep their roster spot, and Rusney improves enough to keep his roster spot as well. There's also the possibility that Pablo loses some weight and becomes at least playable at 3B. There's just a very wide range of outcomes here.
-
I am not making assumptions. An assumption needs to lack factual evidence: This is factual evidence that Pablo did not put in the work required to lose the weight. Also, you are trying to apply a statistical model to a physical impossibility. This is like you telling me Mike Lowell was going to post better defensive numbers in the last year of his career because positive regression was going to improve his defensive numbers. Well it wasn't going to happen after two hip surgeries. If Farrell, after watching Sandoval take thousands of reps at 3B during the preseason comes and tells me Pablo doesn't have the range to play 3B, I can't go ahead and say that statistically, Farrell would be incorrect. It flies in the face of logic.
-
That's a pretty smug (and uncharacteristic) thing for you to say. On Rusney, I have read a couple of sportscasters posit that Rusney is going North with the team because they plan on giving him regular AB's but want to ease up on the pressure. Some beat writers theorize that some of Rusney's problems can be traced back to him putting a lot of pressure on himself.
-
But they can be stashed in the minors, and that won't kill the roster. About payroll, the Sox don't get to play the poverty card, and they'll have some flexibility after the offseason. They need to be smart about their future expenditures though.
-
I'm an advocate of giving Rusney a chance because regardless of mental errors, he can play D capably. That's really Panda's problem. You can't have a guy who put up a -21.6 UZR last year and who the team suspects actually got worse because of lack of conditioning coming into the season getting everyday reps at 3B. It also sets a terrible example throughout the organization, that you can get away with not following team directives if you have a big contract. You can say whatever you want about Hanley and Rusney's mental approach, but they have put in the work, and they have at least some sort of upside defensively. I don't understand why Pablo should get away with something that other players have gotten benched for (and even cut) in the past as well. This isn't even an "attitude" thing, which seems to be your main gripe. Farrell has flat out said he just doesn't have the ability to be an MLB caliber defensive 3B.
-
I'm talking about LRP. And remember that I also penciled him in the 5th starter battle. Again, this is just a fantasy exercise where the Sox field a competitive team regardless of the contract or roster situation, and actually reduce payroll. The sox may decide to bite the bullet and increase payroll, maybe they trade for a #2 type guy using all of the prospect depth they've hoarded, and maybe one of the pitching prospects takes the next step forward. The truth is, that the nucleus of the Sox figures to be pretty good in the near future, and with some smart moves, they should be able to field contending teams from here on forward. The key here is not handing out any more stupid contracts basically.
-
The point of the post flew right over your head though. I was just painting a scenrio where the Sox put a competitive team forward next year while reducing payroll, and assuming all four of the main Cherington contracts (Hanley, Castillo, Porcello, Panda) are sunk costs. I was just trying to prove neither payroll nor the roster are "clogged" as people here are wont to say. Obviously what's actually going to happen is that they'll salvage a couple contracts, and make some trades/FA signings to help the active roster.
-
Also, you know, factual accuracy and punctuation.
-
I didn't say all three, I specified two of the three at most. And that's just as unlikely to happen as all four of Porcello, Panda, Hanley and Castillo sucking. Porcello is likely to at least be durable if not particularly effective, and Hanley looks pretty damn good at 1B. Where it says "Benintendi/Moncada" it's one of them playing as the regular, not both.
-
So you didn't read my analysis on a possible Red Sox 2017 roster? I am offended.
-
Again, mind your own business. Case closed. When I need advice about places to visit in Mexico, I'll hit you up.
-
Again, you'd be surprised. Look up the scandal for Brazil's Lula Da Silva. Dude sold himself as the paragon of cleanliness for years, and now he's likely to go to jail for money laundering and accepting bribes. All of this ties in to the aforementioned Odebrecht scandal, and it's a clusterf*** of Epic proportions.
-
It needs to be spicy, otherwise how do you know I'm Latin? My English is too americanized. You know who this argument reminds me of? ORS. Man, good times.
-
Back to baseball, I posted this well thought out look into the future, and would like to engage in some healthy discussion about it.
-
How else is he going to finance his re-election campaign if not using public funds and completing shady deals with internationally wanted criminals! (Look up the Odebrecht scandal, it's required reading for the hilarity that passes for "democracy" in Latin America.
-
You have to put that little spice in there to give the post the "oomph" it needs. The only person on this board who was actually able to make me visibly angry was Soxsport, in pure honesty.
-
I'm so confused right now. Dojji's siding with me, while a700 tries to civilly discuss matters and shows concerns for my health. I.....there are no words. I love this place. All I need now is my bare-knuckle showdown with YOTN, and all will be right with the world.
-
Ha! You'd be surprised. We just got hit with a 200 million USD lawsuit because the government ripped off a company in a deal to install carbon plants (in 2016!) gone wrong. Guess who's footing the bill? And out violent crime per capita, as a country, is higher than Flint, Michigan. Let that sink in.
-
I'll take the brit style of country-running over what we have here though.
-
Why do you people immediately asusme I'm angry? I've been posting here for what? 7, 8 years and we've had this same conversation several times. I'm blunt. If I was angry, you'd know, and I'm not angry right now. I don't want to engage either you or iortiz in a flame war of epic proportions over something that, quite frankly, has nothing to do with either of you.
-
Not when he's passing it off as fact and calliing members of the board "casuals" who don't understand the game as well as he does. As you always say (and I quote) he can defend himself, mind your own business. This is what you told me whenever I said something defending Kimmi remember?
-
Well we all post our "tripe" from time to time, but goddamn, the smug attitude and made up BS is just infuriating. And no, it's not "just stating an opinion" when you're passing it off as fact and implying that you know better than other posters, yet refuse to back up anything you say. Seriously, for the love of all that is decent. And let's be clear about something: As I said before, jung is a big boy and can fight his own battles. iortiz, back off. If it's not about you, if it's not with you, just back off. This is how arguments that don't have anything to do with you start, and you end up playing the victim card. Mind your own business.
