Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

User Name

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • 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

  1. User Name
    Nerd though? Isn't that reserved for smart guys who lack physical strength and have unusual, borderline obsessive hobbies?
  2. User Name
    Calling 2013 a fluke is, at best, intellectually dishonest, and at worst, an outright lie. They had some luck and health, but it was a championship caliber team with several ifs. That the ifs were answered positively is a staple of championship teams.
  3. User Name
    I think he means a guy that put ink to paper, then made it to the Majors the very next year. Michael Conforto and Kyle Schwarber are two recent examples. Both signed in 2014, and made an impact (132 OPS+ for Conforto, 128 for Schwarber) immediately.
  4. User Name
    Smith and Tazawa are going to be used with that exact setup in mind, and I wholeheartedly agree with that strategy.
  5. User Name
    I made both these points earlier and completely agree with you.
  6. User Name
    Excellent, thanks for posting that.
  7. User Name
    Teams don't buy a young guy based on a couple of AB's/IP. They buy based on tools and upside, and Swihart has plenty of those.
  8. User Name
    A young catcher with good tools and a bat already bordering on league average? Swihart has massive upside and would bring significant value in a trade. I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion.
  9. User Name
    I thought you meant after the contract he signed after the '07 WS.
  10. User Name
    Another point to consider is that your closer isn't always your best reliever anyway. A lot of managers will smartly name a "veteran" closer and keep a young guy with grade A stuff as a jack-of-all-trades to put out fires. We just got one of those guys in Carson Smith. Miller is arguably better than Chapman over in NY, and Davis has been the best reliever in MLB for the past couple of years but they kept him behind Holland so they could maximize his value.
  11. User Name
    I think it was actually. Second or third, after he had the hip issue.
  12. User Name
    They did with Lowell, they will do it with Panda if he's stinking up the joint.
  13. User Name
    It's unlikely that either of those guys get an AB at the MLB level this year, unless something truly catastrophic happens. Fortunately, the Sox enjoy good depth (an usual sore spot) position-player wise, and might do so pitching wise as well depending on how their MiLB arms progress this year.
  14. User Name
    They're probably looking at an OBP cut-off point if you ask me. He should have the ability to produce around average power numbers for a catcher, per the scouting report, but his BA and OBP abilities are what really lag behind. Then again, I heard someone say before he went down for TJ that "they may have to create a new, higher qualifier" in the 20-80 scale to rate his D.
  15. User Name
    It depends on whether or not Vasquez runs away with the position. If he does, what I suggest may be Swihart's only clear path towards MLB playing time.
  16. User Name
    Turning Swihart into a hybrid C/1B/3B with his athleticism might provide the Sox with fantastic insurance against injury at C, and suck at the corners. I think he has the tools to pull it off. I remember Ruseell Martin playing a decent 3B with the Dodgers there for a while.
  17. User Name
    Can you definitely prove offense is depressed because of effective pitching management though? Looks like grasping at straws to me.
  18. User Name
    It was a pretty weak joke. (Kinda like Buch)
  19. User Name
    That's why I have said several times that it has a lot to do with the roster you have. If you don't have an optimal leadoff hitter or cleanup hitter, you make do with what you have. I know he had Berkman and Holliday, but Holliday had some injury issues (and he's a vulnerable hitter) and Berkman's production forced his insertion into the cleanup spot, even though he had some platoon issues.
  20. User Name
    Batting Larry Walker (His actual best hitter behind Pujols by OBP standards) second instead of putting Pujols cleanup to bat him fifth instead of Rolen). Conventional wisdom would have dictated he bat Womack first, and Renteria second. While he insisted too much with Renteria at leadoff on the heels of his monster 2003, the strategy was fundamentally sound. He even hit Walker first on several occasions.
  21. User Name
    Tony LaRussa. Do you people not read?
  22. User Name
    Tony LaRussa.
  23. User Name
    Scioscia hit Trout second with the Angels a lot. The only reason he's hitting him third now is because of a lack of offensive depth. Other managers have adopted the idea of hitting their second-or-third best hitter second (Scioscia with Larry Walker, Pedroia hitting second for the Sox during his MVP heyday). Offensive depth has a lot to do with it, but the idea of hitting either your best OBP (non-power guy) second, or hitting him third (Pujols) but only giving two true OBP threats in front. There are many ways to skin a cat, is what I'm trying to say here.
  24. User Name
    Actually, they had him leading off because, for some statistical oddity, their w% was like .200 better with him leading off, a phenomenon not even Ned Yost could explain. http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article38121003.html Your entire premise on why Yost hit Escobar first is 50 shades of wrong.
  25. User Name
    What the hell are you talking about? The only team that really outpaced the Sox in the East last year was Toronto (and they outpaced everyone). The Yanks scored a mere 16 runs more than the Sox, and that was with Panda being the living impersonation of Turd Ferguson, and Hanley injured a significant portion of the year. Also, the phrase "1-run homers win nothing" is really really really dumb, specially considering how many 1-0 games we see in today's pitching-dominated environments. Dear Lord.
×
×
  • Create New...