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
    This is failthought. The many bad contracts before him is and should be an indicator of why the Red Sox shouldn't have paid him like the Phillies did, not the opposite.
  2. User Name
    This is what i've been saying all along. And they had short-term choices, including Bard. To be honest, i was initially completely against the Bard-to-the rotation project, thinking he may become an elite close for little money. I, like many others, fell in love with the idea of having his stuff in the rotation, but bought fool's gold. In hindsight, not making Bard the closer goes hand in hand with the hiring of Bobby Valentine and the non-pursuit of an established starter to fill out the rotation as the biggest mistakes of the 2012 season.
  3. User Name
    Of course his me-first attitude adds bias against him. Even though his contributions were great, he was at a position were production is relatively easy to replace in this day and age, and he simply didn't seem like a guy who was willing to put everything on the line for the team if it went against his chances of making more money. That's why i don't think the Fisk and Lynn comparisons are valid. Even more so Fisk, who would play with his left arm hanging by a thread if his right hand was healthy enough to throw a runner out. Current baseball economics factor into the equation, as Bellhorn said, and there's a reason for that. With rising constraints on how much teams can spend, and the atrocity that was the 2012 Red Sox, i think now more than ever is a time when this type of thinking (where can we produce at lower cost) is more important.
  4. User Name
    Even then, why would you play him in LF?
  5. User Name
    He barely did it in the regular season, and 13 appearances over several postseasons does not validate this argument. Furthermore, the Red Sox themselves said several times they would refrain from using Papelbon for more than one inning to protect this shoulder. You're arguing for the sake of arguing here.
  6. User Name
    Why would you play him in LF when you have a capable defender there and he's never played the position? Why?
  7. User Name
    Not can....will. Last year, only nine teams even broke the 100 mill mark. Salaries aren't going to inflate enough for mid-market teams this year to bridge the gap. The Sox at $120 mill in payroll for 2013 would be closer to top-5 than top-10.
  8. User Name
    "Around" 200 innings is not 200+ innings. Also, using one year to validate such a leap-of-faith statement is not valid. Let's just agree that teams need effective pitching to make it deep into the playoffs.
  9. User Name
    You can't "pencil guys in" for wins, because they're too team dependent, and not a lot of teams have a #2 that can go 200 innings. There's simply not that many 200 IP pitchers in MLB. What you can and should expect out of a #2 is over 180 IP and decent ERA and peripherals.
  10. User Name
    If they're going to go for a FA pitcher, they should either go for the big splash and sign Greinke, or sign a couple of high-upside guys with question marks like Dan Haren and Shawn Marcum.
  11. User Name
    They took a chance because he looked strong at the end of 2011. All of the signs were there that he was about back. Look at his splits. As for the amount he's making, that's not the point. Look at the overall contract. It's nowhere near Papelbon's in time or money. And what about Broxton? Maybe they sign Madson and he doesn't tear his UCL. The point is that they really didn't have the need to get into such a commitment for a RP. If they had kept Papelbon, the team would have tanked just as bad and they would probably be looking for ways to dump him right now.
  12. User Name
    The problem wasn't letting Papelbon go. He's not a once-in-a-generation talent. The problem was not signing an adequate replacement. They had options. Look at the seasons Joe Nathan and Jonathan Broxton had for pennies compared to the Papelbon deal.
  13. User Name
    Pretty much.
  14. User Name
    Actually, quite a bit. Mainly because saves are useless for this argument. As MVP said, they're just a sign from being on a good team. Also, Papelbon got massively babied by the Red Sox from 2007 on. How many 1.1 + IP appearances did he have? Actually, let's wait until iortiz' boner for Papelbon goes down just a bit and see if he can answer the question without a misused phrase or making actual sense. I'll wait.
  15. User Name
    Does he now? Define good stuff in this instance.
  16. User Name
    This. For the love of God, this. Why can't people stop spouting this nonsense about Papelbon being "different" than other relievers. The only guy that fits that description is Mariano, and look at what happened to him last year.
  17. User Name
    And the lobbying for Papelbon continues. It's like people don't understand the volatility of relievers. None of you are stupid, and your personal fandom shouldn't cloud your judgment. They didn't keep Papelbon because relievers are volatile and he wanted (and got) the richest contract for a reliever. Giving relievers big contracts has failed over and over and over again during the last decade. Papelbon is not special. Stop carrying his jockstrap, for the love of Jesus. /endrant.
  18. User Name
    Also, stop pretending that you know Papelbon will be healthy/effective for the rest of his contract. You don't have a crystal ball so you don't know that, and it's annoying as f***.
  19. User Name
    No we shouldn't have. It's a stupid contract for a reliever whose production can be replicated by someone cheaper. His production last year was on par with several available relievers (I.E Nathan) who went for much cheaper. I understand that you have a love affair with Papelbon, but that doesn't make his contract any less stupid. Please stop banging this drum.
  20. User Name
    No, they shouldn't have. What they should have done was bring an adequate replacement like Joe Nathan.
  21. User Name
    Or you could trade Bailey and get a guy that's not Madson and is not coming back from TJS. We're not reinventing the wheel here.
  22. User Name
    You said it. "If". The team is full of "ifs". Why add more? Some of those guys who've had TJ have had minuscule setbacks that have become significant amounts of missed time. There's no reason for the Sox to be investing in post-op pitchers. None.
  23. User Name
    So you'd get rid of him for another post-op? That makes no goddamn sense. How about getting rid of Bailey and signing a healthy guy even if it's a bit more expensive?
  24. User Name
    Yup, trade away the guy with the injury history and bring in a post-TJ guy to replace him.
  25. User Name
    3/24. Jackson eats up inning, but he's simply not overpowering despite his K spike from last season.
×
×
  • Create New...