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
    Ditto for Crawford etc. Be consistent. You either support the stupid spending, or you don't. Where it stopped doesn't matter, but it had to stop.
  2. User Name
    What does this mean, and what does it matter? You don't know or understand what is my philosophy for team building, not that it matters, since i'm just a fan like you, not a baseball executive. Stick to the baseball discussion. The point here is relief pitching specifically. There's a lot of evidence of why you shouldn't give out long term contracts to RELIEF PITCHERS, which has been my point all along.
  3. User Name
    Define "deserved"? The funny thing is, had they given Papelbon all that money and he got injured or regressed, the guys in the Papelbon camp would go to war saying the FO "should have known better". There's just no winning when you're playing a Monday Night Quarterback.
  4. User Name
    They shouldn't have. Nothing you say would ever change my mind.
  5. User Name
    An above average pitcher is more valuable than a top-tier closer. Also, the closer position, in itself, is overrated. Although not all guys can close, a lot of them can do it effectively at a high level at a reasonable price. It's just not a smart investment to dump a lot of money into a multi-year contract for a reliever. Now, to clarify my point further, i'm only arguing the "Papelbon vs Lackey" line of thinking because of the inconsistency inherent to that thought process. You cannot complain about the Red Sox signing Lackey if you wanted them to sign Papelbon, because it's exactly the same type of contract. One blew up in their faces, and they wanted to avoid a second one doing so too.
  6. User Name
    Dude, what are you talking about? Don't you know Papelbon is the second coming of Jesus himself? There's no risk of injury, or decrease in performance with him! He could have become a HOF 1B had he wanted to!
  7. User Name
    This point simply makes no sense. What is the "value" you speak of? Also, John Lackey is the poster boy for "past performance does not necessarily mean future success". That doesn't help your point, it argues against it.
  8. User Name
  9. User Name
    Flawed logic. The inherent risk and volatility of relief pitchers is lightyears beyond position players or starting pitchers. Why don't you try some apples to apples comparison (which is sound logic, and not what you're doing)? The only closer to receive a big contract and live up to it in MLB history is Mariano Rivera. Guys like Brad Lidge, Joe Nathan, BJ Ryan, Trevor Hoffman, among others, all had a history off good numbers and health, yet failed miserably or got injured in the middle of their contracts.
  10. User Name
    Are you reading what i'm writing? I said the stupidity OF THOSE EXACT CONTRACTS YOU'RE MENTIONING is the reason why they exercised caution (and rightfully so) with regards to Papelbon.
  11. User Name
  12. User Name
    ERA for relievers is misleading. He had a down season in every other statistical category. Red Sox fans: "This FO keeps handing out stupid contracts, whaaaaaaa" "This FO didn't want to pay Papelbon a shitload of money, whaaaaaaa". Can't have it both ways.
  13. User Name
  14. User Name
    Papelbon's shoulder luxation issue is eerily similar to Lackey's elbow issue. The problem here is fans talking out of both sides of their mouth. The stupidity of the contracts to Crawford and Lackey are exactly the reason why the FO should be careful in handing future multi-year deals.
  15. User Name
  16. User Name
    Which is exactly the point. The couple desirable guys the Red Sox have who they probably should trade will either bring minimal value back because of their prohibitive cost, or they don't have an obvious replacement.
  17. User Name
    http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/bee28899be_bard_0115.jpg vs http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/mlb/players/full/29965.png&w=350&h=254 http://cdn.overclock.net/f/ff/ff93b11f_132353322733-mother-of-god-super-.jpeg He's ugly. Boston Herald interview with Daniel Bard after last night's game:
  18. User Name
    Does the possibility exist of you writing a post that doesn't call out those who don't decide to become f***ing hysterical about anything and everything Red Sox related? Pretty please?
  19. User Name
  20. User Name
    SoxSport will talk about the "Media", how this team can't "manage a bullpen", "Pitch count limits not being any good" and will make other assertions about the team that are proven wrong yet he'll keep repeating them over 9,000 times.
  21. User Name
    User Name? mojo. You're welcome.
  22. User Name
    FAIL.
  23. User Name
    You're coming to all of these conclusions after one start? Can we at least until he has another turn in the rotation?
  24. User Name
    What i am noting are inconsistencies in your thought process. In both scenarios, you are exchanging proven MLB players for unproven prospects, but in one scenario, you are exchanging young, cost-controlled players , instead of using already-under control talent and letting go of veteran, in-decline talent to do so. The players you mentioned as possible "trade bait" are players who should be around in 2014 and beyond. Also, them being "only cheap in MLB teams" does not matter to this discussion, because they are indeed cheap when factoring in their production, and this is indeed MLB. Also, this is the Boston Red Sox, not Kansas City Royals, meaning they don't need to trade away premium talent for prospects. I just don't see how trading away core players for prospects makes sense, when they have money coming off the books and in-team prospects to plug holes. It seems like a scenario where you do something for the sake of doing something.
  25. User Name
×
×
  • Create New...