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
    I don't care about the interview, and i don't care whether his attitude is liked or not. I care about the Red Sox winning. As i mentioned above, there is no plausible scenario where the Red Sox get rid of Beckett without screwing themselves. Making 17 million per year, the Sox are not getting anything close to real value for him unless they eat a huge chunk of money. Saying otherwise is unrealistic. While clubhouse chemistry is important, talent is more important. They need production, and getting rid of a productive guy because of his attitude after they hired a manager to specifically to correct attitude issues would be stupid on top of stupid.
  2. User Name
    I understand, but i'm referring to the perspective the Red Sox would take in this situation. Cutting him would still cost you money, give you the tax hit (which they have been reportedly been avoiding) and leave a hole in your lineup. I think this is what you're referring to. The problem is, that for purposes of the luxury tax (i know it's not what you were talking about, but bear with me here), the player would still be considered a part of the club for the "championship season". The only way to get rid of the burden of his salary from the tax is to cut him under the circumstances i mentioned above. If luxury tax issues are to be ignored, however, then it would be possible to cut him paying him a bit more than a sixth of his salary.
  3. User Name
    White knighting: A lost art.
  4. User Name
  5. User Name
    Oh Lars.....how the mighty have fallen. Should've traded him when he had value.
  6. User Name
    Beckett's "unapologetic attitude" wasn't a problem when he was setting the league on fire in 2007. Let's be realistic here, they got Bobby V. precisely because they thought he could fix the clubhouse culture, so how does it make sense to jettison two of our most productive players because of their attitude? That makes absolutely no sense.
  7. User Name
    Refusal to give up Lars Anderson was not the problem. They were turned off by his medical reports, and looking at his second half-performance and recent surgery they were absolutely, 100% right.
  8. User Name
  9. User Name
    This borders on the obnoxious. They were right not to get him. Dude can't admit to being wrong.
  10. User Name
    Can someone tell "The King" that now would actually be a good time for him to go get his prostate exam?
  11. User Name
    That reminds me of a physical i had a couple years ago with a blond intern who was smoking hot. She was very, ahem, gentle. The mental fortitude required to not get wood in such a situation is not mental fortitude i posses.
  12. User Name
  13. User Name
  14. User Name
    Pretty versed in this subject are ya?
  15. User Name
    Well you didn't let me explain myself: By "stealing" the bases i meant taking them with him every time he slides into second, third and home.
  16. User Name
  17. User Name
    Fearless prediction: David Ortiz will steal 30 bases. You read it here first, folks.
  18. User Name
  19. User Name
    Hey, i'm not mad at the thread. I was right about it by the way. But what Bellhorn is saying (and it's not related to the thread itself at all) is absolutely spot on. I don't see where you're finding material for correlation from. Let me put it in simple terms for you since you seem to be busy handling tampons: The Red Sox not doing well in 2012 is not a license for Fred and his friends to act like insufferable douchebags. I'm not saying they are, but that's what Fred's implying there.
  20. User Name
    So we have armchair psychologists here, too. Can i get a free online examination?
  21. User Name
  22. User Name
  23. User Name
    OCR
  24. User Name
  25. User Name
    I addressed two points: The point that he is still good under pressure, and the point that he shouldn't be chastised for trying to get paid like every other player. Anything else you argue is creating a position i did not present. I didn't "conveniently ignore" anything, i addressed the points i found pertinent. Lavarnway and Ortiz playing are not mutually exclusive. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Lavarnway isn't making the big club until he's ready as a catcher? In 2010 he started slow, and so what? He was a force overall for the Sox. As for your "recallings" of incidents, most players have their whining moments. So what? Get over it. Did i disagree with him being gone after one year? Did you read the post?
×
×
  • Create New...