FredLynn

I am a realist, not a pessimist. I think that as long as the team stays under the cap we are on the right track. We got rid of a manager and GM who were not doing a good job and replaced them with the kind of manager we need; the jury is out on the new GM so far. Also, to date Wakefield and Varitek have not been invited to join the team; thats a plus too. The needed housecleaning has begun. On the other hand, our pitching is no better than last year, a year in which we won 89 games and finished out of the playoffs for the second year in a row. We have only three decent SP, and our bullpen is questionable. While we will probably score enough runs to win games, our catcher, SS (who is our SS again??) and our RF are potential black holes in the lineup. We have been picked to finish below both the Yankees and the Rays in the early analysis. Sorry folks; I just don't see that we have improved enough to warrant pompoms and pink hats this year. Hope I am wrong.

Oh-I could not care less if you "hate pessimists like me". Face reality once in a while, eh?

I expect better pitching if I expect to compete for a ring. Position in the AL ERA the last three years: 9th, 9th, 7th. Why on earth would anyone expect us to be better this year??

Its a good bet that one of our three SP will not be at 100% by year's end. Even if they are all healthy and have been healthy all year, they are all we have. No one knows how Bard will do as our #5; we don't even have a #4. Aceves I would expect to be effective out of the pen. Who else do you trust on our current pitching staff? Jenks? Albers? Morales? Doubront? Bowden? Key concept: we did not improve from last year and we finished ninth in ERA. We may compete for second place; its unlikely we can finish with a ring as things now stand.

Gee thanks. I don't know how I could go on without your permission.

This is BS. The roster as currently constructed is much more suited to compete in a short series than a marathon season. Not to mention the volatile nature of the playoffs. Taken a look at our starting rotation recently? Do you expect that the only three starters we have, none of which is an ace, by the way, will ALL remain healthy by playoff time? One drops out or pitches hurt and who is left? Taken a look at our bullpen recently? I see Jenks, Albers, a couple of guys who replaced some who left that are untested in the ALE....and I see a pitching staff that is certainly no better than last year, a staff that finished NINTH in overall ERA. Still like our chances?

I will practice what I like. I do not grant you the perceived right you seem to have to monitor and correct how I address other posters here....for starters. Second, I find the persistent use of laughing at my posts to be a personal insult, and responded in kind.

No one said it was easy. Some here think we could have done better than our previous GM. He made too many expensive mistakes and strategic errors.

Sorry you are having such a hard time with this concept. After all, it does require some actual thinking, a capacity you obviously lack.

No one disagrees with this. Its whether or not we can contend for a ring that is the issue. I don't think we have that kind of team.

Thats my point. It involves a lot of judgement. Our management team over the past few years has the same set of data that everyone else has access to, but the judgement part of it has been highly questionable. I think that some people on this board, if properly trained on how to look at the available data, could make better decisions.

None of those other teams need a SP. Their rotations are set. That leaves the Sox, and if he really has an aversion to pitching here, he might just retire. I am sure he won't starve.

I wonder if he would retire rather than pitch for the Red Sox. He might really not want to play here, no matter what.

Running a baseball team is not rocket science. With proper training my guess is that several posters here would exhibit much better common sense and judgement than our previous GM. Jury is out on Cherington IMO.

I remember posting that we would not get a decent #4 SP. I wrote that the FO would claim that they have done due diligence in their search and in the end would profess total confidence in our current pitching staff (regardless of the fact that its no better than last year). I do not disagree with this tactic as long as it keeps us under the cap, mind you, but several of us here clearly have our FO's modus operandi down pretty good.

We DO need pitching more than his offense this year. I think we would have done fine with runs scored even without Ortiz. The problem is that this year there were slim pickings for SP. When CJ is the top SP available that fact becomes obvious. So fine, we got Ortiz for ONE YEAR. We must not give him two years under any circumstances. Next year is the year we have to use those resources to sign one or two elite SP.

If you pay attention you will see that Fred is right far more often than he is wrong. His descriptions are often colorful, for sure. Also, he probably has more real baseball experience than anyone else here.

No need to convince anyone else. Just presenting my opinion, which is that just because someone can hit a baseball 450 feet or throw at 95 mph does not mean that they are a talented ML baseball player. Off to the daily workout.................and GO PATRIOTS!!!

Its not MY defininition. I am providing it for you (again) below. A guy who throws 95mph has a tool and potential. He has the talent to throw a baseball at 96mph, I will give you that. I thought we were talking about talent as it relates to playing baseball well; that IS what we are talking about, right? Whether or not that can be converted into talent to actually play baseball is another matter. Talent involves making use of your tools; it involves other factors like discipline and focus. Talent can only accurately be assessed retrospectively-otherwise Andrew Miller would still be considered "talented", as he was when he was drafted. Here is the definition again: talent Pronunciation: /ˈtalənt/ noun 1 [mass noun] natural aptitude or skill: he possesses more talent than any other player [count noun]: she displayed a talent for garden design people possessing natural aptitude or skill: Synonym=ability. I am not going to agree that a player has any ability until he proves it to me.

Who decides what things "actually are"? You? Laughable, as you like to say. Here is the bottom line, whether you like it or not: until someone PROVES that they possess talent they are all talk, their's or someone else's. A great chef can get accolades, perhaps because of his reputation or his training, but if the food he produces tastes like s***, he has no talent as a chef. A big strong race horse might be described as having talent, but until he wins races, he has nothing but talk. And when you look at Andrew Miller, someone a lot of people think had POTENTIAL (different from talent), and see that he has failed over and over and over again, no one in their right mind can say that this player is talented, not yet anyway, and probably not ever. I think you are getting confused with the difference between potential and talent.

Its not Crawford that is the problem. I too expect a comeback year for him. Its his contract. Even at career averages, he is overpaid. And thats on our previous GM, not Crawford.

Ever heard of the saying "You are as good as your record says you are"? Thats true of players too. Obviously you are having a hard time comprehending what I am saying. Perhaps a different language would help, but I will make one more stab at getting through the thickness of your skull. What makes you think that anyone who has not achieved success is "talented"? Do you really think that because someone says a player is talented, they really are talented? Thats just talk. When you put your tools to use on the field, when you show perserverance and discipline to utiilize those tools (and having tools does not mean that you have talent), ONLY THEN can you look back and label someone as talented.