FredLynn

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.

Here is the issue: I do not believe that a player with tools possesses the talent or ability to become a ML player until he proves it. I think that discipline is part of talent; its a multifaceted package that leads to success. Same with any other profession. Once a person succeeds you can then look back and judge how much talent they have. Successful people must have a certain level of talent or they would not be successful. Until you PROVE you have talent, you are all talk.

In other words, Pena didn't have enough TALENT to play in the major leagues very long. He had SOME talent, but not enough. Ability and talent are synonyms. Talent is a multifaceted quality. You can have the tools without the talent to succeed. If you do not prove yourself, IMO you are simply not talented enough to make the grade.

Even if I don't know how to define "talent", I did look it up for you and posted it. As I said, some players have the tools (eg: good velocity), but lack the talent to succeed. Case in point: Miller. If a player has never shown results, how do you know they have "talent"? Talent to me implies results. Otherwise, its conjecture.

Nope. (LOL)

I judge talent by the bottom line: getting results. Think Miller has talent? Think again. Both Miller and Doubrant have some skills, but little talent. Here, for example, is one common definition of talent: a capacity for achievement or success; ability: young men of talent. Show me the success Miller or Doubrant has achieved in MLB and I will concede the point to you. Until then, you are wrong. Again.

Its going to be hard for him to fix the major reason for his lack of success: lack of talent.

I am not going to believe that Padilla is as much of a nutcase as Tavares until he rolls a ball to first base for an assist.

Is that the "official" definition? "Big" is in the eye of the beholder.

Define big. This discussion is getting absurd...but have at it.

Did you make that up, or did you check the Rays' pitching stats for the past couple of years? Last year they had the second best ERA in the AL by just .01 percentage points-and playing 36 games against the Red Sox and the Yankees-and the year before that they were also #2. I wish we were so overrated.

You want to know WHY the experts pick the Sox to finish below the Rays and Yankees? Here is the ugly truth: we have done NOTHING to improve our pitching this offseason. And our pitching for the last three years finished 9th, 9th, and 7th in the AL in ERA. Thats why the experts pick us to have a tough year, which we will have unless something changes.