Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

jad

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,472

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 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 jad

  1. jad
    Yeah, A-rod sucks, huh?
  2. jad
    I don't see the problem with 'clutch'. If it existed, it would be the easiest thing in a sport like baseball to demonstrate. All you would have to do is define situations we could agree for the purposes of argument are 'clutch' (and numerous definitions would be acceptable), then show that the same players who excel in those situations (or who play better in those situations than in others) are the SAME players who do so year after year. (The studies I've seen show that they aren't.) If you are going to say that a player's 'clutchness' varies (i.e., that SOMETIMES a guy is a great clutch hitter, but not always), then of course you have said nothing whatsoever.
  3. jad
    Betts, Bradley, Castillo, Nava, Craig, Ramirez, Victorino. That's the order of hitting success this spring. #2 and 3 get sent down, and # 7 and 8 start. This needs to be fixed, and the least likely way it will be fixed is by Victorino suddenly becoming a .300 hitter as in distant memory, over so many injuries, he was once rumored to be.
  4. jad
    Well, at least the powerful, .158-hitting Victorino has solved this problem by explaining that all these guys need to be traded for pitching, and oh yes to make RF comfortable for him (that is, on the 2 or 3 days this season when he is healthy enough to play).
  5. jad
    Just looking at the box scores, holy crap, has Bradley developed a swing this year?? and is he not a lost cause after all? (or is this just the 'spring training' swing)? Has anyone watched closely enough to have an opinion on this?
  6. jad
    I think you're dating yourself, youngster! My memory of the Sox in the late 50s (pre-Yaz) is that this rivalry was as intense (at least for RS fans) as it ever has been since. Of course, the RS sucked, so I'm not sure whether it meant anything to NY fans.
  7. jad
    Ha! You're right on. After the 2004 Yankees series, I swore I would never get so invested again. Now, when games in any sport get unbearably close/tense, I just turn it off, and check the results the next day. I can generally replay it if I'm that interested. (Let the Pink-Hat accusations begin.)
  8. jad
    It doesn't matter if the views are obstructed and teh facilities aren't the best. As long as the place fills up with fans willing and eager to pay top dollar (which it does), and players aren't refusing to play there (which they aren't), then it is by definition a great ballpark, since that is what they are designed to do.
  9. jad
    On a lesser note, RS and Nava just submitted arbitration figures: 2.3 vs. 1.3. Good grief, just pay the dude. It's going to be hard to argue to the arb. committee that the low figure is just, after paying such stiffs as Gomes 5 and Drew 10 for about a months worth of service.
  10. jad
    Well, not insanity at all, but greater sources of revenue. Plus the fact that players are no longer 'property' of their supposed owners.
  11. jad
    The meltdowns in the dugout after one of his increasingly numerous K's seemed like 'intensity', but they were just idiotic temper tantrums that even pissed his teammates off. I always wished Manny had beaten the crap out of him.
  12. jad
    I'm really not being sarcastic. I just think upgrades in these areas are very expensive for what could be minimal gains. Also, do you think Ch has a plan? (as in "let's go with the kids and if that doesn't work, we'll deal all our pitching and spend big for bats.") It seems as if he is just making it up as he goes along. Which, given the unpredictability of baseball, may be the best policy.
  13. jad
    Well, true. Ramirez played 15 or so more games than Holt or Nava (which may be worth 1mil. or so per game; not sure). Sandoval was pretty durable (except for that two year stretch around 2011). So yes, as long as they play more games than Holt or Nava, then indeed they play more games. (Doesn't really matter if you miss them due to injury, as did both Ramirez and HOlt, or because you define a player as 'not full time', whatever that means).
  14. jad
    OK. so they now signed two phenomenally expensive .270-.280 hitters. But given that they already have two phenomenally cheap .270-.280 hitters at these positions in Holt and Nava, I don't see that this is going to turn things around.
  15. jad
    Not sure why there is such wrath directed toward J.D.Drew. He was an ok hitter (.280) signed to a surprising contract by the Dodgers, where he did EXACTLY as he should have been expected to do (rather than magically becoming as good as his contract), then with the RS, where the same thing happened: he continued to be what he always was--around .280. The RS front office and management seems to have the idea that guys they hire will somehow perform to the standard at which they are paid (e.g., Crawford or S. Drew this year); and by the same token, if they are not paid well, why then they couldn't possibly be one of the best hitters on the team (e.g., Nava last year, benched through much of the post-season, and even to some extent this year). I sincerely hope Castillo meets their strange expectations, but it will be amusing to watch, either way.
  16. jad
    But they did replace Drew, with Drew, who was unable to fill the big shoes he left behind.
  17. jad
    That makes him one of the top hitters on the team.
  18. jad
    Thank goodness they got rid of all that deadwood pitching to produce the swat for this 5-hit attack.
  19. jad
    Didn't Clemens get tossed in the first (or second?) inning of a playoff game for cursing at the ump? (Or is that what you were alluding to.)
  20. jad
    At least the 2012 team had someone they could pretend to blame!
  21. jad
    It was easier to follow them through horrendous years in the 50s and 60s because the rosters were relatively stable--it was 'our' guys, for better or worse. Ike Delock and Gary Geiger? well, that's who we got. I don't know who these guys are now, or why they're out there--why root for Craig? or WMB? or whoever is on the mound if they aren't likely to be on the team next year and in some cases don't represent it now? (Not asking to return to the exploitative, pre-free-agent days; it's just the way things are. And the FO isn't making things any clearer by dumping 3 of 5 starting pitchers--and destroying the one strength the team apparently had.)
  22. jad
    So the year is so calamitous that no one even bothers to follow or comment on games anymore?
  23. jad
    Is the idea that since the Sept collapse was inexplicable, as was winning last year, as was this year's debacle, the best policy is just to flail wildly dealing & acquiring players seemingly irrationally, in expectation that the Benign Indifference of the Universe will dump a championship into your lap every few years regardless?
  24. jad
    Yes. See above.
  25. jad
    Ticket prices are not directly related to salaries. They are set to produce maximum revenue (duh! not to match salaries) and thus depend solely on what people are willing to pay. They would be exactly the same if players were making half what they are making and would be exactly the same if player salaries tripled.
×
×
  • Create New...