moonslav59

Not really, but it does make me curious why someone would do what you do.

Fair enough. I've been accused of being too verbose, so sometimes I try to say things as briefly as possible. That means not explaining the nuances involved or the context of a rolling debate. I get that. The difference is, you don't misstate my positions. There's only one guy who keeps continuously misstating my positions, even after I have gone out of my way to explain it it in ever simplified ways.

Nobody else had trouble understanding. They may have disagreed, but they understood my point. Only you keep having trouble. Yet, somehow that's my fault in your eyes.

Yeah, I can see that. I think some people would say Theo's work after Nomar was substandard, but I think Theo did good after the Nomar trade but not great.

yankees sign Chris carter for $3M/1..

That draft was not the only Theo draft after the Nomar trade effected draft (2006 to 2011).

...and not very good usually means good but not VERY good. To me, "not all that great" means close to great or partially great.

Funny how you are the only one who continuously misunderstands my points being made. In fact you misunderstand more than the rest of the board combined, but I guess in your eyes that's my fault.

You are good at being wrong.

I said "not all that great", and you guys are acting like I said Theo sucked.

Yeah, Bogey made the list in September, but really? Kalish, Iggy, Ranaudo, Middy, Lava, Pimental & Y Navarro? Those were the players who made the top 6 during the 2011 season. At the time, this was not viewed as a plus farm. In hindsight, Bogey has added some value to it, but others have taken away much more value by becoming busts or getting hurt. 2010 had Kelly, Lars and Kalish as our top 3 all year (in various order). The 2011 draft was a very good one, but many posters here still complain about letting VMart and Beltre walk. Those two brought us comp picks JBJ, Swihart, Barnes and Owens.

Very true, but we don't win had CC and Co remained on the roster (and budget), just like we probably don't win in 2004 with out Dan D's "fingerprints". I will say, and I'll leave it tou you all to decide when I show the deals made, that even from the Nomar trade to the 2007 championship, the quality of trades and signings were "not all that great". Even the Beckett/Lowell for HanRam/A Sanchez deal that was an essential piece to the 2007 championship was a deal that sacrificed some long term benefits for shorter term ones. I'm not criticizing the trade. I loved it then and I still do, but some of the other major and mid level acquisitions during that period were sketchy. When judging just the moves made since the Nomar deal, it is clear to me, there was a very significant drop off- more so after the Marlins deal but still noticeable from Nomar to Beckett.

Based in large part to his deals made prior to the Nomar trade, yes. They kept winning, but by 2011, the team, budget and farm were all worse or much worse than from 2003 until 2007. Theo, himself, admitted they lost focus and let go of some of the principles they began with. I have never said the team sucked after Nomar. I know full well they did not. The decline in our overall system strength finally caught up with us. Ben's FA blunders compounded the problems.

I think, therefore I am.

I explained that statement I made in very simple terms after trying numerous times in other ways. You either refused to accept it or refuse to understand a simple concept like context. Instead, you continue misrepresenting my position. Enjoy yourself. I don't get why you do it, but at this point, I could care less.

I'll explain more in detail later, when I show the major deals Theo made after the Nomar trade. (Also, many of the draft picks made after the Nomar trade were comp picks from player acquired from and before the Nomar trade, so credit there is compromised to some extent.) The two time periods aren't even close. One could argue the ones in totality made after Nomar were not even average.

Everyone knows almost all baseball players go through slumps and hot streaks several times over a career and even a season. How can anyone know, for a fact, or prove that a player doing very well in a playoff series is doing so, because he is "clutch" or because he's just hot at the "right time"? I'm not disagreeing that some players have mental skills that allow then a better chance at doing well in high pressure situations. My point is and always has been, that it is near impossible to prove in any definitive way. That's not the same as saying it doesn't exist or can't exist.

Then, go on believing falsehoods if you wish.

You're talking about a 7 year time span. No, not really. The deals Theo made up and including to the Nomar trade had residual effects several years later- keeping us competitive and helping us win in 2007. Just because we won in 2007, doesn't mean the moves Theo made after the Nomar trade we "all that great". Certainly, the Beckett/Lowell trade helped us short term. Beckett was a huge reason we won in 2007, and Lowell was a significant part as well. My point was that Theo's deal after the Nomar trade we significantly worse than prior. He had a few good ones, but not like prior to Nomar, where just about every deal, even the small ones worked out well. I'm not home right now, but when I get home, I will dig up a comparative I wrote on "before and after". And the team Theo left Ben looks pretty good in retrospect if you're including the prospects. Aside from Crawford and 'clubhouse issues'. It was worse than what he had after the Nomar trade. The budget was in horrible shape.

I think we'll sign a SP'er and OF'er to minor league deals at some point.

Red Sox Sign Mike Olt By Connor Byrne | February 7, 2017 at 9:21am CDT The Red Sox have signed corner infielder Mike Olt, who announced the news on Instagram (h/t Pete Abraham of the Boston Globe). It’s presumably a minor league deal for Olt, who didn’t crack the majors in 2016 after inking a minors pact with the Padres last March. -MLBTR http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

You're still wrong on my point. I've simplified for you, but you still don't get it, don't want to get it, or just can't comprehend it.

Some points I'd like to make.... Of course the "mental aspect of the game" has something to do with higher or lower performance and productivity. I don't think anyone doubts that. I do think mental toughness plays into performance levels, but the point that is being missed is that just because someone says "clutch" or "choke" cannot be proven with data, due (at times) in part to insufficient sample sizes, does not mean we believe mental aspects don't play a role in events happening. Sometimes, I think people read too much into some statements. There are many "statheads" that played the game at various levels and lengths of time. There is not a clear line of demarcation between athletes and people who understand and use data. "Proof" is a loaded word. It's very hard to prove an event occurred because of mental determination or just plain random luck. One can believe in something without being able to prove it. One can disbelieve in something the same way. Those that don't believe that being clutch is a skill set or repeatable skill can point to random generators of data and point out how eerily similar the results are to true life and say, maybe the results we saw from Papi or Schilling were just random events that fell within the normal range of results seen by randomness. I do believe Papi, Manny and Schilling had extra determination and the ability to concentrate (and relax) during high pressure situations. I'm okay with saying they "came through in the clutch". My point has always been that one cannot prove they were clutch or just lucky. It is possible to be lucky over a pretty large sample size. I think it is unfair to categorically claim someone is a choke or clutch based on scattered and small sample sizes that appear to match up with random generated data. I can't say DEFINITIVELY that anybody is clutch or choke.

Yes. It's not like "not all that great" means bad or not good. I take it to mean very good to almost great or partially great, but not ALL that great. Maybe we're just arguing semantics, but Theo did much better with his deals up to Nomar than after, and the team he left Ben was not close to the team we had up to and just after the Nomar trade.

Yes, but maybe "not all that great", right?