A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Anyone wanting Dunn for massive amounts of money is not credible on any issue.
    Posted by hankwilliams
    I've got to say that I agree with you for the first time since the Gonzo deal, which I reckon is going to look like highway robbery in a couple of years. What Gonzo did this year, just coming off shoulder surgery is nothing short of amazing.
    We'll never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest          

    Careful, the idiotic minister of propaganda is on your heels. One of the most clueless idiots who always reacts after the fact.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Exactly. The RS know they are going to be blowing up the coaching staff now that they have not exercised their option on Francona. So did the A's. From the A's perspective, they were out bid by the RS for Curt Young after the 2010 season. They clearly weren't happy with their replacement for Young and saw a chance to rectify the loss at terms that were advantageous to them. So they asked the RS for permission to talk to Young and the RS complied.  The Cubs case is a whole different kettle of fish. The Cubs had begun recruiting Epstein during the 2011 season. he was under contract. Comparing the Young situation to Epstein situation is apples and oranges. The writing was not on the wall that Larry Lucchino was being dismissed and that most of his key direct reports would be released while still under contract. The comparison is designed to support an argument but they are very different situations which I think the person posing the question knew. 
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    No. I didn't know, nor do I agree. The bottom line is simple: Both Young and Theo had a year left on their deals.
    The date of interest by the Cubs has no bearing on the contractual legalities.

    I think it's pretty damn obvious that Theo has market value, while Young had next to none, beyond his old team grabbing a package they paid little for.
    If they both were players, for example, it's the same as putting Young on waivers and getting no takers, as opposed to peddling a higher commodity in Theo.

    If you think otherwise, please prove your position.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I do think Young would have been showed the door and paid his 2012 salary by the Sox. I think that is why they ended up paying just part of his deal with the A's. I could be wrong, but I think the Sox saved by paying just part of his deal with the A's, and got rid of a guy they wanted out anyway.

    With Theo, I'm not sure they really wanted him out for 2012. I think once he showed interest in "moving up" the ranks, the Sox again tried to get a gain out of it. They weren't going to keep Theo, IMO, even if the Cubs (edit) deal fell apart. Again, they are saving money and trying to gain in other ways as well.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I do think Young would have been showed the door and paid his 2012 salary by the Sox. I think that is why they ended up paying just part of his deal with the A's. I could be wrong, but I think the Sox saved by paying just part of his deal with the A's, and got rid of a guy they wanted out anyway. With Theo, I'm not sure they really wanted him out for 2012. I think once he showed interest in "moving up" the ranks, the Sox again tried to get a gain out of it. They weren't going to keep Theo, IMO, even if the CWS deal fell apart. Again, they are saving money and trying to gain in other ways as well.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure you meant the Cubs not the CWS. Tongue Out
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I'm pretty sure you meant the Cubs not the CWS.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    Yes, thanks. I will go back and edit.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I said the team would go after CC/Werth in a big way. You claimed they would not . I said LF is where they are likely to upgrade. And I gave several reasons why. You disagreed with them . I never claimed what Inepstein would do.


    I did. That's the difference. I don't play GM in regards to what I would do, because it's not my money. I gave the likely scenerio of what I thought the FO would do.The FO consisted of many minds - Theo being but one. 



    I said he would be an idiot if he went after Crawford. You gave several reasons why they had to do it. You then applauded it. Boomer is correct, you have zero credibility, despite shill status.
    Posted by hankwilliams

    Wrong again. I didn't applaud the fact the FO overpaid. I like the signing because of the speed tandem and how it affects opponents defences and pitching. Since Jake may walk after 2013, it made no sense to sign CC for the extra three years, as the tandem window was in play for the first 3 years.


    I never felt the team should replace Jake with CC once (if) Jake walks. The whole idea was to create a tandem no other team had.
    CC still ended up out-performing other high-priced talent and I'm willing to bet he'll return to expectations sooner than later.

    We'll see what you say then...whoever your mouth piece will be.
    Boom is in good company with you behind him.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I do think Young would have been showed the door and paid his 2012 salary by the Sox. I think that is why they ended up paying just part of his deal with the A's. I could be wrong, but I think the Sox saved by paying just part of his deal with the A's, and got rid of a guy they wanted out anyway.

    This is my whole point, Moon, and I agree. Boston was on the hook for Young, and knew he'd have no takers. The A's took advantage of the huge discount. It's the same as eating a Lackey contract to open up a roster spot...but for far less $$$.

    If they retain Magadan and/or Hale and/or Tuck, then the cleaning house theory is debunked. I think this is more a matter of getting rid of the poor coaches. The good ones might or might not stick, depending on who they hire as MGR...and how much power he'll be able to exercise.


    With Theo, I'm not sure they really wanted him out for 2012. I think once he showed interest in "moving up" the ranks, the Sox again tried to get a gain out of it. They weren't going to keep Theo, IMO, even if the Cubs (edit) deal fell apart. Again, they are saving money and trying to gain in other ways as well.
    Posted by moonslav59

    That we don't know...as of now anyway. My best guess is they would have retained Theo if He and Larry could have worked things out.

    Who knows.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I've got to say that I agree with you for the first time since the Gonzo deal, which I reckon is going to look like highway robbery in a couple of years. What Gonzo did this year, just coming off shoulder surgery is nothing short of amazing.

    Don't fall for the lies. I never wanted Dunn at even close to what Chicago spent and I wanted him for 1B- 3 years ago and as a possibility in LF last winter.

    You are a liar. You were slobbering over Dunn for years. You would have paid a fortune for a player who was a strike out king without the athletic talent to produce at a massive contract level. 

    While softy's revisionist history will tell you he was "the leader in advocating for Gonzo" nothing could be farther from the truth. He blasted boom 2 years ago for wanting AGon, and all last season was saying there was a 50% chance that AGon would be traded at all before bcoming a FA.

    Boom wanted Agon for 2010, liar. I wanted Beltre for 2010, then said that Agon was an essential trade and extension for 2011 and that he would be 100% would be traded. I said it was at least 50/50 that the Red Sox would close the winter deal. I said it was only at leat 50/50  because of the extension issue. You then came in after the new was on the street and claimed to have "called it" by referring to one of your earlier ramblings about a hypothetical trade you would offer for AGon but you never went beyond saying you did not think the Padres would trade him last winter. You simply claimed you did, after the news was on the street.

    You are a fantasy mind stat snipet pasting loser who simply responds after the fact. You claimed the Twins couldn't afford Mauer, and I schooled you on the details on why the Twins could afford him and would extend him. You then admitted I was correct, but attempted to pretend that I was off on the range for Mauer's base, which was a detailed range that was stated as how high the Twins would and could go.    


    He then said, if it happened, it would be for "Jake and Jed".

    Liar. I said that Kelly should be kept off the table if at all possible and Lowrie and Ellsbury should be included if Hoyer wanted more than farm scraps. Hoyer got hosed. I stated that the deal needed to be done and that who the 3 or 4 players were was totally dependent upon what Hoyer, desperate to sell, would go for.   

    I correctly called the AGon trade last Spetmeber and showed softy the link when he lied about me earlier.

    Liar, you never called anything. In fact, despite your attempts to prevaricate about your hypothetical ramblings about Agon, long after my detailed trade thread in August, a copy of my own issue articulation, you stated in September that it was possible but you did not believe the Padres would trade Agon unless it was for "a king's ransom".

    I later said we'd trade Kelly, Rizzo and Bowden for AGon: softy said I was an idiot.
     
    No, after the Agon imminent trade talk was on the street, you simply aped the names that were on MLB trade rumours. Bowden was not possible, as he had zero trade value, and you still are an idiot for listing him. Rizzo was on my list of players to include if needed, but Kelly should be kept off the table if at all possible because of the lousy job InEpstein has done in FA contract for pitchers and farm pitching drafting development. 

    Later when proven wrong, instead of admitting He was wrong and I was right, he blamed it on the "idiotic SD GM for noe demanding Ellsbury and Lowrie".
     
    You and your fellow loser shill, Harnazz, didn't predict or state that Agon would be traded at all. Harnazz, idiot that he is, claimed 100% certain Agon would not be traded last winter. It is a fact that Hoyer got hosed.  


    Then, there was softy's lengthy thread whereby he claimed over and over that AGon would not extend in April, like many of us claimed he would, but instead would become a FA, and that the fact that we only traded Kelly and Rizzo for him proved it was just a 1 year rental.
     
    Liar. I said that the extension was likely to get done but not by opening day as Becketts did, but only if Agon allowed InEpstein off the hook for hedging. Only Agon's good character allowed a bad character like Inepstein to hedge by waiting until Agon played into early April and showed he was healthy on shoulder (took known steroids user in trade) Slomag can attest to it.

    Of course, now he is claiming he got that one right too, just as he claimed Mauer would sign for $17-18M/yr with MN.

    Liar. I never said what Mauer would end up signing for, only that the Twins would afford the estimated market range of 18 to 24M base and would extend Mauer. You kept stating, over and over, that the twins couldnt afford him. I went into detail on his agent and Target field up front money and how Twins would sign him. You admitted I was right, then resorted to prevarication on actual contract base after the fact.  

    Don't drink the Clown Kool-Aid: it's poison.

    Sox4ever


    Folks, I usually ignore this out to lunch idiot, but it is quite clear that he does not ignore me as he keeps claiming.

    There is nothing realistic about his idle fantasy mind or offering 3 or 4M for a geriatrics Part 2 edition of timmy T-Ball and Varitek.

    And harness, how did you like Napoli magic fingers WS catching duty. Idiot!









     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

     I like the signing

    Of course you do, which concomittantly means you approve of the contract. You are a dim bulb.

    And Crawford outperformed terrible performers.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]What was "abundantly clear" is that Boom assigned the taint to Baustista, and then speculated about consequences in the MVP voting. That's how his sentence reads in English.  As Harness has shown, there are other perfectly good explanations for Bautista's improvement. As long as they are in play, one should at the very least hesitate before blackening the man's reputation. A serious allegation requires serious proof.  Nothing said so far against the man meets that standard. Indeed, many of the writers Boom used as sources insist upon that very point. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    So at least you read the many articles I cited showing PROOF that Bautista was under suspicion by sports writers. You apparently just couldn't assimilate the data as you were too busy tap dancing.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE] I like the signing Of course you do, which concomittantly means you approve of the contract. You are a dim bulb. And Crawford outperformed terrible performers.
    Posted by hankwilliams[/QUOTE]


    Spare me UR ambulance-chasing tactics. You take 4 words out of context. I liked the signing at 3-4 years - at relatively reasonable money. You are too dim-witted to make the distinction.

    I once asked you if there was anything about Lowrie you liked. You said "Yes. I like how he hits LH pitching". Does that mean you liked Lowrie?

    Dumb
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    How did this thread degenerate to this point? What happened to the realistic threads being a place for respectful discussion of baseball with no name calling? Is it time for a realistic look at 2012 part II?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]I've got to say that I agree with you for the first time since the Gonzo deal, which I reckon is going to look like highway robbery in a couple of years. What Gonzo did this year, just coming off shoulder surgery is nothing short of amazing. Don't fall for the lies. I never wanted Dunn at even close to what Chicago spent and I wanted him for 1B- 3 years ago and as a possibility in LF last winter. You are a liar. You were slobbering over Dunn for years. You would have paid a fortune for a player who was a strike out king without the athletic talent to produce at a massive contract level.   While softy's revisionist history will tell you he was "the leader in advocating for Gonzo" nothing could be farther from the truth. He blasted boom 2 years ago for wanting AGon, and all last season was saying there was a 50% chance that AGon would be traded at all before bcoming a FA. Boom wanted Agon for 2010, liar. I wanted Beltre for 2010, then said that Agon was an essential trade and extension for 2011 and that he would be 100% would be traded. I said it was at least 50/50 that the Red Sox would close the winter deal. I said it was only at leat 50/50  because of the extension issue. You then came in after the new was on the street and claimed to have "called it" by referring to one of your earlier ramblings about a hypothetical trade you would offer for AGon but you never went beyond saying you did not think the Padres would trade him last winter. You simply claimed you did, after the news was on the street. You are a fantasy mind stat snipet pasting loser who simply responds after the fact. You claimed the Twins couldn't afford Mauer, and I schooled you on the details on why the Twins could afford him and would extend him. You then admitted I was correct, but attempted to pretend that I was off on the range for Mauer's base, which was a detailed range that was stated as how high the Twins would and could go.     He then said, if it happened, it would be for "Jake and Jed". Liar. I said that Kelly should be kept off the table if at all possible and Lowrie and Ellsbury should be included if Hoyer wanted more than farm scraps. Hoyer got hosed. I stated that the deal needed to be done and that who the 3 or 4 players were was totally dependent upon what Hoyer, desperate to sell, would go for.    I correctly called the AGon trade last Spetmeber and showed softy the link when he lied about me earlier. Liar, you never called anything. In fact, despite your attempts to prevaricate about your hypothetical ramblings about Agon, long after my detailed trade thread in August, a copy of my own issue articulation, you stated in September that it was possible but you did not believe the Padres would trade Agon unless it was for "a king's ransom". I later said we'd trade Kelly, Rizzo and Bowden for AGon: softy said I was an idiot.   No, after the Agon imminent trade talk was on the street, you simply aped the names that were on MLB trade rumours. Bowden was not possible, as he had zero trade value, and you still are an idiot for listing him. Rizzo was on my list of players to include if needed, but Kelly should be kept off the table if at all possible because of the lousy job InEpstein has done in FA contract for pitchers and farm pitching drafting development.  Later when proven wrong, instead of admitting He was wrong and I was right, he blamed it on the "idiotic SD GM for noe demanding Ellsbury and Lowrie".   You and your fellow loser shill, Harnazz, didn't predict or state that Agon would be traded at all. Harnazz, idiot that he is, claimed 100% certain Agon would not be traded last winter. It is a fact that Hoyer got hosed.   Then, there was softy's lengthy thread whereby he claimed over and over that AGon would not extend in April, like many of us claimed he would, but instead would become a FA, and that the fact that we only traded Kelly and Rizzo for him proved it was just a 1 year rental.   Liar. I said that the extension was likely to get done but not by opening day as Becketts did, but only if Agon allowed InEpstein off the hook for hedging. Only Agon's good character allowed a bad character like Inepstein to hedge by waiting until Agon played into early April and showed he was healthy on shoulder (took known steroids user in trade) Slomag can attest to it. Of course, now he is claiming he got that one right too, just as he claimed Mauer would sign for $17-18M/yr with MN. Liar. I never said what Mauer would end up signing for, only that the Twins would afford the estimated market range of 18 to 24M base and would extend Mauer. You kept stating, over and over, that the twins couldnt afford him. I went into detail on his agent and Target field up front money and how Twins would sign him. You admitted I was right, then resorted to prevarication on actual contract base after the fact.   Don't drink the Clown Kool-Aid: it's poison. Sox4ever Folks, I usually ignore this out to lunch idiot, but it is quite clear that he does not ignore me as he keeps claiming. There is nothing realistic about his idle fantasy mind or offering 3 or 4M for a geriatrics Part 2 edition of timmy T-Ball and Varitek. And harness, how did you like Napoli magic fingers WS catching duty. Idiot!
    Posted by hankwilliams[/QUOTE]

    Again you stick UR foot in UR mouth. Napoli constantly came up short compared to Mathis. You have no concept as tom how this criteria is measured.

    With Napoli catching in the PO's, TX pitching has allowed appx. 4 runs per game. This is against the Rays, the Tigers, and the retirement league Cards. That's a far cry from NY/Boston/Philly, fool.

    How are the 2nd rate Rangers doing?
    Did VMART do himself proud as a DH?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : No. I didn't know, nor do I agree. The bottom line is simple: Both Young and Theo had a year left on their deals. The date of interest by the Cubs has no bearing on the contractual legalities. I think it's pretty damn obvious that Theo has market value, while Young had next to none, beyond his old team grabbing a package they paid little for. If they both were players, for example, it's the same as putting Young on waivers and getting no takers, as opposed to peddling a higher commodity in Theo. If you think otherwise, please prove your position.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    In other words Katz, if you want to dicuss that subject with harness expect him to overlook whatever facts and distinctions you point out and he will never stop arguing about it until you either give up getting him to reason or leave the forum.

    Just a little more than a year ago Young and his low cost starting pitching staffstaff in Oakland put up the best ERA numbers in many years of mlb baseball. But of course that data has been ignored by harness, as well as this data:

    "Appointed as Red Sox pitching coach on November 2, 2010, Young guided the team to a 4.20 ERA (680 ER/1,457.1 IP) in 2011, with Boston pitchers allowing the American League’s third-fewest hits (1,366) and combining to rank third in the circuit in opponent batting average (.247).  The team’s 1,213 strikeouts were the third most in franchise history, including a club-record 479 strikeouts out of the bullpen.  Under Young, Red Sox relievers led the Majors with a 1.20 WHIP and paced the AL in opponent batting average (.228) and opponent on-base percentage (.303)."

    Redsox press release regarding the announcement that he was going to Oakland ( http://www.billy-ball.com/2011/10/curt-young-named-oakland-athletics-pitching-coach/ ). 

    The problem with Young wasn't the bullpen. It was a lack of performance from key members of the starting rotation. He didn't select the rotation, cause injuries...etc.

    Here is another ditty:

    "During Young's seven seasons with Oakland, A's pitchers posted an AL-best 4.03 ERA and held opponents to an AL-low .257 average".

    Let me repeat a very important piece of data:

    "His 2010 staff led the American League with a 3.56 ERA and 17 shutouts, while A’s starters registered a Major League-best 3.47 ERA, the lowest such mark in the AL since the 1990 Red Sox (3.32). "

    He is obviously a HACK, right Harness, and darn lucky to have a job at all in mlb! Right Harness. 

    Curt Young is a respected pitching coach. Remove Lackey from the team and he would have had a decent year. But then again, harness liked Lackey as a starter right up until September. It MUST have been Young's fault right harness!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon: Perhaps you missed this:

    I believe I did take Moon up on a similar wager a few weeks ago but I don't think Tek is going to be around anyway. I don't remember it as 5 x 1 but it was 5 or 6 to 1 or something like that. Moon probably remembers.
                                                                                   Boom.

    How about it Moon? Did he take you up on the bet?




    I will throw this question out one more time as no one offered an answer the other day.  Will the RS actually try to change his batting approach/stance etc.
    I know players themselves will sometimes change after a bad year, but can an organization force this?
                                                           Crit



    I don't think an organization can "force" the issue, Crit. Nor would it be wise, as CC has had a successful career overall. I do think CC will be open to "suggestions".
    Magadan said he's a feeltype hitter. That's why there's so much movement in the box. Restricting that worked for Granderson, but it might not for CC.



    Posts: 4734
    First: 5/26/2008
    Last: 10/25/2011
    How did this thread degenerate to this point? What happened to the realistic threads being a place for respectful discussion of baseball with no name calling? Is it time for a realistic look at 2012 part II?
    Two reasons: Softlaw is posting on it - something he vowed he'd never do again. Shows you how good his word is.

    The other is Boom, who doubles for Softlaw now.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]The other is Boom , who doubles for Softlaw now.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]Boomer has no resemblance to softlaw. Firstly, boomer actually likes Ells. Secondly Boomer seems to have a pretty in depth knowledge of the Red Sox farm system. Thirdly, I have yet to see Bomer engage in any bashing of Theo. I like you harness, but c'mon.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I


    Posts: 9120
    First: 11/17/2008
    Last: 10/25/2011


    In other words Katz, if you want to dicuss that subject with harness expect him to overlook whatever facts and distinctions you point out and he will never stop arguing about it until you either give up getting him to reason or leave the forum.

    Katz gave his opinion. You aren't able to distinguish between fact and proof.
    Hence, your facts of suspicion crap.


    Just a little more than a year ago Young and his low cost starting pitching staffstaff in Oakland put up the best ERA numbers in many years of mlb baseball. But of course that data has been ignored by harness, as well as this data:

    "Appointed as Red Sox pitching coach on November 2, 2010, Young guided the team to a 4.20 ERA (680 ER/1,457.1 IP) in 2011, with Boston pitchers allowing the American League’s third-fewest hits (1,366) and combining to rank third in the circuit in opponent batting average (.247).  The team’s 1,213 strikeouts were the third most in franchise history, including a club-record 479 strikeouts out of the bullpen.  Under Young, Red Sox relievers led the Majors with a 1.20 WHIP and paced the AL in opponent batting average (.228) and opponent on-base percentage (.303)."

    Redsox press release regarding the announcement that he was going to Oakland ( http://www.billy-ball.com/2011/10/curt-young-named-oakland-athletics-pitching-coach/ ). 

    The problem with Young wasn't the bullpen. It was a lack of performance from key members of the starting rotation. He didn't select the rotation, cause injuries...etc.

    This goes to show how anything can be gift-wrapped and sold. I never thought  you were very bright. Now you've proven it. Young had a 200 million dollar pitching staff to work with. How did that work out?
    Why didn't the team retain this brilliant PC? Why did they eat most of his contract just to get rid of him?

    SO's are not the standard for pitching excellence, genius. You have a way of packaging  sh*t and thinking it smells like a garden of roses.


    Here is another ditty:

    "During Young's seven seasons with Oakland, A's pitchers posted an AL-best 4.03 ERA and held opponents to an AL-low .257 average".

    Let me repeat a very important piece of data:

    "His 2010 staff led the American League with a 3.56 ERA and 17 shutouts, while A’s starters registered a Major League-best 3.47 ERA, the lowest such mark in the AL since the 1990 Red Sox (3.32). "

    He is obviously a HACK, right Harness, and darn lucky to have a job at all in mlb! Right Harness. 

    Again you show UR Softlaw-like ignorance. How many posters have tried to tell you the A's pitching was a reflection of venue. Want to know what this great A's staff did in hitting venues in Young's reign?

    I asked you where the A's finished when Young did a tremendous job in 2010. Why no answer?

    Tell me this, genius: Who was the better hitting team from 2004 to the present? Boston or Oakland?
       Then answer this: Who out-hit who during the same span: Boston playing in Oakland or the A's playing in Fenway?

    Here's betting you don't have the guts to answer it.



    Curt Young is a respected pitching coach.

    Much like Hohler is a respected sportswriter.


    Remove Lackey from the team and he would have had a decent year. But then again, harness liked Lackey as a starter right up until September. It MUST have been Young's fault right harness!

    I'll let you answer UR own idiocy:

    "And Young was probably not a good fit considering the results. My difference was not that I liked Young".
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Boomer has no resemblance to softlaw. Firstly, boomer actually likes Ells. Secondly Boomer seems to have a pretty in depth knowledge of the Red Sox farm system. Thirdly, I have yet to see Bomer engage in any bashing of Theo. I like you harness, but c'mon.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    I wasn't referring to baseball positions. Look at his posting going back to the last 15 pages of the old REALISTIC thread...and most of this one. Tell me what you honestly think.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I wasn't referring to baseball positions. Look at his posting going back to the last 15 pages of the old REALISTIC thread...and most of this one. Tell me what you honestly  think.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]What I honestly think is that you, boomer and expitch seem to have gotten into a bit of a dispute. Do I honestly think he is softlaw? Of course not. Anyone who's been on this forum for a few years can readily see that softlaw is now hankwilliams. Boomer's been here right along with no bannings or aliases.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from caseycsw. Show caseycsw's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

          I have to confess I have been biting my tongue for a while, fully expecting to get slammed for any such post, especially as a Yankee fan who comes here intermittently.  In any event, the witchhunt on this forum that started after the Red Sox meltdown has now fully evolved into a daily mud throwing match among Red Sox fans who regularly post here.  This "I said, you said, but now I have proved I am right" breast-beating happens on all forums, but it is usually younger and/or angrier posters who carry on with the name-calling incessantly.  The last group of posts on the "A Realistic look at 2012: Part I" thread is reaching near-pathological proportions, making one amazed that grown, intelligent men can spend hour after hour qouting minutiae and grooming the truth so they can prove they are right. The only thing being proved is that the individuals involved are missing someting in their life, whether it be a creative, emotional, interpersonal or career lack of fulfillment.  Gentlemen, please take a step back and listen or look at all the hurt, little-boy carping....It is pretty sad stuff.  There have to be other things in your life that could benefit from all this mis-directed time and energy...Best of luck....

    Warning: This post was created by a Yankee fan, and may be intended to cause irreparable emotional and psychological harm to any Red Sox fan who might read it.
        

    "Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living."

    Mary Harris "Mother" Jones (union and community 

     organizer, born 1837 (Ireland) - 1930 (U.S.) )

     
    when the boss comes callin' his take his toll 
    when the boss comes callin' don't you sell your soul 
    when the boss comes callin' we gotta organize 

            - Dropkick Murphys (for the workers of Wisconsin)
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    softlaw = hank
    Count on it.
    Nobody can do softlaw like the real soflaw.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    m
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Boomerangsdotcom Posts: 9120 First: 11/17/2008 Last: 10/25/2011 a77b66929b9c7d3f14e95c916675ce99 In other words Katz, if you want to dicuss that subject with harness expect him to overlook whatever facts and distinctions you point out and he will never stop arguing about it until you either give up getting him to reason or leave the forum. Katz gave his opinion. You aren't able to distinguish between fact and proof . Hence, your facts of suspicion crap. Just a little more than a year ago Young and his low cost starting pitching staffstaff in Oakland put up the best ERA numbers in many years of mlb baseball. But of course that data has been ignored by harness, as well as this data: " Appointed as Red Sox pitching coach on November 2, 2010, Young guided the team to a 4.20 ERA (680 ER/1,457.1 IP) in 2011, with Boston pitchers allowing the American League’s third-fewest hits (1,366) and combining to rank third in the circuit in opponent batting average (.247).  The team’s 1,213 strikeouts were the third most in franchise history, including a club-record 479 strikeouts out of the bullpen.  Under Young, Red Sox relievers led the Majors with a 1.20 WHIP and paced the AL in opponent batting average (.228) and opponent on-base percentage (.303)." Redsox press release regarding the announcement that he was going to Oakland ( http://www.billy-ball.com/2011/10/curt-young-named-oakland-athletics-pitching-coach/ ).  The problem with Young wasn't the bullpen. It was a lack of performance from key members of the starting rotation. He didn't select the rotation, cause injuries...etc. This goes to show how anything can be gift-wrapped and sold. I never thought  you were very bright. Now you've proven it. Young had a 200 million dollar pitching staff to work with. How did that work out? Why didn't the team retain this brilliant PC? Why did they eat most of his contract just to get rid of him? SO's are not the standard for pitching excellence, genius . You have a way of packaging  sh*t and thinking it smells like a garden of roses. Here is another ditty: "During Young's seven seasons with Oakland, A's pitchers posted an AL-best 4.03 ERA and held opponents to an AL-low .257 average". Let me repeat a very important piece of data: "His 2010 staff led the American League with a 3.56 ERA and 17 shutouts, while A’s starters registered a Major League-best 3.47 ERA, the lowest such mark in the AL since the 1990 Red Sox (3.32). " He is obviously a HACK, right Harness, and darn lucky to have a job at all in mlb! Right Harness.  Again you show UR Softlaw-like ignorance. How many posters have tried to tell you the A's pitching was a reflection of venue. Want to know what this great A's staff did in hitting venues in Young's reign? I asked you where the A's finished when Young did a tremendous job in 2010. Why no answer? Tell me this, genius : Who was the better hitting team from 2004 to the present? Boston or Oakland?    Then answer this: Who out-hit who during the same span: Boston playing in Oakland or the A's playing in Fenway? Here's betting you don't have the guts to answer it. Curt Young is a respected pitching coach. Much like Hohler is a respected sportswriter . Remove Lackey from the team and he would have had a decent year. But then again, harness liked Lackey as a starter right up until September. It MUST have been Young's fault right harness! I'll let you answer UR own idiocy: "And Young was probably not a good fit considering the results. My difference was not that I liked Young".
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    My point was that Young's entire career of excellence would not be erased by one relatively bad year in Fenway. I am fully aware of venue issues, as well as the budget in Oakland and the fact that there are other venues such as San Diego, Seattle which also have pitching venue advantages yet it was Young's management perfomance in his venue which collectively led the league in ERA over a 7 year period. 

    You said you thought it likely Young would never get another ML pitching coach job again. You, as a true blog HACK, tried to drum him out of the league based on your perceptions of him. And you and expitch think I was irresponsible in noting that SOME sportswriters might not vote for Bautista for MVP based upon their suspicions regarding PED use. What you did was true premium grade hacking. The kind Softlaw is known for regarding Ellsbury and others. I don't think I have ever completely nuked someone like that on this forum, especially based upon a less than a full picture of the guy's career.

    I'm tired of arguing with you. If you stopped making ignorant statements it would help. I'm not looking to argue with you. You just keep saying things which are incendiary and flat out wrong.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to  Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Reddick was "not hot" for the since the All-Star break???? Try comatose. 13 whole RBI and a .244 BA, .180 with RISP and 2 outs. Abysmal, not, "not hot". Posted by GhostofTito .244 is not abysmal or comatose - it's 20 points below league average, and on the year he hit .280, so I think it's OK to be optimistic.  Don't forget - he was streaking when the Sox called him up - between Pawtucket & Boston, he really had a great year.  Yeah, he faded at the end, but that's not uncommon for rookies not used to the stress of travel and schedule.  I think he'll show improvement next year.  I'm not so sure. He's never hit well all year long . He's a very good fielder, so he can make up for some loss on offense, but I doubt he will ever be more than a .270  15  75 RH'er. Not bad, but even at his best, not really a difference maker either.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Moon - take your expectations and add 5 HRs and 7 RBIs and you have Trot Nixon's average.  Add four more HRs and you have Dwight Evans.  Is it possible that Reddick looks worse than he is because of the lineup around him?  We don't need an all-star at every position - if he gives us .270 and good defense every year at a very small price tag, that will be fine.  It's what allows us to spend $20M on guys like Gonzalez.

    BTW, I think he's got better power than 15 HRs - he had 23 this year between Boston and Pawtucket.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    m
     

Share