Boston Red Sox Thread

Discuss your hatred for the Yankees here.
Post Reply
MattA75
AnalLog
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by MattA75 »

Eckersley's always been a dick
User avatar
numbers
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 9200
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:44 pm
Location: Franklin, MA

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by numbers »

I like Eckersely because he's the only one on the pre-game show that isnt completely in the tank for the front office.
User avatar
numbers
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 9200
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:44 pm
Location: Franklin, MA

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by numbers »

There's also the time Kevin Kennedy asked to have Albert Belle's bat checked.
User avatar
Norah
Poster of the Year
Posts: 37327
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by Norah »

I agree, but it's pretty easy to stand out next to those clowns.
User avatar
numbers
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 9200
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:44 pm
Location: Franklin, MA

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by numbers »

Gammons is BRUTAL, I've basically lost all respect for him since he started working at NESN. Rice isnt so much in the tank as he's just incoherent so it's no better. Wakefield doesnt want to say anything to rock the boat either, so all you've got is the Eck. I will say though, a couple years ago when they were spinning down the drain in September, Rice was the only one on there telling it like it was(Eck was never on during that time.) TC and Gammons would be going on about how "it's ok, because the Rays lost too" and Rice said something like "what are you guys talking about, the Red Sox need to win a game at some point here."
User avatar
elliseamos
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 8900
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by elliseamos »

Closer by committee part II
MattA75
AnalLog
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by MattA75 »

So glad we decided Papelbon wasn't worth 12-13 million a year, but thought John Lackey was worth 18, and Carl Crawford was worth 22...
User avatar
elliseamos
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 8900
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by elliseamos »

MattA75 wrote:So glad we decided Papelbon wasn't worth 12-13 million a year, but thought John Lackey was worth 18, and Carl Crawford was worth 22...
Me too, bc a closer isn't worth that much.
MattA75
AnalLog
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by MattA75 »

elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:So glad we decided Papelbon wasn't worth 12-13 million a year, but thought John Lackey was worth 18, and Carl Crawford was worth 22...
Me too, bc a closer isn't worth that much.
but paying Bailey and Hanrahan 11.1 million combined makes some sort of sense?
User avatar
elliseamos
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 8900
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by elliseamos »

MattA75 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:So glad we decided Papelbon wasn't worth 12-13 million a year, but thought John Lackey was worth 18, and Carl Crawford was worth 22...
Me too, bc a closer isn't worth that much.
but paying Bailey and Hanrahan 11.1 million combined makes some sort of sense?
the team's 10 games over .500, i'll take that everyday.
MattA75
AnalLog
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by MattA75 »

elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:So glad we decided Papelbon wasn't worth 12-13 million a year, but thought John Lackey was worth 18, and Carl Crawford was worth 22...
Me too, bc a closer isn't worth that much.
but paying Bailey and Hanrahan 11.1 million combined makes some sort of sense?
the team's 10 games over .500, i'll take that everyday.
way to avoid the question...
User avatar
elliseamos
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 8900
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by elliseamos »

MattA75 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:So glad we decided Papelbon wasn't worth 12-13 million a year, but thought John Lackey was worth 18, and Carl Crawford was worth 22...
Me too, bc a closer isn't worth that much.
but paying Bailey and Hanrahan 11.1 million combined makes some sort of sense?
the team's 10 games over .500, i'll take that everyday.
way to avoid the question...
the point is the sox are rid of crawford (your second complaint) and can afford two good pitchers for the price of your binky (papelbon, your first complaint). therefore, they're a better team than they were and are proving it in the standings (for now).

boom roasted.
User avatar
philpritchard
Rank This Poster
Posts: 4155
Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by philpritchard »

MattA75 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:So glad we decided Papelbon wasn't worth 12-13 million a year, but thought John Lackey was worth 18, and Carl Crawford was worth 22...
Me too, bc a closer isn't worth that much.
but paying Bailey and Hanrahan 11.1 million combined makes some sort of sense?
Bailey and Hanrahan might not be worth the money they're making (although Bailey has been outstanding so far this year), but that doesn't mean the only alternative is to pay $13 million for Papelbon. Jason Grilli would be an upgrade over Papelbon right now, and he just signed for something like $3.5 million in the offseason. When you sign an experienced closer like Papelbon, you're usually paying a premium for the name on the back of the jersey on top of what he brings to the mound.
User avatar
philpritchard
Rank This Poster
Posts: 4155
Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by philpritchard »

elliseamos wrote:boom roasted.
:lol:
User avatar
elliseamos
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 8900
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by elliseamos »

philpritchard wrote:
elliseamos wrote:boom roasted.
:lol:
i think it provides the proper punctuation to my reply.
User avatar
numbers
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 9200
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:44 pm
Location: Franklin, MA

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by numbers »

I've thought since last year that Tazawa would make a good closer, so, I guess we'll find out if I was right.
User avatar
numbers
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 9200
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:44 pm
Location: Franklin, MA

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by numbers »

Also, has there ever been a more obvious case of a guy faking an injury in a baseball game than Hanrahan last night?
User avatar
elliseamos
Mind Your Tanners
Posts: 8900
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by elliseamos »

numbers wrote:Also, has there ever been a more obvious case of a guy faking an injury in a baseball game than Hanrahan last night?
i'm sure there is, but that'll make any top 10 list.
MattA75
AnalLog
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by MattA75 »

elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:So glad we decided Papelbon wasn't worth 12-13 million a year, but thought John Lackey was worth 18, and Carl Crawford was worth 22...
Me too, bc a closer isn't worth that much.
but paying Bailey and Hanrahan 11.1 million combined makes some sort of sense?
the team's 10 games over .500, i'll take that everyday.
way to avoid the question...
the point is the sox are rid of crawford (your second complaint) and can afford two good pitchers for the price of your binky (papelbon, your first complaint). therefore, they're a better team than they were and are proving it in the standings (for now).

boom roasted.
They signed a guy who is always injured (Bailey) who, SHOCKER, is injured again, after spending most of last year on the DL.

They then traded for a guy with no AL experience to close out games in one of the two biggest markets there is, who has sucked all year and now he's hurt too.

Sounds like the old Harry Sinden "well, two $3 million players are better than one $6 million player" theory...and it's working out about as well for them as it did for ole Harry
MattA75
AnalLog
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm

Re: Boston Red Sox Thread

Post by MattA75 »

philpritchard wrote:
MattA75 wrote:
elliseamos wrote:
MattA75 wrote:So glad we decided Papelbon wasn't worth 12-13 million a year, but thought John Lackey was worth 18, and Carl Crawford was worth 22...
Me too, bc a closer isn't worth that much.
but paying Bailey and Hanrahan 11.1 million combined makes some sort of sense?
Bailey and Hanrahan might not be worth the money they're making (although Bailey has been outstanding so far this year), but that doesn't mean the only alternative is to pay $13 million for Papelbon. Jason Grilli would be an upgrade over Papelbon right now, and he just signed for something like $3.5 million in the offseason. When you sign an experienced closer like Papelbon, you're usually paying a premium for the name on the back of the jersey on top of what he brings to the mound.
With Papelbon, I'd be paying for a guy who I not only know can handle the pressure cooker that is the closer's job in Boston, but I'm paying for a guy who EMBRACED it, who proved himself to be durable, and who wasn't one of the many clubhouse cancers from the past few years...those are the reasons they should've signed Papelbon...Papelbon was a classic case of them undervaluing their own guys and falling in love with some other guy from some other team ...and it's not just Papelbon, it's the fact you gave up Reddick to get Bailey...and no, I never foresaw Reddick hitting 30 homers, but considering the injury problems the outfield of 2011/2012 had (Ellsbury and Crawford in particular), it was shortsighted to give him up...
Post Reply