Red Mosquito

OK, don't focus on the Gammons portion of my post.

Focus on the fact that Fenway Sports Management, whether it's hosting football games and concerts at Fenway or signing Lebron James to a marketing contract, is generating the kind of cash that lets the Sox spend and compete like no other team.

no shit

well, i wouldn't say no other team, but most teams

it keeps them up w/ the yankees and dodgers of the world

agreed

cutuphalfdead wrote:

numbers wrote:Gammons has become a total embarrassment.

Seriously. How the mighty have fallen.

What I don't get, is there's no need for him to have become such a shill and sycophant for the "FSM." It's not like he needed them for a job.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

That Brock Holt is classy.

I can't even really defend this position, but I'm not sure Boggs' # should be retired.

you're an idiot

I liked when you had to be an icon to get your number retired by the Red Sox.

From what I'm told Brock Holt will be an icon

He's BEEN an icon.

How is Wade Boggs not a Red Sox icon?

god i loved wade

numbers wrote:I liked when you had to be an icon to get your number retired by the Red Sox.

Red Sox career fWAR leaders:

1. Ted Williams - 130.4
2. Carl Yastrzemski - 94.8
3. Roger Clemens - 76.8
4. Wade Boggs - 70.8

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:I liked when you had to be an icon to get your number retired by the Red Sox.

Red Sox career fWAR leaders:

1. Ted Williams - 130.4
2. Carl Yastrzemski - 94.8
3. Roger Clemens - 76.8
4. Wade Boggs - 70.8

I don't think numbers was thinking about statistics when he used the word "icon." But I'm in the pro-Boggs camp.

Last night, my wife pointed out to me that Boggs' Twitter username is "ChickenMan3010," which is my new favorite thing about Wade Boggs.

Simple Torture wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:I liked when you had to be an icon to get your number retired by the Red Sox.

Red Sox career fWAR leaders:

1. Ted Williams - 130.4
2. Carl Yastrzemski - 94.8
3. Roger Clemens - 76.8
4. Wade Boggs - 70.8

I don't think numbers was thinking about statistics when he used the word "icon." But I'm in the pro-Boggs camp.

Last night, my wife pointed out to me that Boggs' Twitter username is "ChickenMan3010," which is my new favorite thing about Wade Boggs.

I assumed he wasn't, but I guess I just think Boggs was way, way too good to say he wasn't "iconic" enough to have his number retired. He only spent 11 years in Boston, but he was basically a guaranteed Hall of Famer by the time he left.

The only argument I could see anyone making is: the Sox generally only have one retired number per "generation"--that is, they've basically only honored one player who was synonymous with the team's image during a certain time period. So you have Doerr pre-war, Williams for the '40s and '50s, Yaz for the '60s and '70s, Fisk for the '70s, Rice for the '80s, and Pedro for the '90s/'00s. So one could argue that the team has already elevated Rice to that position, and adding Boggs kind of muddies the waters.

But, again, I'm only offering that as a possible argument: I think Boggs was a better player than Rice, and the Sox have already retired the numbers of players who have spent more years outside of Boston than in (Fisk, Pedro), so there's really nothing stopping Boggs.

I knew Phil was going to come back with WAR numbers, but it's not about stats. I can't argue that Boggs doesn't belong statistically.

I just don't want the Red Sox to end up with 50 retired numbers like NYY.