And Don’t Call him Covelli

Ot295367s

We don’t necessarily trust Tony Masarotti, but if he’s right (and ESPN’s not as unequivocal), Coco’s on his way.  Some things we do know:  Mixed feelings abound at SoSH.  He switch hits (on the field, that is).  He’s young.  He can’t be a free agent until 2009.  He’s cost-controlled, for the most part, and he’ll end up at least $25-30M cheaper than Johnny D over the next 4 years. He had a very nice year in 2005. His offensive trends are mostly positive, and comparable to if not better than Damon’s at the same point in his career.  He doesn’t seem to walk enough for a leadoff hitter.  He whiffs maybe a little more than we’d like.  He’s better than Adam Stern.  He makes the milk taste really good.

Things we don’t know: Will Coco continue to improve? Will he be able to play well in center? (so far, the sample size is way too small) Is he worth Marte+? Who else is involved in the deal?  Will the Sox be giving up even more or getting back a prospect? What number will he wear?  How many other Sox blogs will put up pictures of breakfast cereal?  How many ways will Yankees fans find to tear down this (possible) trade?  Is Theo in favor of the tr–er, scratch that.  Can Coco play shortstop too? 

Lots to find out.

128 comments… add one

  • One thing is clear: The Indians are run by very smart people.

    Nick January 22, 2006, 10:25 am
  • If it’s true, an excellent deal for the Sox, IMHO. Crisp is a good, young, proven, and fills a need at reasonable cost. They lose Marte, but Marte has a great deal to prove; their better with the sure thing they need.

    YF January 22, 2006, 10:25 am
  • One thing is clear: The Indians are run by very smart people
    As are the Sox. Probably bodes well for the chances of this deal being mutually beneficial.

    SF January 22, 2006, 10:28 am
  • Perusing SoSH, there seem to be plenty of fans in favor of a hypothetical deal for Crisp, pending revelations about the rest of the players involved. There are also a smattering of vehemently anti-Coco posters as well, and some of the reasoning is beyond comprhension. Here’s one:
    Marte alone should be more than enough for Crisp. If not, they shouldn’t be doing the deal.
    I have nothing against Crisp – I think he will be Damon’s equal or better over the next 4 years.

    So: Coco is a $40M+ player on the open market (Damon’s obvious and proven value), but that’s less than what Marte, a guy who hasn’t played 2 months in the majors is worth. The cognitive dissonance is staggering. Sox fans, for shame.

    SF January 22, 2006, 11:21 am
  • Having stepped up to defend the Marte and his potential, I think that now it’s not just Sox-bashing for me to say that I don’t think that this is the smartest deal the Sox have made. Marte is rated as an extremely high prospect, and to trade him away for Crisp strikes me as paying too much.
    Still, I’m not happy about the Sox acquiring Crisp – ignoring what they paid to get him – so that should be a good sign for the SFs out there.
    It’ll be interesting to see, however, if in a few years trading away Ramirez and Marte in the same off-season will be seen as a huge blunder by Sox management.

    Sam January 22, 2006, 11:41 am
  • Hanley Ramirez, that is. Not Ramirez of the Manny variety.

    Sam January 22, 2006, 11:42 am
  • Either this is not a particularly strong deal for the Sox, or this is further evidence that Marte’s value as a prospect is declining. You’re telling me that one of the three best prospects nets Coco Crisp and Rent-a-Wreck in two separate deals? I’m imagining teams approaching Seattle with similar deals for Felix Hernandez would be laughed at. But if Marte is indeed that level of prospect then the Sox are not getting equal value back (or rather, they should be capable of getting a better player back). Instead, they’re addressing an obvious need by overpaying. According to the rumors surrounding this deal, the Indians are going to turn around and send two relief pitchers to Philly for Jason Michaels. How much of a step down is Michaels from Coco. They’re similar cost-wise and as far as I can tell Micheals is a whole lot better at getting on base. Why didn’t the Sox go for Michaels instead when all it took was Rhodes and Betancourt to land him? If Marte is really that good, I think the Sox would have been served to go after Michaels or Reed. I just don’t see why Crisp is that much better than either.

    Nick January 22, 2006, 12:25 pm
  • It remains to be seen how good Crisp is. However, he’s much younger and MUCH cheaper than Damon.
    If Crisp keeps improving then he should best Damon over the next four years. If he had his career year at 25 last season, then the Sox have traded a great prospect for a back up outfielder.
    If the deal quoted in the Boston Herald is in fact true, then its essentially Marte for Crisp with Mota thrown in. Not to demean Mota’s value, but he was a throw-in in the Beckett deal, and I don’t mind losing him, especially since we’ve signed the monumentally crazy Tavarez.
    As for trading Marte, the Sox are well stocked with third basemen, and really have no place for Marte this season or next. I would have liked to see him come up and play really well (everyone likes their team to “develop” good players), but that wasn’t really an option. The Sox were able to trade someone at a position where they were overstocked for someone at a position of need.
    Assuming this whole deal isn’t made up, of course. In which case, never mind.

    mattymatty January 22, 2006, 12:31 pm
  • Nick:
    A little more information probably would hurt your comparison of Michaels to Crisp. Michaels has never had more than 300 at-bats in any given season. He strikes out more. Their OPS doesn’t vary very much, but Crisp has done it in a far bigger sample. He also runs more and is supposedly a very good baserunner. When it comes to fielding, though Crisp is a stellar left-fielder the Sox are admittedly gambling that he can make the move to center, whereas Michaels appears to be solid in that position. By most measures, Crisp is as good a player as Michaels if not better, and has already done it at the major league level on a sustained basis. And here’s the biggest kicker: Michaels turns 30 this year. There’s a marked difference between the two players. Crisp is better now, he’s significantly younger, has more experience, and has more upside down the road as well. Your comparison is too superficial. Many SoSHers have made it as well, so you aren’t alone. But I think it’s off.

    SF January 22, 2006, 12:41 pm
  • what about the supposed difference between Marte and Crisp? Marte is younger and his percieved upside is MVP-level. Crisp is a year away from his peak, who could become a nice player or regress to mediocrity.
    I understand that Michaels is probably not as good as Crisp but is he really that much of a step-down from Coco? He seems to be a good stop-gap option for this year. Brad talks about players like Vernon Wells and Andruw Jones becoming available on the open market next off-season. Why not display some patience with Marte and keep him, and then address your long-term needs in center through free agency?

    Nick January 22, 2006, 12:51 pm
  • Here’s a hypothetical, Nick. Suppose the Red Sox had blown the bank and re-signed Damon. The Yankees, needing an outfielder, deal Eric Duncan for Coco Crisp, maintaining fiscal flexibility, getting younger and proven talent in return for a superprospect. Good deal for the Yankees? Curious to know your thoughts. That would have gotten Cashman some well-deserved plaudits from me, fyi.

    SF January 22, 2006, 12:52 pm
  • He’s already a “nice” player Nick. He might become a “superb” player. The question is whether Marte is even a year or two from even being “nice”, and perhaps 3 to 5 from being “superb”. The Sox must think the known quantity and his upside is much less risky, much more helpful, and possibly just as rewarding long term.

    SF January 22, 2006, 12:58 pm
  • Hate to say this about the farm system, but Duncan (I believe BA listed him #2 in our system) is not on the level of Marte.
    Actually, before the Damon signing, I was rooting for the Yanks to go after Michaels given the relatively cheap asking price that was reported. But comparing the Sox and Yanks situation is very different for obvious reasons. The Sox, much to Theo’s credit, have built a deep system which can afford to take more chances. They can deal players like Hansley or Marte without gutting the farm. Not so with the Yanks, who have only recently started to rebuild the system. I wouldn’t have supported Duncan for Crisp I guess. And at the same time I completely understand the rationale for the Sox trade. I just think that Shapiro did a minor fleecing of two teams. He took advantage of the Sox need and got greater value back. Unless, as YF speculated in the past, Marte isn’t as valuable as we think.

    Nick January 22, 2006, 1:01 pm
  • I’m piping in again in support of a trade that seems to benefit both parties: the ideal scenario. Crisp is a very good player right now, well above average vorp in center, where the Sox need help direly. It’s a real push to think Marte is a superstar in the making, esp. given his recent performance. Comparing him to the The King, who looks like he’s on his way to Cooperstown (if his arm doesn’t fall off), is a non-starter. And note that because Marte’s at 3rd, he’s going to need to put up some pretty big offensive numbers to have comparable value to Crisp, who’s out in center. I really like this deal for the Sox. Sometimes it’s better take the bird in hand–a pretty nice bird–and I’d say this is one of those times.

    YF January 22, 2006, 1:27 pm
  • Another thing worth mentioning: this is a trade between two teams that may be competing with each other for a playoff spot. That’s a rarity nowadays. It would follow that either one team believes it’s fleecing the other team, or that both teams believe the trade to be of very fair value.
    The other major item we don’t know (besides, of course, if the trade is even real) is who is involved in the full transaction. Without that information, a fully fair assessment cannot be offered, particularly with regards to Marte. That is, if the Sox are getting back any prospects then who they are (if included) might mitigate the loss of Marte.

    SF January 22, 2006, 1:47 pm
  • “Comparing him to the The King, who looks like he’s on his way to Cooperstown (if his arm doesn’t fall off), is a non-starter.”
    YF, just last year Baseball Prospectus rated Marte ahead of King Felix in their list of top prospects. Experts perceive/d this guy to be on that level.
    SF, good point. This is all academic as it hasn’t happened et. And Boston media outlets sometimes jump the gun with accurate and inaccurate information.
    But, damn, you know you’re an angry contrarian when you find yourself disagreeing with both YF and SF on an issue.

    Nick January 22, 2006, 1:55 pm
  • Yeah, but in that year Marte has struggled in MLB, AAA, and Winter League, and The King put up a 4-4 record for a shitty team, with a 2.87 era, a miniscule whip, and otherwise resplendent peripherals. And he’s not even 20.

    YF January 22, 2006, 2:53 pm
  • The Yankees think year to year. This coming year, Crisp will not as good as Damon, who has much better OBP and power. How Damon will be in his fourth year.
    And yes, Crisp is pretty a good player, but are the 2006 Sox better or worse than the 2005 Sox? I think worse. And IT’S NO LOCK that the 2007 or 2008 are that much better.
    Theo may be right that you have to give up some years and replenish: the new, super-expensive Yankees have not won a World Series, unlike Gene Michael’s much less expensive teams. But the 2006 Yankees are going to be a lot stronger than the 2006 Sox.

    john January 22, 2006, 5:02 pm
  • Recent posting on sox1fan.com:
    According to rumors, the Red Sox are looking to acquire Coco Crisp from the Cleveland Indians. Crisp is a proven major league performer with plus-ability. He is three years from free agency and will make in the $2.5 million range in 2006. He is the PERFECT prescription for a mid-market team like Cleveland — he’s real good and he’s real cheap. Cleveland does not WANT to trade him… nor do they HAVE to trade him. But they can afford to trade him – for the right price
    The Red Sox NEED him — or someone like him. So it is a sellers market and the Red Sox are going to have to overpay to get him.
    Marte has been one of baseball’s top prospects… but he had a rough 2005 and an equally rough 05-06 winter league season.
    And baseball history is filled with stories of top prospects who never make it at the major league level — they essentially prove to be great AAAA ball players. We know what Crisp IS… therefore I dont believe the Red Sox can withhold making a deal for Crisp on the basis of what Marte MIGHT be… someday… maybe

    Jeffrey January 22, 2006, 6:29 pm
  • Puh-Leeese, john. Unless Johnny D is going to be pitching next season, I don’t think you have much on us. Damon better be great too, because I wouldn’t give a bag of doughnuts for yr pitching staff next year.
    By the way:
    Crisp’s 2005 road: (on base/slugging) .370/.518
    Damon’s 2005 road: (on base/slugging) .342/.438

    mattymatty January 22, 2006, 6:34 pm
  • And IT’S NO LOCK that the 2007 or 2008 are that much better.
    Ladies and Gentlemen, your leading candidate for the most premature prognostication ever.

    SF January 22, 2006, 6:35 pm
  • There’s the John we all know and love!

    Brad January 22, 2006, 7:01 pm
  • And I agree:
    Sox pitching and bullpen is dramatically better than the Yankees, and with Crisp, the CF position is pretty much equal right now with the edge going to Boston as the clock continues to run. Plus, this move almost certainly guarantees that the Sox will probably try to move Manny again and move him to left before going for Hunter or Jones or some other power outfielder this upcoming year.

    Brad January 22, 2006, 7:05 pm
  • “Sox pitching and bullpen is dramatically better than the Yankees,”
    wha? “Dramatically” better?!! A little better maybe. Or possibly better. But how do you figure “dramatically” better?

    Nick January 22, 2006, 7:21 pm
  • Alrighty Nick. Even the darkest of blinders could not possibly keep you from seeing the fact that the Yankees have done very little, if any at all, to help their starting pitching or the bullpen. If you want to say Farnsworth, I’ll get on board for now.
    But meanwhile, the Sox have locked up Beckett, Wakefield, Arroyo, Mota (for now), Tavarez, Timlin, Rudy S, Papelbon, and we STILL have Wells, Schilling and Foulke.
    What planet is that rotation and bullpen not better than NY’s?
    I’m not being a homer here – but if Schiling is healthy, and that’s a if, it’s not even a close comparison.
    NY lost Gordon, and have not added anyone to the rotation.
    Just as Boston has a question with Schilling and Foulke, NY has a much bigger question with Small, Wang, and Moose.
    If you’re comfortable with that rotation as a fan, more power to you, but I’d assume that it’s a big prediction to assume that Wang throws for 210 innings and Small is not, well, himself.
    They are better in every aspect of the pitching with the exception of Mo, and I don’t understand why that’s a point of argument. I can admit that the NY offense is so disgustingly good that they are probably going to set the record for runs this year – why can’t you pay the same compliment to a organization that made a big effort to get younger, better, and more dependable on the mound?

    Brad January 22, 2006, 9:39 pm
  • but, that’s why they actually have the season – to prove one of us wrong.

    Brad January 22, 2006, 9:40 pm
  • I’m sorry Brad, but the Yankee pitching staff should be on par with Boston’s. First of all, Randy Johnson is (by far) the best pitcher on either team, and he pitched well in the second half—unlike Schilling. Mussina, Pavano, Chacon, and Wang stack up to Wells, Beckett, Wake, and Clement. In the bullpen, Rivera and Farnsworth are superior to the Beantown alternatives. So we’re not talking about dramatic differences in quality level, and both teams have significant age and injury concerns all over the place. Down the road, Boston has the advantage of youth, but let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.

    YF January 22, 2006, 11:05 pm
  • Good post, Brad. Even unbiased, I like the Sox pitching better right now. Schilling and Foulke are obvious question marks, and Beckett is bound to have some trouble facing tougher AL lineups and being removed from the pitcher’s haven the Marlins had. Clement is a wild card. Wells and Timlin aren’t getting any younger. Tavarez may punch something. Papelbon could regress. Those are some serious question marks, but I think the Yankees have many more.
    The Unit is another year older. Can Wright and Pavano stay healthy (and contribute)? Can Mussina? Does anyone really think Aaron Small can go 10-0 again? Can Wang pitch a full season at the ML level? Can he strike anyone out? Is Chacon really as good as he looked last year? Can Farnsworth handle the preasure of NY? Will Torre ever make the mistake of letting Mike Myers face a righty? What if (God forbid) anything happens to Rivera?
    Anyone feeling a bit neurotic yet? :-)

    Sox Fan in VT January 22, 2006, 11:22 pm
  • you fail to mention the additions of Dotel and Myers to the bullpen. I know it’s a tradition among certain Sox fans to crap on the contributions of former Sox players (reading some RSN bloggers you get the impression that the Sox won in spite of Johnny Damon) but I’m happy with Myers as a LOOGY out of the bullpen. Also, Dotel is good signing, his career k-rate is pretty spectacular. With Farnsworth and Dotel in the 7th and 8th, the Yanks might just have a ridiculous bullpen. It might not be at the level of Timlin-Seanez to Foulke (with the divorce complete let’s hope he’s ready this season), but it’s pretty close. Actually, it might be better. Not dramatically better. Just a little better.
    Also, Pavano is healthy, and I guess you could count him as an addition to the rotation.
    If we’re going to discuss injury risks, well, it’s rather advantageous of you to omit Beckett. I believe he’s been on the DL 10 times since he reached the majors in 2001. That’s Grant Hillesque. Let’s not even discuss his road stats the last 2 years. Because if we did, you’d notice a disturbing trend about Josh away from pitcher-friendly Dolphins Stadium (you know, the park that suppressed Lowell’s numbers so dramatically last year. Luckily Mike is playing most of his games at Fenway this year. Unluckily, Beckett is pitching most of his games at Fenway as well.) His ERA on the road has hovered above 4 the last two years. Imagine what will happen when he has to face AL teams with real life DH’s! So let’s do a starter by starter comparison. I think the Sox rotation is stronger, but not dramatically so. You’d have to have blinders on to think the difference is so vast.
    1. Randy v. Beckett (I think you have to assume he’s the ace because Schilling is, you know, ankle-less). advantage: Big Unit. While Randy pitches with a tweaked back through pain and major anger issues, Beckett will be sucking puss out of his finger, sitting out another start.
    2. Wang v. Schilling-based on veteran leadership, you gotta like Wang. But because Schilling is able to commune with god every 5 days, let’s give this one to Schilling. But is the margin so great?
    3. Mussina v. Wakefield
    advantage: this is all based on the weather, but I’ll go for Wake here. Mussina’s in obvious decline, and Tim throws the viagara of pitches. Again, Wake’s mid 4 ERA does resemble Mussina’s, so is the difference between the two that great?
    4a. Pavano v. Wells
    advantage: Wells. Unfortunately for the Sox that advantage will be for the Padres. so,
    4b. Pavano v. Arroyo. adv: Arroyo, but I think barely. Arroyo is a nice pitcher who had a lot of trouble getting batters to miss pitches last year and got out of a lot jams (thanks to his saturn balls I guess). ANd Pavano is a year removed from a 20 win season. So Pavano has the bigger upside (the Sox certainly were willing to pay him like he does), but Arroyo is more reliable.
    5. Chacon v. Clement-This is the inverse of Pavano versus Arroyo. Clement has more upside but he’s loony tunes. And Chacon seems to be steadier with less spectacular pitches. But I’ll give a slight advantage to Clement just to make you feel good.
    And thus my long unscientific solopsistic study of both pitching yields this result:
    The Sox have a better collection of pitchers. But it is not dramatically better.

    Nick January 22, 2006, 11:32 pm
  • Nice post Nick. I might simplify as so:
    1. Randy vs. Schilling. Advantage NY
    2. Moose vs. Wake. Slight Boston advantage.
    2a. Moose vs. Wells. Even. Maybe a slight Bos advantage.
    3. Beckett vs. Pavano. Advantage Bos, but how large?
    4. Clement vs.Chacon. Even.
    5. Wang/Wright/Small vs. Arroyo/Papelbon. Even.
    Boston certainly has a nice future with Beckett, Papelbon, Lester, Clement, and Arroyo. The Yankees can’t match that.
    The Yankee bullpen, however, is superior.

    YF January 23, 2006, 12:18 am
  • First of all, the Yankees’ bullpen is instantly superior just because of Rivera (Sox fans, put away your knives – it’s true). As much as bullpen depth is important (and I think the Sox have the minor edge in that department), Rivera is so far superior to a recovering Keith Foulke that the Yankees get a gigantic headstart in the bullpen category, and that headstart is almost insurmountable. Regarding starting pitching, this argument is, at the moment, a total toss-up. Both teams have too many question marks. The Red Sox may have a bit more upside, youth, and wiggle room (such is their surplus of capable starters) and the Yankees have the more dependable top 2 (Moose, RJ) but gargantuan queston marks in spots 3-5 (Small, Wang, Chacon Pavano – is that a world beating staff? Come on – if this was the Sox’ 3-5/6 you guys would be laughing at our chances, no matter how well they all performed – Pavano excepted – last year). Basically I find it impossible to qualify the two staffs at the moment, particularly because we don’t know if Papelbon is in the rotation, if Wells will even be on the team in March, and if Foulke and Schilling are remotely healthy. Now, onto my biggest quibble:
    quoting Nick:
    reading some RSN bloggers you get the impression that the Sox won in spite of Johnny Damon
    See, in the midst of a thoughtful analysis you have to go out and chuck a silly statement out like this, as if it helps your case. The fact is, Nick, that for the most part Sox bloggers felt that the Damon signing hurt the Red Sox immediately while also improving their rival. Net loss for the Red Sox. But what you fail to note is that many of those same people also view that as a necessary by-product of the organization’s personnel strategy. I’d be happy to dredge up a ton of posts from SoSH and from other blogs that indicate that what you call “the Red Sox winning” by losing Damon is the opposite of what you imply. Improving the team for the long term may require a step back in the short term. I, for one, am in the camp that says losing Damon hurts the Red Sox while directly improving the Yankees, even as the Sox did the right thing. That’s not “winning”, but it might be “smart”. Throwing out a vague statement like you did is both unspecific and unhelpful to your case, which isn’t a terrible one at all.

    SF January 23, 2006, 7:34 am
  • The only great pitcher the Yanks have in the bullpen is Mo, YF, so how are they superior? The only other solid reliever that they have is Farnsworth, right?? Is there someone else? The Sox don’t have anyone spectacular, and Foulke is a huge question mark, but for now, we have Mota, Timlin, Seanez, Tavarez, and probably either Arroyo or Papelbon, all of whom have been solid if not spectacular relievers in the past few years. You can’t expect Mo to pitch three innings every night, YF, and with the age/injury-proneness of the Yanks rotation, you aren’t in the least concerned that Mo will be overworked. That seems a bit odd to me. I’m not saying that I don’t have those same concerns about the Sox rotation, but I’m confident in the ability of the bullpen to get us through the games more times than not. I’m not a Yanks fan, so I can’t see this from your viewpoint, I guess, but I really don’t understand how the Yanks bullpen is superior. Please, YF, enlighten me.
    Note: I just realized that I didn’t mention Dotel, who won’t be pitching until midseason at the earliest, and you don’t know that if/when he can pitch he will dominate as he has in the past. In the short term, he is not a variable in who’s got the batter bullpen simply because for a while, at least, he won’t even be appearing on field. It’s a nice move on the part of Cashman/the Boss/whoever is making decisions in the Yankees front office these days, but it’s not a move that will impact the season greatly, at least not the first half, and by the break, one or both of these teams will have likely remade the bullpen. And by the time Dotel is ready, the Sox will likely have Lester, Delcarmen, and/or Hansen, among others, ready to come up to the big club and pitch in. They are question marks, and probably non-factors for now, but if we are going to mention Dotel, we should mention the number of close to major-league ready talent the Sox have waiting in the wings at Pawtucket.

    Laura January 23, 2006, 7:48 am
  • SF, as usual you try to have your cake and eat it too. You talk about the Sox building for the future at the expense of the present (as Theo does), but if anyone dares to say next year’s Yanks will be better than next year’s Sox, you go on the anything-goes offensive.
    And it’s in that context, Brad-SF’s-evil-twin (some would say an oxymoron), that we talk about the future. If the Sox cut back now to build for the future, then they need more young stars and future MLB stars than they have.
    Re Brad-SF’s repeated prognostication comments: Brad, you lost the bet, get over it.

    john January 23, 2006, 7:59 am
  • SF, I think you misread my comment a bit there. What I meant by the Sox winning in spite of Damon is that according to some posters they won GAMES even with a mediocre player in center. Not that they won by not resigning Johnny. Anyway, I made sure to use the qualifying words “certain” and “some” which is I think very responsible of me (given some of the generalizations that have been thrown out on this site about each respective fan bases). It’s just certain fans (usually in the guise of sabermetric followers) who throw out numbers to demonstrate that Damon wasn’t all that good. I can probably give you many examples as well. But the work week has begun. Here’s one version of what I was talking about from a Sox fan at Baseball Musings:
    “On a related note, did anyone else notice Damon in the excellent piece about BABIP and luck. He is among the likely to drop in BA, before park factor changes come into play. I predict a 260/320/425 line, which will have the media screaming that he can’t handle NY. It will get so ugly with the media/fans that he will be dumped after 06, having to give up Wang to get someone to take part of his salary.”
    So Damon turns magically into a .260 next year according to some Sox fans. Maybe a minority of Sox fans believe this, but still, it’s a certain kind of Sox fan.

    Nick January 23, 2006, 8:05 am
  • Damon Loretta NY
    Jeter Graffanino NY
    A-Rod Ortiz ?
    Giambi Manny ?
    Sheff Nixon NY
    Matsui Varitek NY
    Posada Lowell NY
    Bernie Youkilis NY
    Cano ? NY
    Big Unit Schilling NY
    Pavano Beckett ?
    Moose Boomer NY
    Chacon Clement NY
    Wang Wakefield ?
    Mo Foulke NY
    Both teams have so many new middle relievers that the result is unknown.

    john January 23, 2006, 8:08 am
  • So Damon turns magically into a .260 next year according to some Sox fans. Maybe a minority of Sox fans believe this, but still, it’s a certain kind of Sox fan.
    The same kind who thinks the Sox will have better pitching than the Yanks in 2006, and had better pitching in 2005.
    Because of injuries, the Yanks ran a record number of starters to the mound, but at the end of the year had a 4.52 era, compared to Boston’s 4.74 era.
    Chacon and Small were great finds: Chacon will be an excellent starter, Small will be an excellent long reliever and spot starter.
    Sox fans think Beckett will be the Cy Young winner, but two years ago, Pavano was the Marlin everyone wanted.
    Johnson’s future is a question, but less of a question than Schilling’s. Last year his era was almost 2 runs lower than Schilling’s.
    Wright and Wang are questions, but we expect better. How many times can Wright be hit by balls?

    john January 23, 2006, 8:25 am
  • John, I suppose that if those players that you matched against each other were heading into a cage match with each other, we could wonder who beats who – but since they don’t, and you’re wrong anyhow, I have to discard it.
    Besides that – you made a comparison between Manny to Giambi?

    Brad January 23, 2006, 9:07 am
  • to some Sox fans
    How about according to “one sox fan”, Nick. Or “a vast minority of Sox fans”. Not being as succinct in describing the contingent of Sox fans who think Damon is going to regress to an average or below average player is a disservice to the argument, and misleading. That’s really all I’m asking for, is a little more specificity. I should do the same with my posts, I am sure, on occasion, so I am not immune to my own criticism.
    you go on the anything-goes offensive.
    As for John, not to put to fine an edge on it, but you are full of sh*t. First you try to put an equalizing “?” next to a Wakefield/Wang comparison, when one pitcher has a decade-old track record of pitching 200 innings and winning anywhere from 11-17 games, while the other came out of nowhere, made some nice starts, and had a pretty serious shoulder injury. That line in itself shows you have no idea what Tim Wakefield has accomplished over the last several years. But beyond that, what about my posted comment (besides the previous sentence in this comment) qualifies as an “anything-goes offensive”? Calling the Yankees bullpen superior? Acknowledging they have a more dependable 1-2 at the top of their rotation? Asserting that the Red Sox will suffer in the short term without Damon or an acceptable subsititute? Wherein do I make a claim that the Red Sox are superior? That they will win the division? That the Yankees are horrible? Nowhere. Those kind of statements are reserved for our pre-season predictions. Get a clue.

    SF January 23, 2006, 9:09 am
  • Brad, I forgave John the Manny-Giambi question mark – I thought he was joking. But then I got to the Wang/Wakefield one and realized his head is lodged somewhere up near his small intestine.

    SF January 23, 2006, 9:10 am
  • SF, fair point, although I feel like you’re my English professor. And isn’t this YFSF? Sometimes a little flame war with imprecise language and selective references is good for this site. IMHO;)
    Brad, I laughed at the cage match joke. Good one.
    But you’re still wrong about the pitching difference. Admit it. Admit it!

    Nick January 23, 2006, 9:21 am
  • There is now a story on the Globe’s website that the trade for Crisp will also bring David Riske and Josh Bard to the Sox in return for Kelly Shoppach. Riske is an upgrade. If this is true, the Sox just took one more step up the bullpen ladder; Riske is an extremely fine setup man, AL-proven and better than Mota.

    SF January 23, 2006, 9:26 am
  • “Professor SF”. Nah. No credibility, there.

    SF January 23, 2006, 9:27 am
  • Yeah, I like Riske a lot. Is it just me or do the Sox have a gazillion pitchers? I thought Mota was surplus. Seems like Wells must be on the go. You think?

    Nick January 23, 2006, 9:29 am
  • Yeah, I would think that Wells is as good as gone. This would be something that I don’t want to see happen, but in a way, I think the Red Sox have pushed the limit with Wells. I look at his last year the same way I look at Small or Wang’s. He stepped up when they needed him to, and stayed healthy for the greater part of the year. He pitched well over his head all year, and with good results, but with all that being said, I don’t want to depend on that kind of performance another year. I don’t trust him to stay off the DL, and I especially don’t trust him to be the same guy on the mound the whole year. Hence, my comparison to the two Yankee pitchers. Not dependable, and not likely to duplicate last year. Just put Papelbon in the rotation and let Wells go to West where he wants to go.
    However I will say this –
    The last team I want to see him go to would be the Angels. I think that either of the respective clubs represented on this website would do whatever possible to keep him off that team!
    Well, except John who thinks that we are putting on boxing gloves instead of baseball hats, and having Wells on your UFC roster could be a disadvantage due to speed and weight problems.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 9:48 am
  • Nick –
    You are right. Riske is a huge advantage to the Red Sox. He is a great pitcher.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 9:51 am
  • Can Wells play shortstop?

    SF January 23, 2006, 9:51 am
  • Not sure Riske is “great”, but he’s definitely very good, and has proven consistency.

    SF January 23, 2006, 9:53 am
  • yeah that’s what I meant

    Brad January 23, 2006, 10:03 am
  • And Wells can’t play SS on my beer leauge work softball team. Besides, that’s my position, and I’m not giving it up.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 10:05 am
  • Brad, you sound like our president.

    Nick January 23, 2006, 10:10 am
  • to clarify: I thought you meant your position on the difference between pitching staffs. Obviously, I’m not literal-minded enough.

    Nick January 23, 2006, 10:14 am
  • hahah
    nope – just shortstop.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 11:02 am
  • Latest is that the Reds have pulled out of the deal to send Riske to Boston. Boston Globe is reporting that the latest is a deal for Crisp and one minor leaguer (to be named) to Boston for Marte and Mota.

    Joe January 23, 2006, 11:08 am
  • where is that link?

    Brad January 23, 2006, 11:18 am
  • I think Joe is citing a Herald story, not the Globe. Nothing’s been confirmed by anyone, and numerous outlets are reporting different permutations on the deal. So this massive thread is still based on incomplete data, unfortunately.

    SF January 23, 2006, 11:35 am
  • ha
    they always are!

    Brad January 23, 2006, 11:43 am
  • Giambi:
    Giambi’s ascendency as one of the top left-handed sluggers in the game continued in 1999, when he hit .315 with 33 homers and 123 RBI, but was punctuated by a sensational 2000 season in which he hit .333 with 43 homers, 137 RBI, 108 runs, 137 walks and a .476 on base percentage. Giambi narrowly won the American League MVP award over Frank Thomas. His 2001 season was nearly identical, batting .342 with 38 homers, 120 RBI, 109 runs, 129 walks and a .477 on base percentage. He finished a close second in MVP voting to rookie Ichiro Suzuki.

    john January 23, 2006, 11:58 am
  • Wakefield:
    6.75 in the 2005 playoffs and his era with Varitek is somewhere right around there — I cant’ find it right now
    Yes, I would take Wang over Wakefield

    john January 23, 2006, 12:01 pm
  • SF
    But beyond that, what about my posted comment (besides the previous sentence in this comment) qualifies as an “anything-goes offensive”?
    Are you kidding? What was the post that made YF say “Bite me!”? Or the two or three hundred others?

    john January 23, 2006, 12:03 pm
  • Giambi also had some sort of tumor on his nads (where’d that thing come from!?), admitted (sort of) to taking copious amounts of steroids, had a “pituitary” issue, and two seasons at a prime age where his production fell far short of his artifically inflated best seasons. He seemed to regain his stroke in the warm weather of June and July, but that hot streak receded to some extent in August and September (perhaps due to pitching adjustments, or perhaps that flaring pituitary?). You are deluded.

    SF January 23, 2006, 12:05 pm
  • Gotta go sf, but instead of saying things like up near the intestine, how about addressing the actual points?
    Giambi was great before his post-steroid sickness, and he was great at the Manny level the second half of last year. And he runs out the outs and doesn’t ask to be traded.
    A standard SF technique: pick on a couple of points, scream and shout and try to sweep the rest under the carpet. Go down the lineup player by player and the Yanks easily come out on top.

    john January 23, 2006, 12:08 pm
  • Uh, John, you allude to an anything goes offensive in the context of this thread. Document it. Put up or shut up. Seriously.

    SF January 23, 2006, 12:10 pm
  • John, this is total waste of my time and of blog space and completely off topic, but if it will shut you up then it’s worth it. Here goes:
    Giambi career average: .295 Manny: .314
    Giambi career OPS: .952 Manny: 1.008
    Giambi career HR: 313 Manny 435
    Giambi career RBI 1031 Manny 1414
    Giambi age: 35 Manny: 32
    Giambi: can’t be trusted in the field, at all. Manny: plays 150+ games in the field, slightly below average fielder
    Giambi: major career-altering health issues. Manny: none.
    Anything else I don’t know about or haven’t included that tips the scale to Giambi? He owns a Harley? He has a twin brother? He went to college? Help me out here.

    SF January 23, 2006, 12:26 pm
  • Wakefield pitching to Varitek
    0 – 4 8.66 era
    I’ll take Wang — I gave a ?
    Go down the lineup player by player and the Yanks easily win.

    john January 23, 2006, 12:29 pm
  • SF – Help me out here. Let’s make a bet on Giambi and Manny in 2006. With all your comments, I should get major odds, but I’ll bet you even.

    john January 23, 2006, 12:31 pm
  • I don’t bet. Sorry.

    SF January 23, 2006, 12:36 pm
  • Manny’s had a brilliant career. Those numbers are ridiculous!
    just thought it should be said. I just hadn’t seen them before. Unreal.

    Nick January 23, 2006, 12:37 pm
  • “Go down the lineup player by player and the Yanks easily come out on top”.
    Seriously, John – again with the matchups? In case you have forgotten, they only play each other 19 times a year – it doesn’t really matter how well they match up with each other. It matters how they match up agaist the rest of the leauge as a whole!
    Also, if I use your crazy method of comparing people I will go ahead and say that Beckett is better than Johnson. Obviously he’s not, but if I pick and choose little fragments of his career, and then compare them to the lows in Johnsons career – Beckett is Better!!
    Giambi can’t hold Manny’s gloves for him. Period. Also, what do you think Giambi would get in a trade? There is not a team out there going to take on that contract, those rumors, er, admissions, that terrible defense, and a million other things that make Giambi Manny’s little brother – however they both are basically untradeable.
    Wang over Wakefield. Funny how you are the only person on earth who would do that. A guy with a proven track record of stability, good year in and year out numbers, a proven leadership. All for a kid with a mediocre fastball, a evem more mediocre sinker, a severe (and continual) shoulder problem (remember- he did miss a LOT of last season – at which time Dr.Andrews said that it may have been season ending)?
    That’s why nobody can take you serious!
    I’m not above saying that I would like to have gotten Dotel, and think that he’s better (albeit if healthy) than any moves the Sox made in the bullpen – so why can’t you give Wakey the props he deserves?
    Oh – stop comparing Manny to your fantasy boy Giambi. One’s going to the hall of fame, and the other lives his life in a hall of shame. Oh, that’s bad. Sorry.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 12:37 pm
  • But he’s no Giambi, Nick. Come on!!!!

    SF January 23, 2006, 12:37 pm
  • Just wanted to get the thread back on topic:
    Coco Crisp is the best outfielder in the history of baseball.
    There. I said it. Discuss.

    SF January 23, 2006, 12:40 pm
  • Oh and I’ll take that bet. And I’ll give you numbers to boot.
    Heres my offer –
    I’ll give Giambi a 10RBI lead.
    I’ll give Giamni a ten point buffer in BA
    I’ll give Giambi a ten point swing in SLG
    I’ll give Giambi a ten run lead in RS
    I’ll give Giambi a mulligan on errors.
    Anything else you want to start the season?
    Hundred Dollars?
    Crap, let’s make it a thousand.
    Oh – Season ending injuries terminate this whole thing.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 12:43 pm
  • not the best –
    Just a better option than Damon.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 12:46 pm
  • ” All for a kid with a mediocre fastball, a evem more mediocre sinker,”
    I think Wang’s sinker was supposed to be pretty good. His groundball rate seems to reflect that. Also, apparently his fastball (when healthy and the weather is warm) can get up to 97 (per Yankee scouts-take that for what it’s worth). You might have been engaging in some sorta parody when you wrote that?
    Re: Crisp
    He has the 3rd best name in the history of the game.
    1. Urban Shocker
    2. Milton Bradley
    3. Coco Crisp
    4. Derek Jeter
    5. Garrison Keiler
    6. Ludwig Wittgenstein
    7. Ol Dirty Bastard
    8. Trim Spa

    Nick January 23, 2006, 12:46 pm
  • oh, and he’s faster too so he doesn’t look so silly in some of the bigger parks.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 12:47 pm
  • urban shocker?
    Oh – I’ve never seen the kid hit 94 and I watched every game. Where did 97 come from? That would make him automaticaly the hardest throwing person on the Yankees. The unit can’t get it up there anymore, and who knows how fast Pavano throws.
    Oh funny story for you guys –
    When I was in high school I played third base for my baseball team. In my soph year, we went to the state Semifinals in Bristol (CT) where I proceeded to strike out three times and HBP on the fourth.
    The Pitcher?
    Pavano.
    I laughed when I found some of the clippings the other day in a box of stuff from my parent’s house.
    I had completely forgotten about it, but I do remember the kid being the biggest pitcher I had ever looked at. I, at a blazing 140lb seventeen year old, was intimidated to say the least.
    And, the HBP was on my foot, so it didn’t hurt.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 12:53 pm
  • cool story, Brad. Was he the best pitcher you faced during your hs playing days? He was a big-time prospect for the Sox (was traded for Pedro in fact), and if memory serves me right, he started out with overpowering stuff. And then he got hurt, and changed his approach, and became more about control and keeping hitters off balance.
    The 97 mph thing is from reports when he first came up to the bigs. I remember him consistently hitting 93-94 (even a few 95’s) when he pitched last season. Or I could be dreaming that.

    Nick January 23, 2006, 12:59 pm
  • Best pitcher I ever faced?
    Roger Clemens. Granted, it was on Nintendo in MVP Baseball ’89, but still.

    SF January 23, 2006, 1:07 pm
  • SF, you obviously never faced my older brother’s sharp whiffle curve ball.

    Nick January 23, 2006, 1:10 pm
  • yeah, I’d have to say he was.
    However, in college I faced a ton of guys who are now in the big leauges in some capacity. I also played a year of Cape Cod ball that allowed me to play some pretty good guys, but that’s where my talent pretty much capped out and I did not get to really play all that much.
    Pavaono was a much more overpowering pitcher and threw harder in high school than he does now. He simply mowed my team down the two times we faced him, and in those two games, we had exactly two hits – and one was a bunt on the first pitch of the game. He was disgusting.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 1:17 pm
  • I think the hardest thrower I ever faced was in summer camp in probably 1982. I was 13, and the assistant baseball counselor was like an 18 year old Iowan who I think had been drafted and was contemplating playing A ball, though my memory is a bit foggy. I remember standing at home plate and getting ready to take some swings and watching a fastball whizz by my head (probably in the mid to high 80s, no more) and almost falling over – it made that intimidating hissing noise that hard-thrown baseballs make, only much louder. I won’t even mention what his curveball did to me.
    I realized at that point that my baseball future was over, sadly. And I loved playing (I was catcher, for the record).

    SF January 23, 2006, 1:30 pm
  • yeah I still get on a twilight team every summer, and occasionally I will get asked to play in a tournament somewhere, but that’s abou it.
    Once I faced a guy with Zito-esque hooks, and when he dropped it in at you, the only alternative was to back out and hope for the best. I don’t konw what his name was, but he was a lefty from Northeastern University, and he made my pride hurt a lot on that day.
    I can only imagine what seeing Zito, or Wells on the mound can do. I can hit a fastball with not much problem, but once they start dropping balls in from over my head, yeah, I knew it was over as well.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 1:43 pm
  • Nick January 23, 2006, 2:25 pm
  • After my Broncos were taken to the woodshed yesterday by clearly the better team, when do pitchers and catchers report?
    Also, I’m heading to Ft.Meyers on March 14-20 for a bunch of spring training games – is anyone else going?

    Brad January 23, 2006, 2:28 pm
  • c’mon 83 can’t be the cap for this one – let’s shoot for 100.
    Jeter’s overrated. That should do it.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 2:55 pm
  • How will Mike Lowell do next year? There’s controversial speculation in that. My guess: Not so good.

    Nick January 23, 2006, 2:58 pm
  • Well, as long as he is “not so good” at a slightly higher level than last year at the plate, and equally “not so good” in the field, he’ll probably be satisfactory, not much more. He ought to hit better in Fenway, but who knows if he’s deteriorated physically.

    SF January 23, 2006, 3:05 pm
  • I have a question. Don’t the Indians still have Jhhhoonnnyyy Peralta? Is there something wrong withhim?

    walein January 23, 2006, 3:06 pm
  • walein, why do you ask?

    Nick January 23, 2006, 3:09 pm
  • i think I was asking under the assumption that Marte was a SS…it’s been a busy and confusing week for me. Sorry about that.
    Also, at 88:
    Wakefield is highly-overated!
    Bring it on!

    walein January 23, 2006, 3:40 pm
  • Wakefield isn’t overrated. He’s a totally known quantity, which is the point. He’s a proven 12-16 game winner at the Major League level.

    SF January 23, 2006, 3:44 pm
  • Not to mention personal owner of some very good games against the Yankees.
    If you are a stats person, which most of us are, you can put all of Lowells number into an excel program and you end up with some very steady numbers with the exception of last year. Those numbers, from last year I mean, could be outlyers or they could be the start of a very bad trend. Either way, there will be no way to know until the balls start getting pitched. I will say this, I’m pretty sure a ton of his fly balls are going to leave the yard this year, and as long as he keeps that gold glove nice and close, it won’t be a bust. Let’s not forget that we played most of the year with Millar and Bellhorn on the infield, so having Lowell and Youk/Snow is not going to be any worse. I promise. Especially defensively.

    Brad January 23, 2006, 4:18 pm
  • BTW – is ANYONE going to go to any of these world games this spring?
    I know that the Sox games I’m going to during spring training don’t have those guys on that US roster on them. But that’s okay. I’m really only going to see Papelbon, Lester, Pedroia and now Lowell and Beckett. Oh, I’d like to see a healthy Foulke as well, but who knows.
    Speaking of him, has anyone heard anything about his recovery?

    Brad January 23, 2006, 4:24 pm
  • Sorry guys, but the best baseball name ever is Phenomenal Smith. How good do you have to be to known as phenomenal?

    Sam (NY) January 23, 2006, 6:03 pm
  • Much better name than Pretty Okey Johnson.
    Varitek wears mun-chichi underroos!

    walein January 23, 2006, 6:17 pm
  • sorry fellas, but I forgot this guy: Stubby Clapp
    it’s a name that can only evoke one thing, and, yet, it never directly states it. Good job, Stubby’s parents.
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clappst01.shtml

    Nick January 23, 2006, 6:27 pm
  • Of course, the best name in congress goes to former representative Richard Swett. But that’s for another blog.

    SF January 23, 2006, 7:11 pm
  • nearly there — – –

    Brad January 23, 2006, 7:31 pm
  • Dick Armey

    Nick January 23, 2006, 7:37 pm
  • SF January 23, 2006, 7:43 pm
  • wow. I have a new favorite name.

    Nick January 23, 2006, 7:45 pm
  • ok. wait a second. This could be the holy grail of names. Before Johnny Damon, there was:
    Johnny “Ugly” Dickshot
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dicksjo01.shtml

    Nick January 23, 2006, 7:48 pm
  • 51 posts while I was gone. SF, you should be glad I wrote my post.
    BradSF, I wouldn’t bet 1,000 bucks on anything. But how about double or nothing on your bet?
    Sure, the Sox had the best 3 and 4 hitters in baseball last year (and the Yanks had the best 3, 4, 5). And of course Manny is favored, but Giambi has had some great years, and I feel like he’s got another one in him. So double or nothing?
    Actually it was the A-Rod / Ortiz matchup that made me think about Manny and Giambi. Ortiz is a great, great hitter — and A-Rod won the MVP.

    john January 23, 2006, 10:45 pm
  • SF, I didn’t say you went on an all out offensive IN THIS POST. But once I thought you had, you did.

    john January 23, 2006, 11:02 pm
  • Check that John –
    The Sox, over the past three years, have had the best 3-4 combination in all the history of major leauge baseball. Never have two hitters had three seasons to beat Manny and Ortiz in consecutive years.
    If you think about it, it’s pretty darn impressive.
    Double or nothing is steep, but I’m willing to stick with the hundred. There is a chance that Manny ends up somewhere else still yet (especially with Theo back to work deals), so he very well could end up in Vladamir land – no protection.

    Brad January 24, 2006, 8:22 am
  • “The Sox, over the past three years, have had the best 3-4 combination in all the history of major leauge baseball. Never have two hitters had three seasons to beat Manny and Ortiz in consecutive years.”
    ever heard of Ruth-Gehrig,Brad?

    Nick January 24, 2006, 9:02 am
  • Who?

    SF January 24, 2006, 9:04 am
  • They were an obscure German Industrial music group during the golden days of the mid-80’s. I was just curious. Can’t find their stuff on i-Tunes.

    Nick January 24, 2006, 9:08 am
  • Back to Jason Michaels for a quick second – saw on SoSH that he was arrested in December for assaulting a cop. This must hbe at least a minor factor in considering whether to grab him or not, for any team.
    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2260532

    SF January 24, 2006, 1:34 pm
  • Nick –
    I scoured for stats over a three year period and could not come up with them –
    do you know where they are to compare them?
    I’d like to put all three years straight up against each other and see the difference.
    But really, once a couple of guys are being mentioned in the same sentence as those two, it’s clear that we’re not dealing with a normal offensive combination.
    Still, I’d like to actually see the numbers that R/G had three better years back to back to back.

    Brad January 24, 2006, 2:10 pm
  • Yeah nevermind. My slip. Those 1927 stats are simply mind blowing. However, theyre comperable to the modern day stats of Manny and Ortiz –
    I’m just saying, it’s been a long, long time since baseball has been lucky enough to have two guys hitting together in a linup who are that great consistently.

    Brad January 24, 2006, 2:18 pm
  • Actually if you average out the offensive numbers in each category for the four guys, the 1927 to 1929 stats of G/R are almost exactly the same as M/O/. With a slight better going to the old guys in BA, the rest of the catergories are right on top of each other.
    It’s amazing if you look at it.

    Brad January 24, 2006, 2:21 pm
  • * ’27 was the first year that G hit with R in the linuep.

    Brad January 24, 2006, 2:23 pm
  • yeah, I’m at work, so I actually have to work (imagine that), but I was going to point you to 1926-1928. Unreal.
    I really wonder if Manny-Ortiz is 2nd best behind those guys. I wonder if Kent-Bonds put together 3 better years for instance.
    anyone have any insights?

    Nick January 24, 2006, 2:23 pm
  • I think the OPS’s for both players are also notably better. Again, I looked quickly at them so maybe I’m wrong.

    Nick January 24, 2006, 2:27 pm
  • Brad January 24, 2006, 2:33 pm
  • from 2000-2002, Kent-Bonds was stronger than Ortiz-Manny these last three years. Bonds is ridiculous and Kent was superb.

    Nick January 24, 2006, 2:42 pm
  • Yeah, but on some level I think that until this year, Bonds has some real critics to shut up over his performances.
    For now, I can’t take some of those numbers seriously.

    Brad January 24, 2006, 3:04 pm
  • edit –
    I meant to say “until this year is over”
    Nick – GET TO WORK!!

    Brad January 24, 2006, 3:06 pm
  • I’m sorry, but my guess is there are numerous duos that stand with Manny and Ortiz, as phenomenal as they may be, and that’s not even counting Ruth and Gehrig, who are at a whole separate level (look at the OPSs, for god’s sake.) First there’s Barry Bonds and anyone else. If Ty Cobb was around, it’s a good bet he’d kick your ass for the merest suggestion that he and Wahoo Sam Crawford didn’t own the top slot. And then there’s Mays and McCovey and…..

    YF January 24, 2006, 4:32 pm
  • Carlos Quintana/Kevin Romine was quite the pair, too. Show them a little respect.

    SF January 24, 2006, 5:29 pm
  • Rotoworld reported that Guillermo Mota failed his physical, so the Crisp trade is still on hold. Sounds like Cleveland wants to put the squeeze on, a la the Sox with the Marlins during the Beckett deal, which, ironically, netted them Mota.
    Oh, and Theo’s title is “GM”, apparently.

    SF January 24, 2006, 6:00 pm
  • In the contract it’s “Greatest Muthaf#$” instead of General Manager…that was part of the big hold up…semantics.

    walein January 24, 2006, 8:40 pm
  • Brad,
    By double or nothing I meant on our old $10 bet. SF doesn’t bet — I don’t bet to win or lose real money, just for the bet itself.

    john January 26, 2006, 3:38 pm
  • BTW, who will hit 5th and 6th for the Sox this year? Nixon and Varitek, or will Lowell creep in there?
    Loretta will lead off (but would rather hit second behind Crisp, no?), but if the Sox don’t get Crisp, who will hit second?
    And who’s the DH? Piazza would be a better fit with the Sox than the Yanks (or any NL team).

    john January 26, 2006, 3:43 pm
  • Ortiz is the DH.
    Come on, John.

    SF January 26, 2006, 3:54 pm
  • The Coco deal is done. We got off that topic awhile a done, but I just thought I’d right it.
    http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060127&content_id=1302277&vkey=hotstove2005&fext=.jsp

    Laura January 28, 2006, 8:35 am
  • Oops. Make that ‘ago’, bot ‘a done.’ Forgive me, I just got out of bed.

    Laura January 28, 2006, 8:36 am
  • One more…make that ‘not’ instead of ‘bot’. When correcting one’s own grammer (or anyone else’s, for that matter), one should always make sure that she herself is grammatically correct.

    Laura January 28, 2006, 8:38 am

Leave a Comment