Looking Back

Three years ago the Yanks swept FIVE from the Sox, in Boston no less.  In this old thread we all try to work out just what happened.  Fun stuff to look at in light of this weekend's events.

63 comments… add one

  • Reading that thread now, and seeing names like “Rudy Seanez” and “Jason Johnson” send shivers down my spine. And not the good kind.

    Atheose August 10, 2009, 3:34 pm
  • “December this team better have contracts on Zito, Schmidt, and some bullpen guys because they have absolutely no reason not to. Outside greed, of course”
    WTF. Thank the heavens that didn’t happen. It’s amazing how angry I was over Abreu.

    Brad August 10, 2009, 4:12 pm
  • Re-reading that thread makes me realize just how long some of us have been posting on here. As an aside, this site is a great place to come and have good, intelligent arguments surrounding our respective teams.
    SF, Nick, Gerb, and the like all do a wonderful job of pushing buttons, talking about what’s relative, and keeping track of what is important to us regarding this little game.

    Brad August 10, 2009, 4:18 pm
  • Not even reviewing that thread I recall Abreu’s otherworldly performance – he hit something like .480 with all kinds of XBHs if my memory serves. He too has been a great second-half player throughout his career (at least at the plate) and I seem to recall Schilling saying something like he was always one of the best hitters in the league come Sept or some such thing.
    The big difference for YFs this year is having 2 guys head the rotation who can shut opposing line-ups down, plus Joba who does the same from time to time. That is what this team has been missing for years.

    IronHorse August 10, 2009, 4:19 pm
  • The big difference for YFs this year is having 2 guys head the rotation who can shut opposing line-ups down, plus Joba who does the same from time to time. That is what this team has been missing for years.
    That’s what truly scares me about the Yankees.

    Atheose August 10, 2009, 4:36 pm
  • The big difference for YFs this year..
    We shall see how this plays out..

    Brad August 10, 2009, 5:00 pm
  • What I like about looking back is seeing some of the YF gloating that was going on, and knowing the Sox came out on top a bit over a year later.
    But I’m kind of a petty dude.
    Boy, do I remember the hours following that last loss in ’06. I wandered around Manhattan feeling pretty lost. This series was pretty damn easy to take by comparison (it was not at home, for one thing, and the Sox had won every previous match-up this year).

    Devine August 10, 2009, 5:12 pm
  • Man, I was angry. Like Devine, I’m not nearly upset about this one. Not sure if it’s because the Sox have won another World Series since, or because this series was much closer, but I feel much more ambivalent about this sweep than the 2006 sweep.
    Though I do think we need a moratorium on the phrase “Boston Massacre.”

    Paul SF August 10, 2009, 5:23 pm
  • “We shall see how this plays out..”
    True enough. To be clear, my comment was less a prediction than a statement of the potential the Yankees rotation now brings with it – which it hasn’t for years.

    IronHorse August 10, 2009, 5:30 pm
  • See, if Yankee fans were truly clever and historically inclined, someone would wear an official Sox jersey with the name “Attucks” stitched on the back to any potential sweep game against the Sox.

    SF August 10, 2009, 5:31 pm
  • There’s always an element of luck mixed in. For example, AJ Burnett has made a full season’s slate of starts three times in 9.5 seasons. But this year he looks strong, healthy, without worry. But any smart GM would have assumed Burnett would only make between 23 and, maybe, 27 starts, just to plan a contingency. Right now Burnett couldn’t be better, on pace to make a full season’s slate, which for him is an anomaly. That’s why it is always hard to give full credit to guys like Epstein and Cashman when things go so well (though they absolutely deserve credit), and hard to place them in the crosshairs when things don’t go perfectly.
    If Burnett makes 32-34 starts this year, that will be a massive accomplishment for him based on his career records and patterns, and a stroke of good luck for the Yankees. I think even they would admit this. And it is on a few of these strokes of luck that divisions sometimes rest. And I don’t mean that disparagingly: the Yankees were set up in a position where if most things went right they would probably be the best team in the Majors, no small feat. And right now, at this point in the season (minus perhaps A-Rod’s injury), most things are going and have gone right, with the pitching in particular. And that means that yes, the Yankees are the best team in the Majors.

    SF August 10, 2009, 5:38 pm
  • So you admit, SF, that there was a not insignificant element of luck involved with Beckett, Lowell, and 2007?

    AndrewYF August 10, 2009, 6:20 pm
  • Of course there was! Particularly Lowell, though.

    Devine August 10, 2009, 6:23 pm
  • I also agree that this Yankee team is better than the one in 2006. In every way. Which is insane, considering the 2006 team won 97 games.

    AndrewYF August 10, 2009, 6:24 pm
  • The 2006 team got by on offense but very average pitching. The 2009 team sports well-above average hitting with above average pitching, especially apart from Wang.
    Luck is a cognitive dissonance explanation if I’ve ever seen one. Across 162 games, luck is the last on the list of possible explanations.
    The Sox, this year, knew they’d have offense troubles. That’s why they went so hard after Tex. It’s still inexplicable to me how they could go from him to Baldelli and Kotsay colored duct tape.
    After that, they chose to rely on tired retreads for the back of the rotation rather than developing someone with more upside.
    If the Sox fail to make the post-season those are the two glaring mistakes. Alone they probably cost the Sox two to four wins each. Together you’re talking about 4 to 8 wins. That’s the difference between an 95-97 win team (and holding steady from 2008) versus slipping to a 88 to 91 win team (which is what they’re starting to look like).
    See, the Yankees finished with 89 wins in 2008. By adding Teixeira, Swisher, Sabathia, and Burnett they clearly added wins. So why were the Red Sox comfortable resting on last year and without accounting for the likely regressions from some players (i.e., Pedroia, Dice-K) and the aging of others (i.e., Wakefield, Ortiz, Lowell)? One legit pitcher and/or one legit hitter in the off-season and maybe they maintain a 95-win team. But to expect the same result without any clear improvements? What was Theo et al smoking?

    Rob August 10, 2009, 6:58 pm
  • No, Andrew. 2007 was an expertly put together team that deserved everything, no luck involved.
    —-
    Yes, Andrew, of course there was luck.

    SF August 10, 2009, 7:15 pm
  • Once again, Rob, if you believe they decided there was no second-best option RE: Teix, and they were willing to let this season play out without seeing the playoffs, and you believe they have a decent long-term plan, it’s not that f*cking crazy.

    Devine August 10, 2009, 10:48 pm
  • Cashman gets credit for banking on Damon when A) the Sox didn’t want to and B) people predicted he’d decline significantly and quickly. He has been excellent for the Yanks and very clutch, regardless of his arm, which stunk long before they got him.
    He gets credit for making a better impression and a few-million-more offer to Teix than the Sox front office did and he has been a tremendous added asset at the plate and in the field meeting exactly one of the primary needs the Sox have. He gets credit for passing on a pitching trade (for Santana) that would have sent Hughes or Joba and Melky packing in order to get both CC and an excellent # 2 in Burnett. Finally, he gets “credit” for years of failed trades for aging sluggers (Giambi) and past-prime or just plain bad pitchers (Brown, Igawa, Clemens part 2, etc.), but these were also moves made largely when he didn’t have full control.
    Is luck a factor? Of course, and it is good of you to remind us SF (though if we are cataloguing ’09 luck, we do have to factor back in the almost complete-season-loss of the guy they had slotted into the # 2/3 roll in Wang in addition to A-Rod’s extended absence and the loss of their starting RF in Nady, none of which were insignificant losses). But I’m happy to give Cashman credit for doing a very good job of building both the team on the field and keeping the prized minor-leaguers since he gained full control two years ago.

    IronHorse August 10, 2009, 11:49 pm
  • To be clear, the Damon point was not intended as an argument that the Sox would have been better off with Damon than without. I don’t even have an opinion on that – it’s about crediting Cashman with landing a guy who has been very productive when, at the time he got him, I think most people were assuming Damon was just re-signing with Boston.

    IronHorse August 11, 2009, 12:04 am
  • Devine – The next best options last year (Dunn, Ibanez, etc) were much better than they will be this year. The Sox lineup is in tough shape if they fail to re-sign Bay. Then the choice becomes trading all that young talent for an impact bat – even as the rest of the lineup ages even more – or trying to make do with their system.
    Finally, he gets “credit” for years of failed trades for aging sluggers (Giambi) and past-prime or just plain bad pitchers (Brown, Igawa, Clemens part 2, etc.), but these were also moves made largely when he didn’t have full control.
    I don’t buy that nonsense from many YFs. If he was drawing a paycheck and going along with the decisions, they’re just as much his fault as anyone else’s. If he had a major problem with any of those decisions he could have offered his resignation. He didn’t. Anything else is mere spin.
    You also can’t credit Cashman for things that have gone right (e.g., Damon) after many years of them going so wrong (e.g., Bubba Crosby).
    That all said, he does deserve credit for the current philosophy – develop your own, don’t trade them, and spend when necessary. It only took him a decade for the courage to enact it!

    Rob August 11, 2009, 7:06 am
  • He gets credit for making a better impression and a few-million-more offer to Teix
    I’m going to respectfully disagree with this interpretation of events by reminding you that Teixeira himself put the date of his decision to sign with the Yankees as earlier than the date he met with the Red Sox front office in Texas. I remain convinced, based on Teixeira’s own comments, that the Red Sox never had a legitimate chance at him, barring a truly massive and irresponsible overpay.

    Paul SF August 11, 2009, 9:27 am
  • And Rob retreads his old, personal arguments in another thread. And spamming “cognitive dissonance” again, too! It’s like he’s proud of himself for learning a new word.

    Atheose August 11, 2009, 9:44 am
  • I remain convinced, based on Teixeira’s own comments, that the Red Sox never had a legitimate chance at him, barring a truly massive and irresponsible overpay.
    The Sox failed to seal the deal. The Yankees then swooped in – with a truly massive and irresponsible overpay.
    But why then do nothing for the offense once that fell through?

    Rob August 11, 2009, 10:06 am
  • You misread what I wrote Rob. I gave him “credit” for the missteps while acknowledging that many of them were made at a time when he had input b ut not authority over decision-making. The latter does not absolve him of responsibility. It merely places the degree of responsibility he bears within the context of – you know – reality.
    As for “you go along with decisions or you resign”, this is a black-and-white unrealistic version of reality that anyone who has ever worked within a complex decision-making body would immediately discard as poly-annish. Sorry.

    IronHorse August 11, 2009, 10:12 am
  • How many years had he been there prior to the Randy Johnson trade, for instance?
    And how easily could he find another job if he so desired?
    By the way, I know another monkey who did exert his influence by pretty much walking away. So, in the proper context it doesn’t seem so outlandish at all.
    If Cashman went along with the decisions being made, he’s just as culpable as any one. That’s also the reality in any complex decision-making body. If you’re a lackey you’re just as much to blame.

    Rob August 11, 2009, 10:17 am
  • “How many years had he been there before the Randy Johnson trade…”
    And what exactly does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
    “And how easily could he find another job…”
    Yet again, relevance?!?? To anything?
    I’m sure he had a nice smile too and was successful with the ladies when he was younger. Also, he apparently like long walks on the beach and cheese fondue.
    “That’s also the reality in any complex decision-making body”
    Wrongm. Boards/shareholders/members, etc hold the primary decision-maker to account because he/she is viewed as being ultimately responsible.

    IronHorse August 11, 2009, 10:32 am
  • There were plenty of times for Cashman, to ummmm, stand up and make his voice known. Unfortunately, he chose to be a lackey until he threatened exactly what I’m saying he should have done earlier – to walk away. Instead, he went along with every bad decision. That makes him just as culpable as any other lackey.

    Rob August 11, 2009, 10:39 am
  • The Sox failed to seal the deal. The Yankees then swooped in
    Incorrect.
    Not to revisit this old fight, but I’ll remind us all of these two facts: The Yankees sent Teixeira a video with his favorite song (Twisted Sister, wasn’t it? Something like that.) before the Sox ever met him. He talked it over with his wife and decided to sign with the Yankees before the Sox ever met him. These are his and the Yankees’ own timelines, though Scott Boras obviously tells a different story.

    Paul SF August 11, 2009, 10:44 am
  • He talked it over with his wife and decided to sign with the Yankees before the Sox ever met him.
    Wow, only a SF could interpret the events in this light. Teixeira said: All else being equal he’d sign with the Yankees if they gave him a good offer. Instead of making things competitive, the Sox folded.
    Even still, you haven’t answered my question: Why did the Sox do nothing for the offense after they were willing to drop $180 Million on it?

    Rob August 11, 2009, 10:51 am
  • Also worse for your version of history, is the fact that you disagreed with me and thought Teixeira was worth the price. Somehow you believe that if the Sox listened to Boras and hit $190 or 200 Million, they would have taken with $10 or $20 million less to sign with the Yankees? The Yankees, after signing CC and Burnett, had a fixed budget.
    See, if you don’t think $180 Million was too much, and you didn’t, how does $190 or $200 Million become “a truly massive and irresponsible overpay”?

    Rob August 11, 2009, 10:55 am
  • “There were plenty of times to, ummmm, stand up and make his voice known”.
    This = input. Something no one is disputing he had. It is not authority. Something anyone who has followed the Yankees knows he didn’t have. That’s the entire point.
    As far as when he could have threatened to walk away, how could you possibly pretend to know when he did or didn’t threaten this? The reality is you don’t, and neither do I. All we know is that he was granted additional authority when it came time for his contract to be renegotiated. It may very well have been the earliest opportunity he had to convince ownership to grant him this authority. You want to say he should have walked away 5 years ago rather than stick it out to arrive where he is now, with the authority he has wanted and now has? Whatever.

    IronHorse August 11, 2009, 10:57 am
  • From the AP article at the time of the signing:
    Mark Teixeira sat down with his wife Dec. 12 to have dinner, his regular Friday “date night” with Leigh in Westlake, Texas.
    “I’d been asking her for weeks and weeks, ‘Where do you want to go? Where do you want me to play?’ ” Texeira related. “And she said, ‘I want you to be happy. I just want you to be happy.’ And finally, she said, ‘I want you to be a Yankee.’ So that’s when it was done.”

    Teixeira met with the Red Sox six days later.

    Paul SF August 11, 2009, 11:06 am
  • Yeah, Paul, he would have been a Yankee if they offered $20 million less. Keep dreaming. The Sox could have made things much more difficult if they competed. Instead, they quit.
    Something anyone who has followed the Yankees knows he didn’t have.
    Yeah, the press tells it exactly like it is. Tell me, why do we only hear about the decisions Cashman disagreed with?
    how could you possibly pretend to know when he did or didn’t threaten this?
    His most recent extension – widely reported – came after he demanded more authority or else he was leaving.
    I’m only objecting to people absolving him of blame for prior decisions. If he was the lackey, then he’s just as much to blame, no matter what spin you hear to the contrary.

    Rob August 11, 2009, 11:12 am
  • Rob: his speculation is better than the facts!

    Atheose August 11, 2009, 11:23 am
  • First, the definition of “absolve” is to free from obligation or the consequence of guilt. No one has suggested freeing Cashman of these things – only calibrating the degree of responsibility he bears by the extent to which he had authority. That’s basic management practice, not to mention being basic common sense.
    Second, knowing that the Yankee org’s ultimate decision-making – even on personnel matters – was maintained by Steinbrenner and that two rival camps of advisors sprang up in Tampa and NY, with Cashman representing only the latter, is not an example of naively following a misleading press. Offer a single counter-factual to this Rob. It was reality according to the press, Torre, and advisors like Jackson, et al. You want to argue that this wasn’t the case, cite something other than your personal hunches please.
    As far as your challenge “Tell me, why do we only hear about the decisions Cashman disagreed with?”, since this has nothing to do with anything I’ve asserted here, I’ll leave you to answer this one. Even when you do, it will remain irrelevant to this discussion.
    This back and forth began with a sentence that began “Cashman also deserves ‘credit’” for all types of bad decisions but then notes that – to be fair – he did not have ultimate decision-making authority for them. Nothing you’ve proposed since changes the validity of that statement.

    IronHorse August 11, 2009, 12:11 pm
  • If you’re not absolving Cashman, you’re in no place to ferret out responsibility. You admit he was part of a complex decision-making apparatus for over a decade. He’s just as responsible as any one else and even more so to the extent that he held a very public title. If he didn’t like that arrangement, he could have left. And that’s the choice he gave them.
    The organization’s decisions were Cashman’s decisions, and vice-versa. To play into any other scenario is to give Cashman latitude he doesn’t deserve. The distinction you’re trying to argue for is ultimately meaningless to any one outside the organization and to many inside of it. But I have little doubt that the stories we’ve read are an attempt by Cashman, and his allies, to absolve him of certain decisions. As you’ve pointed out, that’s not possible. If you really believe that, we have no disagreement.

    Rob August 11, 2009, 12:31 pm
  • He’s just as responsible as any one else
    This not true in any conceptual sense, and as an assertion it doesn’t address, even remotely, the realities of a complex corporate structure in which different groups may have competing interests.
    IH has done a very good job explaining himself and his argument, and there still have not been answers offers to his legitimate questions posed above.

    SF August 11, 2009, 1:17 pm
  • Until you can parcel out which groups were responsible for which decisions, this argument is going nowhere fast.
    My problem is Cashman being absolved in any sense of the term. He was the GM – all decisions were his decisions or he wasn’t deserving of the salary and title, even when the owner writes a contract on a napkin.

    Rob August 11, 2009, 1:39 pm
  • Again, not sure why there is a need to mis-represent what IH wrote quite explicitlty, which is the following:
    “The latter does not absolve him of responsibility. It merely places the degree of responsibility he bears within the context of – you know – reality.”
    Pretty clearly IH is not “absolving” Cashman in any way, he is merely adding what he saw as the context. Again I don’t understand why you need this to be in black and white, right and wrong terminology, in absolutes, that is.

    SF August 11, 2009, 1:50 pm
  • That’s the thing, Rob. He was the GM, but being the GM in that time mostly meant doing the paperwork. He had no amateur scouting budget to speak of (I honestly doubt he had much of a scouting department), and every move he made had to be approved by the guy upstairs, who had the final say.
    Now unencumbered, we can see what he’s capable of. He’s not perfect by any means – no one is – but he’s directly responsible for rebuilding the farm that’s just now begun to bear consistent fruit. He’s also always been fantastic at trading nothing for something, and it almost never turns the other way around. I really don’t understand the ire.

    AndrewYF August 11, 2009, 1:56 pm
  • My only ire is in trying to say certain decisions he was more, or less, responsible for. It’s really that simple.

    Rob August 11, 2009, 2:13 pm
  • He was the GM, but being the GM in that time mostly meant doing the paperwork.
    I was a vociferous Cashman detractor until about four or five years ago (it seemed like he got a lot of credit for Stick Michael’s work), but have actually come to appreciate his abilities in the context of the Yankee organization more and more over the years. He still gets more credit than he should sometimes, and more blame than he should sometimes, but so it goes in such a complicated place.
    Epstein is in a similar situation – Henry really is a hands-on Owner, even if you only go by his silly tweets. He’s got an ego that Epstein (who also has an ego) has to contend with. Henry has more of George Steinbrenner in him than he might be willing to cop to. His record with the Sox as principal owner is nearly unimpeachable, but I do see a bit of the theatrical egotism that made Big Stein a legend. It’s just more genteel and technologically advanced than George’s.
    Cashman has done a pretty fine job of sublimating his ego for the organization, and he’s culled more power from that tactic, I think. And from Big Stein’s deterioration, of course.

    SF August 11, 2009, 2:21 pm
  • Rob: Ibanez is 37. Dunn can’t play defense. You’re going to have to come up with better examples RE: this argument.

    Devine August 11, 2009, 2:27 pm
  • He’s got an ego that Epstein (who also has an ego) has to contend with.
    I disagree. If anything, it’s been shown that Epstein has more often had to contend with Lucchino’s ego than Henry’s. Henry, on the other hand, has been Epstein’s staunchest ally and has given him substantial leeway to build the team as he sees fit, within a given monetary contraint.

    Paul SF August 11, 2009, 2:37 pm
  • Before this season Ibanez had a career 116 OPS+. And he’s 37. Nobody in the world expected him having a career year.
    Rob: the world’s greatest Monday morning quarterback!

    Atheose August 11, 2009, 2:38 pm
  • You might need to look up the meaning of that phrase, Atheose, since I diagnosed the Sox’ 2009 problems in December and January. I mean who could have known ahead of time that their offense would be barely passable and that they’d get burned if they relied on Penny and Smoltz?
    The funny thing is Ibanez would have helped this team even with a 116 OPS+.
    SF, can you please stay on-topic? Where ever did something so nebulous as “ego” enter the discussion? Why?

    Rob August 11, 2009, 2:59 pm
  • Did you Rob? Give us a link to you diagnosing this problem before the season, because I don’t remember you saying it then.
    And back in December most people thought Ibanez’ 3 year, 30 mil contract was ludicrous. It’s ridiculously naive to point to him after the fact and say “the Sox should have locked him up for at least 3 seasons!”

    Atheose August 11, 2009, 3:03 pm
  • Atheose, here’s a useful tool that can help you find what you’re looking for.
    I never did advocate specifically Ibanez, though except for above. Mostly it was an argument about the value of Dunn for the Sox and how Penny would be awful while Buchholz would be a better option than Smoltz. Look around you’ll find it.
    Still, I’m not perfect. I thought the Yankee offense needed another bat – for 2009 and because the 2010 market is so weak. I’ve happily been proven wrong (but mostly because they’ve stayed healthy since June and because of YS 2.0). We’ll see about 2010, but they’re making a big mistake if they don’t get another corner OF.

    Rob August 11, 2009, 3:10 pm
  • Here’s a tool that could help you, Atheose.
    I never advocated Ibanez, though. The point from this thread is that there were options available. Dunn I spent the most time on arguing with Paul. I always said Penny would not be good in the AL East. And I said both he and Smoltz would wrongly take starts from Buchholz.
    Of course, I’m not perfect. I said the Yankee offense would need help. They haven’t but I’ll chalk that up to YS 2.0 and that they’ve been healthy since June. But they’ve also been helped by Swisher, Cano, Melky, and Gardner being much better.

    Rob August 11, 2009, 3:19 pm
  • Actually Rob, the closest thing I’ve found to you mentioning Boston’s biggest “questions” after the Teixeira signing is here:
    http://www.yfsf.org/2008/12/cnnsi-boston-wanted-ramirez-back.html?cid=6a00d8341c583d53ef010536a78e1c970c#comment-6a00d8341c583d53ef010536a78e1c970c
    Pitching and defense (and speed) is a clear strength and the Sox can compete with anyone on all. I can certainly see them winning close games with the Yankees and Rays by scratching across some runs and holding the other team down. And Massarotti is at least partially right – Lowrie’s defense, relative to his bat, is probably the biggest question your team faces apart from the catcher slot. At least in CF no one is going to question Ellsbury’s defense.
    Posted by: Rob | Wednesday, December 31, 2008 at 11:07 AM

    Atheose August 11, 2009, 3:22 pm
  • Henry, on the other hand, has been Epstein’s staunchest ally and has given him substantial leeway to build the team as he sees fit, within a given monetary contraint.
    Who said anything about Henry not being an ally, or not giving him leeway? He has been an ally and he has given Epstein a ton of latitude.
    But if you think that Henry doesn’t have an ego, and that he hasn’t flexed his muscles publicly over the last couple of years then I don’t think you have been paying full attention.

    SF August 11, 2009, 3:25 pm
  • Thanks for trying SF, but I believe it is pointless. Rob has made it clear that he beleives there is no space between being 100% liable for something and being entirely absolved of responsibility for it. Having input on a decision and having authority for making it are the same in Rob’s world.
    These positions alone make clear how absurd his point here is.

    IronHorse August 11, 2009, 3:25 pm
  • Oh wait, it gets better! On the thread specifically about Boston’s Plan B:
    http://www.yfsf.org/2008/12/the-morning-after.html?cid=6a00d8341c583d53ef01053699ff88970c#comment-6a00d8341c583d53ef01053699ff88970c
    I think this ends up being a very good non-deal for the Sox. They didn’t need Teixeira, so it would have been silly to spend the stupid money on one player when they’ve been very disciplined otherwise. Who makes the most for you guys now? And they were going to blow that away for a guy who maybe would have been the forth or fifth most important player (1. Beckett 2. Pedroia 3. Ortiz 4. Papelbon) on the team?
    As for Plan B, I really question the timing of the Baldelli “discovery”. Right when he becomes a free agent all of a sudden the prognosis is much better?
    If I’m the Sox, I hold tight. This was a very good team in 2008 when more than a few pieces weren’t firing on all cylinders. No reason to go crazy.


    This team is certainly good enough to compete as is and the farm has a lot of talent. Who would have predicted two or three years ago that Pedroia would win an MVP? Worse case it’s a rebuilding year like 2006. That turned out alright. Best case, the kids give you guys something fun to cheer for: Another homegrown star.

    Atheose August 11, 2009, 3:27 pm
  • Having input on a decision and having authority for making it are the same in Rob’s world.
    When the person has the title and salary of GM, then yeah, sure, there’s no difference. Now if you want to argue about Jason Zillow’s culpability, that should be a hoot.
    Sure, Atheose, there’s also this:
    http://www.yfsf.org/2009/01/i-hear-theyve-got-a-heck-of-a-pitching-staff.html
    Want more?

    Rob August 11, 2009, 3:34 pm
  • I don’t know about “makes no sense” considering the health questions of Lowell and Ortiz, and even Drew. Even if all three got 500 ABs, that still leaves 300-400 ABs unaccounted for. Baldelli and Kotsay or Dunn?
    Posted by: Rob | Wednesday, February 04, 2009 at 11:10 AM

    So you questioned their health? All three have been healthy, more than we expected actually. That’s somewhat different than expecting a steep decline.
    And in that very thread you mention that “Where the Yanks had many holes, the Sox really didn’t.” and “While these risks make some sense, but a solid bat (Teixieira, Dunn, perhaps waiting on Anderson?) and a solid arm (Burnett, Lowe) could have really helped the red team.” You’re saying that additions could have helped the team (this is obvious), but also say that the lack of improvement is understandable since the Sox had no glaring holes.
    That’s far different than what you’re saying today, that the offense was obviously “barely passable”, to use your wording.

    Atheose August 11, 2009, 3:42 pm
  • Nah, Lowell has been soooo healthy this year. Ortiz is also the picture of perfect health.
    And the Sox didn’t have obvious holes – assuming everyone was healthy and productive. History has now shown that was a big assumption, and one they should have anticipated.
    By the way, Atheose, here’s a tool to help you cherry pick. I’m done defending myself to you especially since you’re so clearly wrong even though you were presumably reading those threads while you participated in them.
    Doing this here with you now has been shown to be meaningless. You won’t remember this thread in eight months, then you’ll pull quotes out of context to make some lame point about how I was wrong. Have fun!

    Rob August 11, 2009, 3:52 pm
  • Ath, you are my hero.

    Paul SF August 11, 2009, 3:55 pm
  • *Joba-esque fist-pump*

    Atheose August 11, 2009, 4:00 pm
  • *Joba-esque fist-pump*
    You didn’t even have to walk the bases loaded to do it!

    Paul SF August 11, 2009, 4:31 pm
  • Rob, when three people tell you you are drunk, it’s a good idea to lay down.
    Atheose…I’ll take a Papelbon-esque fist pump, but either way, nicely done.

    IronHorse August 11, 2009, 4:53 pm
  • IH, I’ll take either one! They’re both pretty emphatic.
    And Rob, as far as defending yourself against my “cherry picking”…
    If I’m the Sox, I hold tight. This was a very good team in 2008 when more than a few pieces weren’t firing on all cylinders. No reason to go crazy.
    This team is certainly good enough to compete as is and the farm has a lot of talent.
    Posted by: Rob | Wednesday, December 24, 2008 at 09:28 PM

    Atheose August 11, 2009, 5:11 pm
  • So, when Rob says he’s done doing defending himself, does that mean he’s just going to stick to barbs about Big Papi’s smile?

    rootbeerfloat August 11, 2009, 5:54 pm
  • Exactly, RBF. He doesn’t cheat on his wife so the media loves him!

    Atheose August 11, 2009, 6:43 pm

Leave a Comment