User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5427 seconds
39 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. tfbg9 Posted: June 03, 2008 at 02:38 AM (#2803695)Don't sign Bonds.
If they don't sign Bonds. Which they really should. He's the perfect solution, assuming the "month" is just B.S.
I'd rather see them, I dunno, maybe just "Kerrigan" A-Rod's knee. Its on about the same level
of win-at-all-costs depravity.
OK, almost.
Me, I believe neither one of these statements.
:)
Or, more likely, to get Toronto into the playoffs.
Even worse than not playing, he was a giant sucking sound in the lineup hitting behind the then-red hot Ellsbury and Pedroia.
Me too.
Nice Tolkien reference. Not as good as "[Sam] came and sat curled up at Frodo's feet", but then again, that's an altogether different category.
(One of these days, my occasional references to Star Blazers will also be recognized. That will be a glorious day indeed. Sure, people here are surer of spotting the Tolkien references in a blind night than the cats of Queen Beruthiel, but still I hope).
He's having a pretty good May from what I see at SOSH.
1. Move Manny to DH and put Moss in LF. It keeps Coco out of the lineup on an extended basis and improves the OF defense without losing Manny's bat.
2. The aforementioned Chris Carter. He's a LHH with a ML ready bat, the knock has always been on his fielding. If he's DHing, that's not an issue so much.
I'm not sure there's much of a point to signing Bonds. If it's going to take him 2 weeks to get ready then what do the Sox do with him if Ortiz is back just after the ASB? (Of course there's also that "I'll never play for a racist town like Boston" bit.)
If Ortiz is out for the season, they can revisit this, but if they are thinking ahead they should inquire about signing Lamar to a minor league deal and have him start getting in shape so that when the cast comes off Barry is almost ready to go.
Coco's been bad enough with the bat and Moss good enough that I'm willing to concede that there's probably not a huge difference between them at this point, so long as Moss isn't playing against LHP
Somehow, I don't think the Red Sox are overly concerned about Moss's service time.
Did you watch the Super Bowl? You couldn't have enjoyed it much.
No, but there were three other Super Bowls in the relatively recent past that were more enjoyable for New England fans. It's quite a run at the top of the sports world, though it's not going to last because it never does. The 15-year championship drought that covered the entirety of my adolescence and young adulthood hasn't entirely been forgotten.
Take it to the other thread. This sucks.
I don't know, I giggled a little.
Yep, same with my dad, though moving to New York from Massachusetts before the Patriots even existed made it even easier.
Rotoworld is reporting that Chris Carter is on his way to Fenway, replacing David Ortiz on the roster (contradicting the earlier report that had Masterson using that roster spot). I guess this means that Bailey is going back down?
Take that PECOTA projection for Carter with a grain of salt. He was abysmal after the trade last year, but hit for a .272-.276 EqEQA in 2006-2007 with Tucson and is right around there this year at Pawtucket. That isn't quite Big Papi territory, but it is as good as the Red Sox are likely to find internally.
It seems like some sort of offense/defense platoon with Carter/Coco might be interesting, with Manny shuttling between DH and LF. Tito hasn't usually been much for job-sharing arrangements, but I think he's done a great job keeping Ellsbury and Coco from ever sitting for too long this season, and I'm hopeful he can work Carter's bat into the lineup, as long as the Red Sox think it's worth it.
My wife is in rehab after surgery for a broken wrist and I had her ask the surgical nurse in the hand clinic about this sort of injury. The nurse shrugged and said, "Maybe surgery, maybe not. You can never tell." So there it is from the expert. We won't know anything for a while.
Don't forget Kevin, it's basically the same thing that happened to Schilling (albeit, a different joint) and it took him a full year to get back to form.
Moss is probably still weak after the surgery. Once he's ready, I'd DH Manny fulltime and platoon Moss/Coco
There's no way to really know. CC did impress a lot of coaches in ST, and there was a report that he actually had decent speed (turning in a shuttle time beaten only by Coco and Jacoby). IIRC his throwing is a bit weak because of a shoulder injury (although not Damon bad), and I have no idea on reads and routes in the OF.
Just because of Manny's experience with the Monster I would be tempted to go to a home/road platoon in LF.
I guess the millionm dollar question is - Who they going to use now? Probably Joba, right?
:)
No injury can be described as "the" Nomar injury.
Concidentally, a month is about what Bonds is going to need before he could plausibly play regularly. So after a month the Sox could suddenly find they've gone through all the misery (and cost) of signing Bonds and ended up with a guy they don't need.
Barry Bonds is not out of the question, is he?
Yes, he is.
Bonds won't be coming to Boston, but if he did, we would prove the existence of spontaneous human combustion.
If it's not one excuse for not signing Bonds, it's another, I guess.
It would take Bonds a couple weeks to get into game shape, not a month. And, you know, there's a very real chance that Ortiz is gone for the year. But even if he comes back, Bonds can go to the bench and spot start and pinch hit. (I have no idea why people think Bonds would not be mature enough to handle such a role.) If Bonds is hitting, happily, they'll find him more playing time. What we do know is that the near-useless Sean Casey (no, I don't think he's a .351 hitter) has gotten 82 PAs in 61 team games, so the idea that there's zero playing time available for Bonds is ludicrous.
As if possibly the best hitter in the league is "a guy they don't need."
Well, I never said he wasn't that mature. I have no idea, maybe he is. But it doesn't matter, because why would the Red Sox go to all the trouble of signing Bonds to be a spot-starter and PH?
I'll agree that Sean Casey is near-useless, but the idea that Bonds could take his time is silly. Casey recieved 54 of his 82 PA (in other words, two-thirds) during the time when he was the regular 1B while Youk moved to third and Lowell was hurt. Bonds is no help in that situation--unless the Red Sox plan to have a 43 year-old with bad knees play 1B for the first time in his career.
Look, there's a lot of teams out there that should've signed Bonds (Seattle, Toronto, Oakland...) but the Red Sox weren't one of them at the beginning of the season, and they aren't now. Period.
There's a "chance" of anything happening. But there's not much of a "chance" that Bonds can't hit anymore. That's just trying to make excuses for why you don't want to see your team improve.
There's one very big difference between Bonds and Ruth/Mays/Aaron/Musial, which is what made James's analysis silly: those people all did stop hitting at some point. Bonds hasn't. To predict with an air of certainty precisely when Bonds will stop hitting, as James did, is idiocy of the highest order.
You'd have said the same thing after 2005 and 2006 also - that there was a real "chance" that Bonds couldn't hit anymore. You'd have been wrong each time. So why should I trust your analysis now?
Nomar was never durable, but he was one player before Al Reyes split that tendon with an inside fastball, and he was another player afterward. I definitely remember the wrist as The Injury that took Nomar away from us, even though he returned as an All-Star caliber SS for two more seasons.
Wrong. Unless you think that Bonds is not actually a human being, and not subject to the laws of aging. Or history.
There's one very big difference between Bonds and Ruth/Mays/Aaron/Musial, which is what made James's analysis silly: those people all did stop hitting at some point. Bonds hasn't.
He hasn't, so he never will? What are you basing this idea that Bonds has almost no chance of collapsing on? There's no history you can point to - all of it suggests that it is very likely to happen. The only argument I think you are making is, "he didn't collapse in 2007. Therefore, its very unlikely he will collapse in 2008. I don't agree with the logic at all.
Several other all time greats have put up very high OPS+ at an advanced age. They all stopped hitting. All of them. And when they stopped, they stopped in a hurry; they absolutely collapsed, without warning. None of the teams they played for thought they were likely to collapse, just like you don't think Bonds is likely collapse. But he will.
So why this year? Well, there's no guarantees. Its all about chances. And, as I said, there's a chance he will retain his value. But the fact that he is 43, with bad knees, and narrowing offensive skills, and was unable to play full time last year, and didn't have spring training, all adds up to a player who's chances of collapsing are sizable.
You're welcome. And you know what sometimes causes split tendons, don't you? Besides inside fastballs?
(ducks out before anyone notices what I just done)
Well, eventually he will stop hitting, obviously. But you have no idea if that point is now, or when it will be.
If you predict it over and over again you'll eventually be right, but that doesn't mean the prediction has any value.
My logic is basically "he didn't collapse in 2007, so we can't assume he'll likely collapse in 2008."
But note that citing other all-time greats is of limited utility. As a specific matter, obviously you can't predict exactly when Bonds will collapse. As a general matter, quite simply, Bonds is not like "other all-time greats." There are perhaps two hitters that Bonds can rationally be compared to: Williams and Ruth. And even there, it doesn't exactly work since with era adjustments Bonds is probably better than them (he certainly has had better single years). I have no idea why we would take a hitter so unique that he is perhaps the greatest hitter ever and try to "compare" him to the aging patterns of other hitters, when he has already shown that such comparisons are utterly invalid. But even so, Ruth and Williams are only two data points, and ones that _do not_ support the argument that Bonds is done (more on this below).
And I have no idea why Musial, or Aaron, or Mays are even in this discussion. Bonds was a flat better hitter than them.
If we focus on Ruth and Williams, we see that the arguments don't wash. Ruth collapsed at age 40. Bonds did not collapse at age 40, and, moreover, had two great years at ages 41 and 42. So the Ruth comparison doesn't work, because Bonds has already shown that he has aged better than Ruth. Since the analogy to Ruth has already failed, why on earth would anyone cite Ruth in order to support the argument that Bonds is likely done? Ruth shows precisely the opposite of that. If we followed the Ruth example, we would have concluded that Bonds was done _after age 39_.
As to Williams, he collapsed at age 40, but then had a great year at age 41. So I don't see what citing to Williams proves, actually. Williams had a great 41 and then retired; he could quite clearly still hit when he retired. The only issue was health, not performance.
It would be interesting to hear Bonds' response to such an offer.
- - - - - - -
I don't want Bonds on the Red Sox, because right now the clubhouse isn't a circus, and putting Bonds on a team I like that is generally without controversy these days in a media-waiting-for-a-frenzy town adds up to... well, I don't want to find out what it adds up to.
That said, if they sign him I'm still rooting for the Red Sox.
The Mets are fooling with the washed-up Fernando Tatis playing out of position in left. Tatis can't hit, and he can't field. The people making the decisions deserve to be criticized for that.
The position he would take is occupied by perhaps the most popular player on the club. He's publicly feuded with the loudmouth pitcher. He's previously indicated he wouldn't sign with Boston because of the fans. Signing Bonds could create genuine resentment in the clubhouse which could have negative consequences, for what is not a guaranteed benefit (particularly if Papi does come back).
I think there are teams that could use him. I strongly supported Tampa signing him before the season, but I wouldn't now unless (until?) Floyd is lost again. But at this point, the Sox aren't really one of them. If at some point Papi is ruled out for the season, then it would be a subject worth discussing.
As I said, if you told Bonds he'd DH now and then go to the bench when Ortiz returns, I doubt he'd complain.
"Because everyday Bonds would be the story -- 'the media would have a frenzy' and all that."
But why? Other players have been controversial. Why Bonds in particular?
"Are you kidding? Haven't you been paying attention?"
Pretend I haven't.
"Because he did steroids/hgh."
Let's assume he did. So have plenty of other players. Why aren't they a circus?
"Because he was a really good player who did steroids/hgh."
There have been really good players who have done (or who may have done) steroids/hgh. Sheffield, Giambi, Sosa, Clemens, Tejada, Gagne... there's not the same "circus" around these players.
"Bonds is under investigation."
Okay. Other players in other sports have been under investigation for a lot bigger crimes. And has there been a circus around them? Sometimes, but it went away. Kobe Bryant, for instance.
"That was a huge circus."
Did it hurt the team? The Lakers made the finals the season that Kobe was accused of rape.
"It was still a circus."
I was in Los Angeles. It was a big deal... until it wasn't anymore. It's certainly not a big deal in Los Angeles any more.
"But that was Kobe, not Bonds."
What do you see as the difference? Why did the circus go away around Kobe but wouldn't around Bonds?
"Kobe can be more personable than Bonds. (Insert jokes about understatement here). Kobe sweet-talked the press."
That's not what I saw in Los Angeles. There's a very sizeable part of the LA press that decided from Day 1 that it liked O'Neal and didn't like Bryant. Until this very year, Kobe has had plenty of people in the LA press out to get him. Or at least that's how I see it -- others may have seen it differently. I'm not saying they're as out to get him as the press seems to be out to get Bonds, but they're out to get him. And yet, even being out to get him, they stopped pushing the rape story. There were other stories to tell.
"But the steroids/hgh thing has surrounded Bonds for years now. There's no sign of it letting up."
Ok, but WHY?
"The press hates Bonds?"
Maybe. But they hate plenty of people and they drop those stories. Why are they pushing a story about Bonds ("drug-user") when they could be pushing stories about, say, Julio Lugo ("wife-beater")? Why Bonds?
"Because Bonds is a star. Because people care more about the stars than they do the more ordinary players."
People? Which people? The press? The press write about what the fans want to read about, right?
"Not the press, the fans. Other fans, I mean -- I don't want to read about Bonds anymore. I'm sick of it. That's why I don't want the circus."
Do you think others aren't sick of it?
"Everyone I know is sick of it."
So why does the press keep writing about it?
"Well, either they think we want to know about it a lot more than we do..."
Right.
"...Or we say we don't want to read/hear about it any more but are sending the press mixed messages by reading about it and so forth."
Right, exactly. I'm not saying that the press doesn't try to push non-stories. 'Curt Schilling may have colored his sock red!' and so forth. But they can only push them to the extent that people keep reading/listening. If people stop reading the articles and stop listening to the radio shows that keep beating figurative dead horses, the writers/talkers will find something else to talk about. Newspapers can't keep publishing articles that no one wants to read. Radios can't keep talking about issues that make people change channels.
"So, what? You're saying that the circus exists because we let it?"
Basically, yeah. If you don't want a circus, stop paying attention to the people promoting it. If enough people truly are sick of hearing about steroids/hgh all the time, and enough people stop paying attention to the media people who won't shut up about it, those media people will either find something else to talk about, or be forced to find another job. It's like that Treehouse of Horror bit with Paul Anka. Want to kill the monster? Just don't look. Even better, tell the advertisers that you're not using their products so long as they support people who feed the "circus."
"Good luck getting everyone in Boston to do that."
Maybe. But in the meantime, at least you won't have to deal with the circus. Watch the games, read only the papers/internet that don't play up the "Bonds is front page news every day" angles, and so far as you yourself are concerned, there won't be a circus. The only way you're going to be irritated by any frenzy surrounding Bonds is if you pay attention to the frenzy; stop paying attention to it and the frenzy becomes the tree falling in the woods -- so long as you don't hear it, who cares if it makes a sound for other people? Moreover, if enough people do as you do, the frenzy will go away. In the meantime, the frenzy won't be bothering you. Seriously, there will always be controversial players. If you act sufficiently bored by their story, eventually, their story will stop being pushed in your face. And in the meantime, the Sox will have what looks like an excellent temporary replacement for David Ortiz.
EDITED for clarity (or my best approximation thereof)
::Starts slow clap::
The reason I don't want the circus is that I don't want the players, coaches, or manager spending time during the game thinking about the annoying questions they'll get after the game. If a player is in a clutch situation, I want him focusing on succeeding, not thinking about the possibility of failure and whether he'd be subsequently asked if being distracted by Bonds' presence made him fail. Whether I read the articles or watch the interviews doesn't matter; the media will ask the questions and potentially create a distraction for the players.
Bonds will almost certainly be better than whoever he replaces. I don't want it to come at a cost of the other players being worse than they'd be without him. Honestly I can't quantify the impact the media can have on the players. Maybe it's zero, maybe it's more significant than whatever value Bonds brings. I'd just rather not find out.
Can't that be solved? "I'm not going to answer questions about steroids/hgh/Bonds. I have no opinions. (And don't quote me). Ask about it, and we'll cut the interview short. That stuff has nothing to do with the Red Sox."
If this is someone who is worrying about failure, they're going to worry about failure regardless. This team won the World Series last year anyway. Presumably they can focus on succeeding in the face of yet another possible reason for failure. And with Bonds on the team, if individuals do fail, there's more chance of another player (namely Bonds) picking them up afterwards. You're saying that they're going to fail more and worry more about failure with Bonds in the lineup than with Coco "oh fer" Crisp taking those at bats?
I can guaranf***ingtee you that when Mike Lowell goes up to the plate, when he digs in, when the pitch is on the way, he is not thinking about anything except hitting the pitch. When he takes his position on the field, when he sets up, when the pitcher delivers the ball, when the scorching ground ball is on the way, he's not thinking "Gee, I wish we didn't have such a circus here."
He's just thinking about making the play.
And that's really just a guess on your part.
But it illustrates the other half of this. Besides Bonds not being the best fit for Boston, I don't think Boston is the best fit for Bonds. Just as you doubt he'd complain, I doubt he's terribly interested in coming back to be a fourth outfielder/backup DH.
He's just thinking about making the play.
Because if there's one thing we've learned about athletes, it's that they aren't human or susceptible to any human tendencies.
He wants to win a championship.
And now he sees that he is probably out of opportunities. I think he'd take it.
Actually, if there's one thing we've learned, it's that athletes are not robots and each of them reacts differently to different intangible factors.
This is despite the attempt by people to pretend that athletes are robots and all react exactly the same to various intangible factors, to the point where people claim they can predict how a group of athletes will respond.
I call b***s***.
Put me down in the "I call ########" category.
Ray, I'm totally lost. Didn't you just claim that Lowell IS a robot and wouldn't let anything in his brain or clubhouse surroundings distract him from the game as he's at 3B waiting for someone to adjust his batting gloves or the rosin? You guaranteed (predicted?) he would have no reaction or distraction at all.
But Ray, you seem to want to rule out the possibility that the acquisition of Bonds could produce any negative response in the Boston clubhouse.
I don't know what kind of an impact Bonds would have in the clubhouse. Nor do I know whether that would result in any negative impact on the field. But for a team that is the defending world champs and is playing well at the moment, a team that seems to coexist well, and for a team that has no permanent position for a guy as good as Bonds has been, I'm not interested in finding out the answer to those first two questions for what I see are minimal benefits. As I said earlier, if Papi is lost for the season, it may be worth discussing. At the moment, it just isn't.
Winning two games vs Tampa + Losing Papi for a month = net positive
As an aside... Ray, I like how you called BS on Lassus' generalization of your own comment. I'm sure that's not how you meant it, but it did make me chuckle.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main