Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

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. OCD SS Posted: November 13, 2009 at 04:45 AM (#3386635)
Escobar would be a fantastic pick up, but I have a hard time seeing a team looking to save some money (by dumping Lowe) moving a starting SS who's dirt cheap just because he may or may not have made Cox's sh!t list (and Cox will be gone after next year anyway).

Agon's defense seems to have declined a bit. It's too bad they couldn't deal for Hardy, but Wilson is probably a better option to serve as Lowrie's caddy at this point.
   2. Marcel Posted: November 13, 2009 at 05:21 AM (#3386657)
If the rumors of Callaspo for Ellis have any truth to them at all, then serious talent would certainly not be required to get him.
   3. Marcel Posted: November 13, 2009 at 05:27 AM (#3386662)
If the Angels wind up resigning Figgins, that would pretty much spell the end of Wood ever getting a chance out there. He would nice high-risk/high-reward type pickup. Assuming, of course, you think he can play SS.
   4. The District Attorney Posted: November 13, 2009 at 05:36 AM (#3386675)
I don't think Callaspo is a plausible major league SS. He's a bad 2B as it is.
   5. Paxton Crawford Ranch Posted: November 13, 2009 at 06:29 AM (#3386704)
I like the idea of targeting Wood, but I'm not sure how well he fits in on this team. I think the Sox will decide to go with a better defender to pair with Lowrie. I wonder if Erick Aybar or Maicer Izturis might become available with Kendrick (presumably) playing everyday.
   6. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: November 13, 2009 at 06:34 AM (#3386705)
Given the offensive options, I would rather the Sox go with the defenders. Save the runs at a crucial position if you can't create them.
   7. Marcel Posted: November 13, 2009 at 06:43 AM (#3386712)
Between Bartlett, Rodriguez, and Brignac, the Rays have a bit of a glut at SS also. The question there is if the Rays would be willing to deal within the division. Bartlett is going to start getting expensive starting this year so that might be incentive for the Rays to move him.
   8. geonose Posted: November 13, 2009 at 07:16 PM (#3387135)
Ellis for Callaspo would never be done straight up; it would be part of a larger deal. But for heavens sake, do NOT even dream of playing Callaspo at short. The thought of the sight of that sends shivers down my spine, and not the good kind of shivers. He's played some third, though, and in small sample sizes looks to be tolerable there, and maybe better than at second.
   9. tfbg9 Posted: November 13, 2009 at 08:43 PM (#3387284)
The OC's out there. He's a decent stop-gapper. He's kinda old, and the UZR's are more spikey than the
top of Richie Stott's head...but he can play.
   10. Joel W Posted: November 13, 2009 at 09:36 PM (#3387361)
Scutaro? http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/free-agent-marco-scutaro This article made me think he might be a worthwhile one year signing.
   11. Marcel Posted: November 13, 2009 at 09:44 PM (#3387370)
Scutaro would be fine if he'll settle for a one year deal. He might be able to extort a two or three year deal out of someone else based on the strength of his 09 season though.
   12. Nasty Nate Posted: November 13, 2009 at 10:03 PM (#3387392)
weird to say, but I wish Hanley wasn't quite as good as he is so that the Fishies would want to dump his salary...
   13. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: November 13, 2009 at 10:44 PM (#3387428)
Hands off my HanRam.
   14. Nasty Nate Posted: November 13, 2009 at 11:11 PM (#3387444)
\\backs away slowly with hands open
   15. Darren Posted: November 14, 2009 at 03:35 AM (#3387531)
But if he was worse he wouldn't have that contract, right?
   16. GP14 Posted: November 14, 2009 at 01:32 PM (#3387602)
Wilson re-signed with Seattle. Free Agent SS, oldest to youngest: Vizquel, OC and John McDonald, Scutaro, Tejada, AGon and Everett, Khalil Greene, and Bobby Crosby. Best glove is Everett. I'd give Scutaro the nod as the best player. AGon may still be the best fit. But I wonder, when is the last time a 32-year-old Gold Glove 2B moved to SS?
   17. Joel W Posted: November 14, 2009 at 09:30 PM (#3387773)
Scutaro is a type A apparently.
   18. LB813 Posted: November 17, 2009 at 12:06 AM (#3389030)
No way they sign Scutaro and give up draft picks. Either it comes in a trade or they are going with Lowrie to start the season.
   19. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 17, 2009 at 12:31 AM (#3389040)
they are going with Lowrie to start the season.

This time...will be different!
   20. Textbook Editor Posted: November 19, 2009 at 03:40 AM (#3390862)
Because I have nowhere else to vent... Ireland was hosed, hosed, hosed today against France. A total disgrace--the deciding goal scored on an assist after a hand ball that was not called.

Someone will have to explain to me two things about soccer/football that is baffling to me:

1) Why only 1 official to cover 100 yards of field and 22 players? Basketball has 3 to cover 10 players and 94 feet. Is it solely a monetary issue (3 refs cost more per game than 1), or something else? I'm honestly curious, because I've never heard anyone explain why more officials aren't added, even though everyone seems to ##### from time to time that all officials miss things.

2) Why no instant replay on disputed goals, especially internationally/in World Cup play? It seems plainly insane not to have it--the NHL has this sort of limited replay available--you wouldn't have to make it like the American NFL--just make it for disputed goals. Again, I'm honestly curious here--I've not followed soccer long enough to understand what the rationale is against it.

Sorry for the hijack, but I needed to vent...
   21. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 19, 2009 at 03:45 AM (#3390864)
1) Why only 1 official to cover 100 yards of field and 22 players? Basketball has 3 to cover 10 players and 94 feet. Is it solely a monetary issue (3 refs cost more per game than 1), or something else? I'm honestly curious, because I've never heard anyone explain why more officials aren't added, even though everyone seems to ##### from time to time that all officials miss things.

There are 4 officials, actually. The one running on the field, one on each sideline, and a fourth official that mostly just handles substitutions. Unless things have changed since my refereeing days, the linesmen don't just call offsides and throw-ins, they also indicate to the head ref when they've seen a foul.
   22. Textbook Editor Posted: November 19, 2009 at 04:02 AM (#3390871)
#21--Thanks, Biff--my impression was linesmen could NOT call fouls on their own, though--is that right? Or can they blow the whistle/raise the flag on a foul and then the foul MUST be called/upheld (i.e. without "review" by the main ref)?
   23. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 19, 2009 at 06:09 AM (#3390915)
#21--Thanks, Biff--my impression was linesmen could NOT call fouls on their own, though--is that right? Or can they blow the whistle/raise the flag on a foul and then the foul MUST be called/upheld (i.e. without "review" by the main ref)?

My reffing days are now 10 years in the past, but usually there would be at least a brief discussion between the center ref and the linesman.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2565 seconds
41 querie(s) executed