ptatc

Oops. Yep, obviously meant to type managers for the first part

Much of it is the competitive nature of these human beings. To get to this level they are very competitive. It isn't always about the absolute money value it's about making more than another player they deem themselves to be better than. Take a look at tyreek hill. He almost had a deal with the chiefs until Adam's signed that deal with the raiders. Then his demands went up because he had to make more than Adam's to be the highest paid WR.

Could be. I may be mixing them up.

Didn't he have UCL reconstruction in the middle of last season? That puts him about 9 months out. He is just getting into pitching again. He is just starting his buildup.

Doesn't have anything to do with when people were born. I would also add Girardi to the old school.

Agreed. In my opinion it should all be internal and never brought to the media. Unfortunately, it far to often makes it out there in the media today.

I wouldn't disagree In fact I think I said this at the time, as long as it goes both ways.

I wouldn't disagree with this as long as it applies to the players as well. Again it goes both ways.

This is true. He did go overboard. Bit the premise still stands on the throwing the player under the bus. If you are a marginal player and ignore the manager, nothing good will come of it. The pint about anyone being alive when he started managing is irrelevant.

That's is one thing we know from the literature, the more you stretch (passively anyway) the more likely you are to be injured. ?

There is a distinct difference. But I can see why you would want to obfuscate it.

I thought Abrams was going to stay in the infield.

I don't recall him telling the other team to throw at him. I thought it was "I don't blame them if they do." Still I don't blame the manager for throwing a player under the bus when the Ayer just flat out doesn't listen.

Why? Let me rephrase. I rarely gamble for money. Just fun things like I proposed in the other post. Let the winner claim he is right!

Let's wager. The Sox win 87 or fewer games you put negativity sucks in your signature. They win more than 87, I'll put optimists are idiots in mine.

Shhh. I'm trying to get him to bet on it.

When you ignore the manager, why would he have your back? It goes both ways.

Care to wager?

People keep ripping the Sox for having Vaughn in RF. I'm not sure if they are the starters but can anyone take SD serious if they have Myers, profar and mazara in the OF

No you must blame management. Players have less of an effect on yhe game than the players. Hyperbole of course but i can't believe that in baseball were mangers have such a small effect in the game comparatively TLR gets so much attention.

In the early 80s when the entire pitching fell apart with odd injuries Dotson (TOS) and Burns (arthritic hip) it made them aware of how fickle long term pitcher contracts would be. One reason they traded McDowell was his arthritic hip issue. He wanted a longer deal. The Sox traded him and he had only one good year after it.

I agree. That's why I said they were concentrated in a few players. They were generally a healthy team.

It was just concentrated on a few players with significant injuries.

Some people can't help but to focus on the negative all the time.

That's a possibility. He really does seem like a west coast guy.