thxfrthmmrs

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 11:50 AM) Three comments... 1) The Bulls also bricked a ton of outside shots in that series. Bogans and Korver were essentially useless, bricking wide-open 3's all series. If they had hit a few of those, the series would not have ended in 5. 2) I never said they need another Kyle Korver. What they need is a 2-guard (not a backup PG that is never going to be on the floor at the same time as Derrick) that can do a little bit of everything. The ability to stretch the floor is important because otherwise you get teams successfully packing the paint like the Heat did in that playoff series, and they need at least some ability to get decent shots in one-on-one situations. That's very different from getting a pure driver that needs the ball to be effective and would take the ball out of Derrick's hands. 3) The Thunder are basically what you want, but it has very little to do with having additional ball-handlers. Their wing players aren't Tyreke Evans or Monta Ellis types that have to play on the ball to be effective. Durant isn't a guy that dominates the ball looking for driving opportunities. He gets a ton of catch and shoot looks and drives when the opportunity presents itself. Harden is similar. He's not going to get 6 attempts at the rim per game, virtually half his FG attempts are 3's. He drives enough to get to the line and make people respect the threat that he'll go by them. Unfortunately, those kind of multi-talented players aren't very easy to find. 1) The good ol' what if scenario. Bricking open shots happens in every game, every series, more often than you think. If three point shooting was a huge part of your offense, you are bound to have nights like that. It's pretty simple, the Bulls weren't going to win that series with the rest of that team if Rose was shut down. Suppose even if the shooters caught fire, they were still going to put Lebron Rose. With Lebron on Rose, and without that missing guy to run and create the offense, Bulls had no shot. 2) Sounds like you are talking about Ben Gordon or JJ Reddick. While I do see your point, I think the first need for that missing piece is ball handling and scoring, much like Durant and Harden, and the secondnary need is the three point shot. I think you are looking for a guy with shooting as a primary shooting, who can do a bit of scoring and handling, though I don't think that would be as good a fit and as effective in this system. 3) While we don't need a guy like Durant for us to beat the Heat, the guy we need isn't as easy to obtain as we would like, if it was easy, we would have gotten him already. I see guys like Harden Ginobili, the Joe Johnson from two years ago, and even Mayo or Thornton as great fits for the team. They also happen to be scorer first and shooter second.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) It really isn't. People have been asking for someone that can put the ball in the net, not someone that would take the ball out of Derrick's hands. No. The type of player you are describing is more of a 3 point specialist. We had one in Korver and he didn't help in the Heat series because he was a liability on defense. The Heat proved that they can shut down our offense if they put Lebron on Rose. We need another guy who can handle ball and score at the wing position. The reason Lebron didn't shut down Westbrook like he did on Rose is because they have Durant and Harden who can handle the ball, if they put Lebron on either of the three, the other two can still step up and create offense. That's why Westbrook was able to do his thing. We don't have that other guy on our team yet. We don't just need a shooter, we need a wing who can handle and create if we want to beat the Heat.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 10:25 PM) Like it - way to get creative and get it done. I haven't seen the post-AJP catcher in our system to this point, or I'm a long way from sold on any particular guy at any rate - maybe this is the guy. We gotta bring AJ back for two more years, no matter what. It's actually pretty typical for teams to pay for HS players college expenses up to a certain amount if baseball doesn't work out for them. One of my colleague's son was picked in the 19th round this year, JUCO guy, not a great prospect, but the team offered to pay for his college expenses if he quis baseball

I remember this article like it was yesterday. http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/draft2009/i...tory?id=4206996 For once I wish what Keith Law said was true. (For those without Insider, KLaw had Sox picking Trout in his mock, which was a rarity since he always bashes Sox for taking safe college arms.)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) His move downwards also reflects other guys moving upwards and other guys being drafted too, don't forget. I am well aware of that. Personally, I would have him dropping several spots from the 4 or 5 spot he was at during the preseason, but not out of the top 10

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:57 PM) Despite Mitchell's slump, he's beating him (Saladino) pretty handily on the OPS front playing in the same home stadium. Mitchell's just a much more dynamic and exciting player. 8 homers, all those triples, the increased walk totals....he's getting there, or at least making progress. Let's say Saladino is an "average" 2B defensively. That means he needs to put up a 700 - 725 OPS not to be hurting the Sox at that position. He has a chance, but nothing this year would cause one to reach the conclusion that it's a foregone conclusion he's going to put up those numbers. Will he be better than Escobar? Probably. But a starter? Maybe not. When you have a three month slump, then it's not really a slump, it's more so that he's not polished enough to hit the pitching. Have you looked at his BA for the past three months? He's hit .220, .210, then .150 the past three months while striking out 85 times in 215 ABs. He had only have ONE good months the past two years, that was this April, but he's reverted back to his old self again, albeit showing some improvements in walks and power. His ceiling was once absurdly high, and is still pretty high right now, but chances of him reaching the ceiling is very slim now. Mitchell at his floor will not make it too the majors. Saladino might not have a ceiling as high as Mitchell, but his floor seems to be a utility player at the majors, which is what I was saying. I don't know what you are trying say from all those rambling.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) We've seen some negative reports on his defense, that seem to indicate he is not even average for that level and his development. Also, while being in B-Ham may take some HR's away, it should cause THAT drastic a split, which suggests something more mental. Its possible the pressure that was added last year when he became so highly touted, then had an extended look in ST, is having an effect. Also hearing rumblings of some other, unspecified issues. His overall numbers are not good, but his K rate is a little lower and his walk rate is a lot higher, so those are good signs. Hopefully his strong July will continue. But having him in the teens on the list, right now, seems about right to me. I would like to hear some specifics about those reports. Coming out of college, he's known to have a pretty good glove and was a good bet to stay at short. Even as recent as last season, I heard his defense was adequate. Most players move to third base from short either because he outgrew the position or they lack the range or quickness. I don't think either scenario applies to him. If they feel that he doesn't have a strong enough arm for short, given his size and quickness, he will be experimented at second base before moving to third, which still makes him an intriguing prospect. The reason I would place him in the top 10 is that he has a higher ceiling and floor than most of the guys in top 15. I would even argue that he has a higher floor than guys like Mitchell and Thompson because they are still figuring out how to make contact with the ball. Without any solid evidence on his inability to stay at short, dropping him 12 spots on the list, given his improvements in several major areas, is too much.

My observations: People keep mentioning Barnum as a 18 year old when he's actually 19 and a half and turning 20 in January. It just bothers me when people understate age. I would perhaps even include Olacio in the bottom of the top 25 base on age and size alone, not to mention that his K rate is almost 1 per inning in Low A and Rookie ball as a true 18 year old starter. I don't get why people have ranked Saladino as low as 17. I think a lot of people have overlooked is his home and road split. The B Ham park is more of a pitchers park, his home OPS is an atrocious .588, but his road OPS is .908! His regression in hitting is more of his inability to adjust to a pitchers park rather his regressing as a hitter overall. He's actually hitting a lot better post all star break. Hitting 16 homers in the W-S hitter friendly park is definitely unstainable for him, but I think he also sacrificed some of his power to work the count, draw walks, get on base, and utilize his speed more often. He showed major improvement in that department this year. His regression as a hitter is overblown by some folks here. The kid just turned 23, provides average defense at SS. If SS doesn't work out for him, he will definitely be adequate at 2B. A middle infielder with potential for .800 OPS and ability to steal 30 bases would rank a lot higher than 17 in a system like this.

Dude, stop beating a dead horse. Your arguments hold no value nor influence when you persistently try to get other fans to feel the same way you do yet you are clearly ignoring how the fans, people who pay the players and made this game possible, feels at a game. Your ideas are extremely conditioned in that you believe that everyone should behave and feel a certain way at a game, and that every player reacts a certain way to certain events. Some times, it helps a lot to take a step back and understand how other people feels. If you feel that you don't want to boo the players, that fine's, I am not asking you to change your stance.

Anyone seen Breaking Bad? (Great show btw) When Jane Margolis died of OD, her father was devastated, and still went on to his job, got distracted by his thoughts, mis-directed the air traffic, ended up killing everyone on the plane. I feel that Dunn didn't handle this properly. The condition of his son is a sad story and no one deserves the fate. However the correct way to handle the situation was to let the team know about it and take as much time away as possible. He didn't just suck for a period of time, he sucked the entire season. He knows it, the team knows it. He wasn't just not helping the team, he was killing the team with his performance. He wasn't just making himself look bad, he was making his teammates look bad, he's not moving runners along, not driving them in, not giving his teammates good pitches to hit because he was historically bad. There comes a certain amount of responsibility when you are being paid $15 million for the year. I don't know how much his son's situation affected him last year, but if he felt that it was distracting him, and he was flat out killing the team, the correct way to handle it is to be upfront and take time off.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 10:16 PM) Players dont have to come on this message board, if they voluntarily seek out criticism and/or admiration, they open themselves up to all of the ills on the message board. As I said previously a proper way to address your concerns is to "write a letter", posting on a message board is writing a letter. If they want to read it, so be it. You could spend the next 200 years debating, you arent going to change anyone's mind. You are making up rules again. If a player reads a message board and see any negativity, he's asking for it. If he asks for it, it's okay that their feelings get hurt. But have you ever heard about players not focusing on the game, i.e. drinking and partying? Or have you heard about players being lazy and not practicing? (I am not saying Dunn is, but there are certainly some Sox players who had been offenders.) If they sucked because of it, I guess they are asking for it, and we should boo them. Oh wait, according to you, we should never boo Sox players. You see, your conditions don't work in other scenarios. The notion that no one cares about how the fans feel at the game is plain ridiculous.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 09:37 PM) Wont matter to me, I like negativity, so feed m. You are all over the place. How do sports shows, which are created to make money, have anything to do with a players performance on the field being impacted by booing? Do you even understand the word "fan"? Fan: A person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular sport, art or entertainment form, or famous person. Admiration: Respect and warm approval. If you are there for purely entertainment, and not to root for the Sox, you are not a fan of the Sox, you are a fan of baseball and then feel free to boo/cheer for whoever you want. But if you proclaim to be a "FAN" of the "SOX" you should cheer for them. Since when is cheering a job, lol. So is cheerleading not a job? Why do teams even hire them? So fans booing players at the game would impact a player, but if players come on here and see a fan writing negative comments or broadcasters criticizing them on TV will not impact their performance the next day. Have you not written about anything negative about any players on here? Didn't you say if there are 0.0001% chance that your actions will impact a player's performance, you would go against it? Why is it okay for fans to react here, when we do have players who come on this board? It seems that you are making up your own rules and conditions every time. Honestly, there are so many holes in your arguments I could spend pages debating it. I would stop here.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 09:16 PM) Who cares about how the fans feel, the fans dont have to perform. No one is asking you to go on the field and hit a 90+ fastball, so I really dont care about you or other fans feelings. The fans SHOULD BE CHEERLEADERS, that is the point you are missing. Do you even understand the function of a cheerleader? They are supposed to get the FANS CHEERING. CHEER LEADER The point of a game is to win, if you care about the team, you should do everything in your power to help that team win. If you dont care about the team, go ahead and boo, it will make you feel better, and that seems to be what you care about, how you feel, as opposed to the team winning. DUDE WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? Who cares about how the fan feels? Then why do they even have sports shows, forums like this, message boards on ESPN? Because THOSE ARE THE REACTIONS OF THE FANS WHO STAYED AT HOME! Don't you think it would yield the same impact as booing if the player comes on here and reads a negative comment about themselves? And no, fans are not cheerleaders. That's why they are different terms. Fans pay to see the game, it's not their job to cheer for everything that happens during the game. Cheerleaders get paid to do that job. I can't care about how the player feels, I pay to see the game, it's for entertainment, I am not there to do a job.

The issue is, you keep worrying about the players feelings, like how does fans reaction impact the players feelings, but does the player have to worry about if they just suck, how would it impact the fans feelings? I mean there are tens of thousands of them, they ought to react differently. Last time I check, the fans aren't cheerleaders, there area specific people for that, I guess that's the point you are missing. I find it funny when you would blame the GM and the manger, but not the players when the team is losing, when the players are the one who are playing the game!!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:44 PM) Write a letter? Do you stand outside of Microsoft and boo them because your Xbox is worse than PS3? Do people show up at your job and boo you if they dont like the product they bought? As a fan, I want to see the Sox win, not boo Sox players. Call me old fashioned. Most of the sports fans are tied to the city they are from. If their teams suck, that's still their team. The team represent their city. But if you don't like the products you are using, you go buy another brand. Different scenarios here. I just don't understand your logic that if you don't ever boo at a game, and if everybody sucked like Dunn, how do you expect your team to win, if you only cared about the Sox winning.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:39 PM) But if the stats show booing hurts performance, why take the risk? You keep comparing a boss to a player playing a sport. Imagine if in the middle of a presentation, your boss started booing you. How do you think that would go? After the game, behind closed doors, is an appropriate time to discuss failures. Obviously, there are both sides to the coin. Everyone has feelings. The fans, by booing, are letting their feelings be heard. By booing, the fans could, according to you, impact the players mental make up. But if you don't have a strong mental makeup, it won't take you far in life. Some of the most successful athletes ever have strong mental makeups. The fans are paying to see the game, the players getting paid, who do you think should be understanding of the others feeling. I can understand that if it's a free game, than fans should not boo, but that's not the case. Just imagine if the fans cheer for everything during the game, how would the players react? I mean, I certainly remember the fans giving Adam some cushion for error, but he was HISTORICALLY bad, at what point do you boo him? If you are just plain awful at your job, you would be fired, no excuses.

Players who make top dollars understand the fans expectations A story from the other day: http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8...cial-slur-rehab

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:13 PM) I care about my team winning and losing. I dont care about whether you had a good game. Im there for the Sox to win. So far you havent shown me how booing helps that cause more than cheering. But you can't separate a team losing from the fact that players are not performing. I would argue that booing helps the same as cheering for failures. It shows that fans have expectations, and it puts more pressure on the players to perform rather than giving themselves more cushion because they think the fans would stand behind them regardless. Baseball is a business, and just like a traditional business setting, there are rewards and punishments. At work, the boss would give recognition for good work and give warnings for not meeting expectation, and yet those warnings keep you in check. The players understand this, and they often blame themselves for not performing. Rarely do I hear players blaming the fans for their failures.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 07:54 PM) And maybe that is true. But as a fan, I want the players on my team to do well. So I can get over my need to boo my own player, to try and be positive and hope that they play better. I can only speak for myself, but a lot of people are hard on themselves, and the last thing they need is a group of people who cant remotely do what they do, booing from the sidelines as if they understand. From my perspective, fans who boo at the game didn't pay $30-40 to get in to the game to comfort the players. Fans pay big bucks to watch a good game. This isn't a Little League game where everybody is a winner and nobody gets their feelings hurt. There are expectations when you are making $15 million a year.

Why should people feel ashamed of themselves? Should we suspect that every athlete who struggles with their performances to be dealing with life crisis? It's not like people are booing him for this family issues. Fans have expectations and booing is a consequences of players failing to meet expectation. And I didn't think this was news, I believe it was posted here at the end of last season.

QUOTE (Springfield SoxFan @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 07:20 PM) Can MLB teams still offer to pay for a high school athletes future college expenses or is that banned in the new CBA? Yes, and I don't think those spendings factor in the bonus pool

I always wondered how the personal accomplishments work in this situation, does both Peavy and Wilson get an All star team appearance in their resume?

The only Upton I would trade for is Kate. Personally, I feel that the Upton brothers are extremely overrated. You would think that with all the hype that Justin has gotten, he would be fairly accomplished at this point of his career. He's turning 25 next month, this is his 6th season in the league, his highest BA is .300, high RBI total is 88, only had one 30 HR season, sports a career BA of .276 and OPS of .831 He and his brother have always had potential, but both still haven't put it all together at this point. The trend I notice about Justin is that he would show improvement one season, but regress the next season. He was great last year, but he's only a 1 WAR player this year! And his defense thus far is merely average. He is a nice player to have, at a reasonable cost. But I feel like whoever trades for him is overpaying for him in hopes that he finally puts it together and performs consistently. For the burden of his contract, if we have to deplete our farm and even put in Sale in the deal, then I give it a strong hell no.

You best believe the Tigers are setting up Verlander against the Sox.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 09:49 PM) His batting average may suck, but isn't his on base percentage way better than AJ's? He's been so productive with HRs and Ribbies I think he's a more valuable hitter than AJP. AJP has the higher OPS. Dunn might have the higher OBP, but he also struck out 100 times more than AJ. When it's all said and done, strikeouts are unproductive and will not move the runners along. And also AJ is actually providing good defense behind the plate and doing a great job of handling the staff. So yes, at this point, AJ has been a more valuable player to the team than Dunn. Hands down.