Sox Shopping Carlos Lee?

[beck72]

Well, what is it then?

 

Edit:  Looked it up, and you refused to define it then.  (Others defined it as small ball + clutch after that.)  Sorry, but if your argument rests on words that don't have a meaning, I don't know why I should take it seriously.

I said a "winner" was hard to define. Saying I "refused" to define it is stupid though. Learn how to read more than one post. I laid out a pretty good explanation [over a few posts] that you can either agree with or not.

 

And if you don't want to take my words seriously then don't. I won't lose sleep over it.

[jackie hayes]

I said a "winner" was hard to define. Saying I "refused" to define it is stupid though. Learn how to read more than one post. I laid out a pretty good explanation [over a few posts] that you can either agree with or not.

 

And if you don't want to take my words seriously then don't. I won't lose sleep over it.

Oh, please. "pretty good explanation"=whoever beck prefers at the moment. I asked you to explain it, you said it was "hard to define" -- I call that refusing. I read through the posts, so stfu. But if it's too hard to define, there's nothing there to agree or disagree with.

 

So to determine if someone's a winner, I guess I should pm you w/ "beck, what's your whim on this guy"? B/c you also said it's hard to measure, but you seem to have a pretty fine eye for all the winners, their "heart", "desire", and those myriad unnameable "intangibles" and "qualities". Not to mention the deep meaning of laughing at a guy caught with his pants down. Pretty impressive, beck.

[beck72]

Oh, please.  "pretty good explanation"=whoever beck prefers at the moment.  I asked you to explain it, you said it was "hard to define" -- I call that refusing.  I read through the posts, so stfu.  But if it's too hard to define, there's nothing there to agree or disagree with.

 

So to determine if someone's a winner, I guess I should pm you w/ "beck, what's your whim on this guy"?  B/c you also said it's hard to measure, but you seem to have a pretty fine eye for all the winners, their "heart", "desire", and those myriad unnameable "intangibles" and "qualities".  Not to mention the deep meaning of laughing at a guy caught with his pants down.  Pretty impressive, beck.

man, someone soiled their diaper. Ask mommy to change it for you and read you a bedtime story. Or have her read my past posts explaining my views. If If I have to rehash every post to you, sorry. But don't waste my time because you can't read

[jackie hayes]

man, someone soiled their diaper. Ask mommy to change it for you and read you a bedtime story. Or have her read my past posts explaining my views. If If I have to rehash every post to you, sorry. But don't waste my time because you can't read

It's funny you would mention being full of s***; you could have just told me what your definition of a winner is, but you didn't. I have read your posts -- maybe you don't remember them. Here's the full discussion:

 

Me

Just curious... Why do you put quotes around "winner"?

 

You

Because there are many intangibles/ qualities that a person can use to describe a "winner", and don't think it's easily defined. I think the sox have a lot of decent, talented players. But do they have enough winners? I don't think so.

 

Me

But if it's hard to define what a winner is, how do we know we don't have them? And how do we know if Renteria is one?

 

The reason I asked is simply that I don't trust arguments where terms aren't defined well -- and putting something in quotes usually means that it's kind of a fuzzy term. This is one example -- Renteria is a "winner". Does that mean that the Cards won't win without him? If so, why? And would Uribe be a winner if the Sox had won?

 

I would understand if you said that he has greater mental fortitude, or a better obp -- something concrete. But saying he's a "winner", how can that be judged without a better definition?

 

You

that's why I put "winners" in quotes. Because it probably can't even be measured. I'll take a stab at it and say a player who always seems to come up with a way to help the team when it needs it, whether its a SB, a bunt, a SF, a nice play in the field, etc. Some people call it "heart", "desire", being "clutch", whatever.

 

But one thing is for sure, the Sox have had arguably the best talent in the division for the last four years, and still haven't won the division. I'd say the Sox are short on "winners". KW may call them grinders, whatever. The sox [with the same core of players] haven't gotten the job done. Something is wrong with the makeup of the Sox. And it will take more than just the departures of Maggs and Jose V. to change it.

 

There's another exchange where you agree with southsideirish on his definition:

southsideirish

Here is what I believe a winner is. A winner is someone who comes through more than not in clutch/pressure situations. Someone that comes through in big games more often than not. A winner is someone who puts team first and self second. Moving the runner over, good baserunning, knowing the situations, sacrifice bunting, good fielding, just fundamentally sound. A winner is someone that is mentally strong and has a never say die attitude.

 

I believe Renteria fits this description. I believe we have some of these kind of guys on our team already. Just because you have not played on winning team does not mean you are not a winner and just because you have played on a winning team does not mean you are a winner. You must possess certain qualities.

 

You

Well said. I too believe the sox have some winners on the team. Buerhle comes to mind. Rowand. Frank. I just don't believe the sox have enough of them [esp. the core guys making the most money] or else they'd have won since 2000.

 

When you end your "stab at it" with "whatever", excuse me for thinking that's inadequate. So you say someone is a "winner" if he "always" comes through with whatever the team needs, and you specifically mention bunts, stolen bases, sac flies, fielding, and being clutch. Sure, that's much different than small ball + clutch. But let's go with your words exactly. Why stop with Carlos? Frank and PK can't bunt or steal bases when the team needs it, therefore they're not winners. (And you said Frank is a winner, in response to southsideirish. Odd...) Foulke didn't come through when the Sox needed him in the 2000 ALDS, he's not a winner. Mariano Rivera didn't come through when his team needed him in the ALCS this season, he's not a winner.

 

But maybe you don't really mean "always", or that bunting and stealing are really necessary for every player. After all, then Frank wouldn't be a winner. Maybe the clutch part is most important, and the main thing is that they usually perform their role well under pressure. So did Carlos play badly when his team needed him? (Ans: No. By most measures, he was at least as good as ARow in clutch situations.)

 

Apparently, Carlos Lee did not come through when his team needed him b/c he laughed at a guy with his pants down. B/c he therefore must not have "heart" and "desire". Well, if what Steff said about ARow is true, would you draw the same conclusion about him?

 

Of course not -- b/c for some reason you've decided that Rowand's good (you already stated in that thread that he's a "winner"), Carlos's bad. Rowand, trooper. Carlos, padding his stats. You base it on absolutely nothing, then you come out and announce that you've deduced that Carlos is not a "winner". It's as good as saying "I don't like Carlos" and stopping there, but you act like it's actually part of a discussion. It's pure bs. Don't tell me I'm not reading your posts -- you just don't want to say what you mean, b/c you have no f***ing idea what you're talking about.

[beck72]

It's funny you would mention being full of s***; you could have just told me what your definition of a winner is, but you didn't.  I have read your posts -- maybe you don't remember them.  Here's the full discussion:

 

 

 

There's another exchange where you agree with southsideirish on his definition:

 

When you end your "stab at it" with "whatever", excuse me for thinking that's inadequate.  So you say someone is a "winner" if he "always" comes through with whatever the team needs, and you specifically mention bunts, stolen bases, sac flies, fielding, and being clutch.  Sure, that's much different than small ball + clutch.  But let's go with your words exactly.  Why stop with Carlos?  Frank and PK can't bunt or steal bases when the team needs it, therefore they're not winners.  (And you said Frank is a winner, in response to southsideirish.  Odd...)  Foulke didn't come through when the Sox needed him in the 2000 ALDS, he's not a winner.  Mariano Rivera didn't come through when his team needed him in the ALCS this season, he's not a winner.

 

But maybe you don't really mean "always", or that bunting and stealing are really necessary for every player.  After all, then Frank wouldn't be a winner.  Maybe the clutch part is most important, and the main thing is that they usually perform their role well under pressure.  So did Carlos play badly when his team needed him?  (Ans:  No.  By most measures, he was at least as good as ARow in clutch situations.)

 

Apparently, Carlos Lee did not come through when his team needed him b/c he laughed at a guy with his pants down.  B/c he therefore must not have "heart" and "desire".  Well, if what Steff said about ARow is true, would you draw the same conclusion about him?

 

Of course not -- b/c for some reason you've decided that Rowand's good (you already stated in that thread that he's a "winner"), Carlos's bad.  Rowand, trooper.  Carlos, padding his stats.  You base it on absolutely nothing, then you come out and announce that you've deduced that Carlos is not a "winner".  It's as good as saying "I don't like Carlos" and stopping there, but you act like it's actually part of a discussion.  It's pure bs.  Don't tell me I'm not reading your posts -- you just don't want to say what you mean, b/c you have no f***ing idea what you're talking about.

First off, Jackie, I've never had a problem w/ anyone on these boards. I [almost] always treat other posters w/ respect even when I disagree with them. I try to conduct myself here the way I do in "real life". I'm no better or worse than anyone else around here.

 

Usually baseball talk doesn't get heated enough to generate anger for me anyway. I haven't been around here long but long enough to know that people take things personally. It's usually a result of the medium. We can only express ourselves w/ typed words, and our opinions/views don't always come out the way we want to.

Things get taken out of context, we leave out things that would make our opinions and views clearer.

 

Secondly, I must have written something that offended you. Why else would you go to such lengths to try and "prove me wrong". If I did, I'm sorry. If you've got a question, ask me to clarify. We both have opinions. No more no less. Yet all I ask is to do it respectfully, w/o calling me out and cursing at me

 

thirdly, when people want to rehash old posts, old discussions, it's usually w/ a purpose of cleaning up "unfinished business". Nothing good usually comes from it. Just like this

 

Peace

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

I am seeing rumors that Lee will be part of the 3 way deal involving Vazquez and Randy Johnson instead of Konerko and Garland.

[Rex Hudler]

Know what thought beck...thinking along those lines, is Greg Maddux a guy to build a team around?

 

He is a fantastic baseball player, one of the best at his position, but he has ZERO leadership potential.  When he came to the Flubs, all the reporters kept asking if he was going to take Prior and Wood under his wing.  His response: I'm not really that type of guy, I'm actually hoping to learn a little from them.

 

So, although he is a great ball player, he isn't necessarily a leader on or off the field.  (Before you guys dog me, I know he is a first ballot hall of famer, I just think this was a good example)

 

The law says no-no.  But her eyes say yes-yes.

Maddux as an example doesn't fly at all.

 

Greg Maddux leads by example. He imparts wisdom on younger players not even knowing he is doing so or trying to.

 

If a player asks Maddux questions or his thoughts, he'll answer. But he won't go to young players and suggest they do things a certain way. That is just the way he is. He is very much a leader, whether he thinks he is or not. He is just not the rah-rah type.

[Rex Hudler]

Beck, I see where you are coming from in regards to Carlos. I have some experience with Carlos from when he was in Birmingham and have a little insight into his mind (scary, I know).

 

Carlos is different than a lot of players. He often seems oblivious to what is going on or anything cerebral in terms of the game. That is where he seems to get much criticism. His demeanor is very happy-go-lucky. Carlos almost always has a smile on his face and is almost kid-like when he is on the field. That is not all bad. It is okay to play the game loose and enjoy yourself out there. A player doesn't have to have a "game face" on to succeed. Some do, some don't, it just depends on the player.

 

Carlos is not stupid when it comes to the game and especially hitting, however. He is extremely talented and can help a team in many ways.

 

All that said, I have no doubt there is some selfishness in him. This won't be popular for me to say, but if you can say one person took Carlos under his wing when he reached the Majors, it was Frank Thomas. Whether people like my opinion or even agree with me or not, Frank has been the poster child for the "me" attitude over his career. I am not blaming Frank completely for Carlos' selfishness, but it has to had some effect.

 

Whether Carlos Lee is good for the "winning team concept" or not, I can't say because I am not in the locker room all the time nor around him everyday. I just know that he is not your typical "intense" kind of player, but that may or may not mean he is selfish to the point of hurting the team.

 

Sorry if it seems as if I am dancing on both sides of the fence, but that is exactly what I am doing. I see both sides of Carlos, I am just not sure which wins out, so to speak.

[upnorthsox]

Good post Rex, I'd also add that CLee has a completely different demeanor in the batters box. I don't see why having fun with the game is a detriment, the question is does the player understand Go Time. I think CLee does.

[Texsox]

None of these guys have won a damn thing and they have had years trying. Any player with more than three years on the team can be tossed and replaced for all I care.

[beck72]

Sorry if it seems as if I am dancing on both sides of the fence, but that is exactly what I am doing.  I see both sides of Carlos, I am just not sure which wins out, so to speak.

No problem. Good to hear your opinion and your insights. I think we'll all know soon enough if Lee is traded or not.

[elrockinMT]

I saw Lee's performance like this .... When Magglio and Frank were healthy, he was trying to use all fields and get on base as often as possible.  Hense, the 28 game hitting streak, with only 5 HR thru the first couple of months.  After they went down, he started cranking it up because he thought the team needed him to supply more power. 

 

No, I don't think Carlos was only concerned with his self interests.  I think he was trying to be whatever the team depending on the circumstances.

I am with you on this YASNY. Carlos lee has improved himself tremedously with a lot of hardwork and is a solid team player. Lee is coming into his own now and ready to really set new levels. He is at the age where we could see super star numbers for 6-8 years more. Why all the push to trade the guy instead of thinking how we build around people like him and some others on this team everyone seems to think need to be traded? We value so little who and what we have.

[CWSGuy406]

IMO, it shows a lack of seriousness that can hurt a team. For his talent and cash he's getting, I want a team captain type of player. This wasn't the 1st inning. It was in the 6th, 7th inning of a close game and the 3rd guy who ran onto the field.

I know I'm pretty late on this, but Manny Ramirez and Pedro Martinez are two guys that don't seem to be very serious on the field, yet when it comes down to business, they get the job done... Same goes for Carlos.

[qwerty]

We value so little who and what we have.

Alot of people also overate who we have, ala paul konerko.

[jackie hayes]

First off, Jackie, I've never had a problem w/ anyone on these boards. I [almost] always treat other posters w/ respect even when I disagree with them. I try to conduct myself here the way I do in "real life". I'm no better or worse than anyone else around here.

 

Usually baseball talk doesn't get heated enough to generate anger for me anyway. I haven't been around here long but long enough to know that people take things personally. It's usually a result of the medium. We can only express ourselves w/ typed words, and our opinions/views don't always come out the way we want to.

Things get taken out of context, we leave out things that would make our opinions and views clearer.

 

Secondly, I must have written something that offended you. Why else would you go to such lengths to try and "prove me wrong". If I did, I'm sorry. If you've got a question, ask me to clarify. We both have opinions. No more no less. Yet all I ask is to do it respectfully, w/o calling me out and cursing at me

 

thirdly, when people want to rehash old posts, old discussions, it's usually w/ a purpose of cleaning up "unfinished business". Nothing good usually comes from it. Just like this

 

Peace

I did not have a problem with you at all, no unfinished business. I asked a question b/c you used the same argument as before, and I never did understand what you meant before. So I asked you to clarify it, that's all. You responded that I was too lazy to read the old posts -- that ticked me off a bit, since I had read them all, but it was 'infant s***ting his pants' remark that really set me off. That's not respect by any light, and IMO I just returned that in kind.

 

But I'm not going to hold a grudge (nor, again, was this based on any grudge against you) -- I've had spats before, and I don't think they've ever carried over. Yours was a classy response, so let's bury it.

[Rex Hudler]

I know I'm pretty late on this, but Manny Ramirez and Pedro Martinez are two guys that don't seem to be very serious on the field, yet when it comes down to business, they get the job done...  Same goes for Carlos.

You can say that Manny's lack of seriousness/focus definitely hurts his team in the field. He is one of the rare players that his bat almost always makes up for his mistakes and more, but he definitely hurts his team when he is in la-la land on defense.

[WHarris1]

I'll never forget when he f***ing fell down in left against the Sox...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's no get started on how we didn't score off of that.

[Ishmookie]

i like c-lee i would b unhappy to see him go...unless it was for hudson straight up which wont happen.