Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 (edited) I can only speak for what i've seen. At this point, i've got to take 93. But 05 has a chance to be much better. Edited June 11, 2005 by Jordan4life_2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooftop Shots Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 10, 2005 -> 11:46 PM) I've got to go with '83. That staff was awesome. '93 was good, but Hoyt, Dot and Banny were just monsters that year. This current staff is capable of surpassing that team. Can't forget that they also had Seaver in there to not only solidify the rotation, but also of how much his experience helped the young staff! With Fisk behind the plate on top of that....... I agree! HANDS DOWN! The best ever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 QUOTE(Rooftop Shots @ Jun 11, 2005 -> 07:28 AM) Can't forget that they also had Seaver in there to not only solidify the rotation, but also of how much his experience helped the young staff! With Fisk behind the plate on top of that....... I agree! HANDS DOWN! The best ever! Seaver came to the Sox between 83 and 84. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southside hitmen Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Tom Seaver never played for the 83 Sox he came over in 84 and was traded to Boston in 86 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Buffalo Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 He's thinking of Jerry Koosman, I think. Got his miracle mets mixed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 QUOTE(Southside hitmen @ Jun 11, 2005 -> 11:11 AM) Tom Seaver never played for the 83 Sox he came over in 84 and was traded to Boston in 86 I said only four hours earlier in the most recent post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 I'd have to go with 93. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshPR Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 1993 was better. Was a power staff. Now the 83 staff was gutsy nad good tho. 2000 staff sucked.. James Baldwin Ehhh!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.