The Boston Redsox Thread - Page 3

mh2365 · 10-31-2006, 09:32 AM

I go for in this order ... I 2-4 starting pitcher .. like the idea of Schmidt, don't want to see them overpay for Zito. I think we have a good young core of starters with Beckett, Lester, and Papelbon but we need some more veteran leadship and Schmidt would provide that.

Next we need a catcher. I know you don't want to keep 3 catchers on the roster so someone will have to learn to catch the knuckleball. Tek will go down again at some point in the season. Maybe find someone who can spell Youk at 1b and play Catcher.

Other than that I like the team. I believe Nixon is a FA and would love to have him back mainly because I love the guy but Wily Mo would be a fine replacement there. I might see if Nixon can handle first base and move Youk back to 3rd. Not sold on Lowell having any more decent years.

Crisp should be fine in Center. Love the glove at SS and always have been a fan of Loretta.

Lastplaneout · 10-31-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh2365

Next we need a catcher. I know you don't want to keep 3 catchers on the roster so someone will have to learn to catch the knuckleball. Tek will go down again at some point in the season. Maybe find someone who can spell Youk at 1b and play Catcher.

I don't think that we're going to find the catcher of the future in this year's free agent market (there's no one under 32 who looks like a reasonable starter). I'd like to see Kotteras get the opportunity to prove himself that Shoppach and Bard didn't get, but obviously only if he can catch the knuckleball.

thehatfield · 10-31-2006, 11:17 AM

Looks like according to the Sox' website Loretta & Gonzalez both filed yesterday.

Quote:

With Dustin Pedroia a leading candidate for a starting infield job, it is highly unlikely that both Loretta and Gonzalez will return in 2007, with the second baseman standing a better chance than the shortstop of wearing a Red Sox uniform next season.

That means thus far Gabe Kapler, Mirabelli, Trot and the two above have already filed. I didn't realize that Loretta was 35. I wonder if it's sound baseball to bring him back for more than one year and I wonder if he'd settle for one year at this point?

Lastplaneout · 10-31-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Cowboy

That means thus far Gabe Kapler, Mirabelli, Trot and the two above have already filed. I didn't realize that Loretta was 35. I wonder if it's sound baseball to bring him back for more than one year and I wonder if he'd settle for one year at this point?

I would much rather bring back Gonzalez than Loretta. Gonzalez played nearly-GG-caliber defense last season and was as productive as expected at the plate. I say keep him at SS andd pick up a cheap veteran to keep 2nd warm for Pedroia.

Loretta was below average defensively and had a hollow .285 batting average. He can probably convince someone to give him a multi-year deal- so I wouldn't expect him to hang around with the Sox until Pedroia steals 2nd from him.

Maybe we can get Todd Walker or Jose Valentin for a year (or until Pedroia looks ready).

TheCartel · 10-31-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

This captain intangible thing has always bothered me and I don't buy it. I sure as heck don't buy it with Jeter (if he was in Milwaukee we'd know him like we know O's legend Al Bumbry, for the catchy name) so I don't buy it with Varitek either.

This is the most ******ed thing ever said on here. Have you ever played a team sport? Especially baseball? Intangibles and chemistry are HUGE. I know Ive played on teams with ten times more talent, and done better with the team that had GREAT chemistry. How do you get great chemistry? By having leaders that have great intangibles and can lead the rest of the team and set an example.

Come on now, that statement was horrible.

1998 Yankees · 10-31-2006, 07:29 PM

Um, what he ^ said (especially thinking about Jeter), but with a wee bit less emphasis.

TheCartel · 10-31-2006, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Um, what he ^ said (especially thinking about Jeter), but with a wee bit less emphasis.

Lol! It really irritates me when people who havent been a part of both a team with great and bad chemistry try and understand or explain the emphasis it has on wins and losses.

1998 Yankees · 10-31-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCartel

Lol! It really irritates me when people who havent been a part of both a team with great and bad chemistry try and understand or explain the emphasis it has on wins and losses.

I hear you. Man, I don't even want to think about Jeter playing in Milwaukee.

TheCartel · 10-31-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

I hear you. Man, I don't even want to think about Jeter playing in Milwaukee.

He personally is the only Yankee that I like on that squad. Atleast out of the ones that have been there for any length of time. Everyone seems to carry an arrogance and we're better then everyone because we play for the Yankees and they act like they deserve special treatment from the league and especially umps. Jeter is the consumate pro, he will be in the HOF, and it truly cant be underestimated how important he is to the Yankees and their success.

thehatfield · 10-31-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCartel

This is the most ******ed thing ever said on here. Have you ever played a team sport? Especially baseball? Intangibles and chemistry are HUGE. I know Ive played on teams with ten times more talent, and done better with the team that had GREAT chemistry. How do you get great chemistry? By having leaders that have great intangibles and can lead the rest of the team and set an example.

Come on now, that statement was horrible.

Oh yes, so absurd. An immesaurable and to me imaginary thing created to make excuses for a lack of tangible talent. Having fun while winning doesn't equal intangible. It equals having fun while winning.

And the word ******ed is offensive.

OVERRATED.

TheCartel · 10-31-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Cowboy

Oh yes, so absurd. An immesaurable and to me imaginary thing created to make excuses for a lack of tangible talent. Having fun while winning doesn't equal intangible. It equals having fun while winning.

And the word ******ed is offensive.

OVERRATED.

Have you ever played baseball in your life, competitively?
As I said, I was on a more talented team, where we didnt do as good. Chemistry is a HUGE importance, why do you think there is such a thing as bonding? If chemistry didnt matter, wouldnt the team with the most talent always do the best?

Ahhhh, but you forget, in sports, there are mental factors. There are ways to get into your head, and bad chemistry is one of them. If you're worrying about what a friend on the team said or the fight between the two star players, how are you going to visualize and accomplish the task at hand as well as if those distractions were never present?

Care to back up your claim as to why its irrelevent? Ive backed my opinion up, now you give a shot at yours. It should be interesting, very interesting:-)

QuestGAV · 10-31-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Cowboy

Oh yes, so absurd. An immesaurable and to me imaginary thing created to make excuses for a lack of tangible talent. Having fun while winning doesn't equal intangible. It equals having fun while winning.

And the word ******ed is offensive.

OVERRATED.

Screw the intangibles. Jeter is a HOF SS without them, comparing him to Bumbry is offensive.

thehatfield · 10-31-2006, 08:30 PM

It's irrevelant because to me it doesn't exist. Especially a team game like baseball which is supremely about the individual ie. a pitcher vs. batter game or fielder vs. batted ball game; It doesn't really matter what my personal team sports experiences have been because any critic would naturally be doubtful of some "mystical force" helping a team win but I've played through the college level in both ice hockey and baseball. I agree it's great to have good chemistry to make long games go by more quickly. And it's nice for everyone to just get along. But good chemistry simply does not help win games in my opinion from personal experience and personal observation and it's quite reasonable to think an intangible force is overrated.

Lastplaneout · 10-31-2006, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCartel

As I said, I was on a more talented team, where we didnt do as good. Chemistry is a HUGE importance, why do you think there is such a thing as bonding? If chemistry didnt matter, wouldnt the team with the most talent always do the best?

The team with the most talent generally does do the best. Sometimes they don't win the World Series, but that's a pretty small sample of games, very prone to random variation.

TheCartel · 10-31-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Cowboy

It's irrevelant because to me it doesn't exist. Especially a team game like baseball which is supremely about the individual ie. a pitcher vs. batter game or fielder vs. batted ball game; It doesn't really matter what my personal team sports experiences have been because any critic would naturally be doubtful of some "mystical force" helping a team win but I've played through the college level in both ice hockey and baseball. I agree it's great to have good chemistry to make long games go by more quickly. And it's nice for everyone to just get along. But good chemistry simply does not help win games in my opinion from personal experience and personal observation and it's quite reasonable to think an intangible force is overrated.

I disagree. And the fact you cant back it up with anything but an opinion seems to mean you're just being stubborn and pig headed and cant accept the fact it is real. Baseball is a game of much mental stress. Pressure situations, clutch hits and outs, you dont think that with negative thoughts running through your head you're not handicapped as to performing the same or better then if those thoughts werent in your head. Chemistry is of the same substance. If everyone on a team hates each other, they will not win. Egos need to be checked at the door. Just look at why the Yankees havent been able to do anything in the last 6 years? No role players, everyone on that team thinks THEY ARE the team. You cant win with that mindset.

Its a team game, of many individual performances.

TheCartel · 10-31-2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lastplaneout

The team with the most talent generally does do the best. Sometimes they don't win the World Series, but that's a pretty small sample of games, very prone to random variation.

Generally, but wouldnt they nearly always do the best if there werent others factors, such as chemistry, involved?

thehatfield · 10-31-2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCartel

I disagree. And the fact you cant back it up with anything but an opinion seems to mean you're just being stubborn and pig headed and cant accept the fact it is real. Baseball is a game of much mental stress. Pressure situations, clutch hits and outs, you dont think that with negative thoughts running through your head you're not handicapped as to performing the same or better then if those thoughts werent in your head. Chemistry is of the same substance. If everyone on a team hates each other, they will not win. Egos need to be checked at the door. Just look at why the Yankees havent been able to do anything in the last 6 years? No role players, everyone on that team thinks THEY ARE the team. You cant win with that mindset.

Its a team game, of many individual performances.

I am being stubborn because I don't and won't ever trust a magic force over actual ability. There are a billion examples of teams with great chemistry coughing it up at the last second. How about the Tigers this year? How about the 2003 Red Sox? How about the 2001 Seton Hall Pirates? I didn't think I'd actually have to support that position because it's logical and based in reality.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here and stop polluting this Red Sox thread.

Lastplaneout · 10-31-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCartel

Generally, but wouldnt they nearly always do the best if there werent others factors, such as chemistry, involved?

Sure there are other factors, but chemistry?

There's no way to quantify chemistry and I don't think that anyone has ever been to actually test for its effects. Without some way of actually measuring chemistry's effects there's just nothing you can do with it.

TheCartel · 10-31-2006, 08:51 PM

Its an immeasurable force, sort of like karma. You cant prove its there, but if you experience it, you know its there.

QuestGAV · 10-31-2006, 08:54 PM

I think it's true that there are guys out there like Jeter, Ortiz, and Tom Brady that possess intangible attributes that help their team win. It's also amazingly less important than their tangible attributes and these three guys all score pretty high on the tangible skill scale.

As for chemistry in particular, it's impossible to build a team with chemistry in mind. There are too many variables to predict an outcome based on the input so you've just got to find the best players you can and hope they coexist. I'll take the high talent-low intangible guy each and every time, especially in a game dependent on individual encounters like baseball. In basketball I'd probably look a bit closer at how the pieces fit together.

10-31-2006, 08:30 PM	#53
thehatfield All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: dirty jerz Posts: 1,339	It's irrevelant because to me it doesn't exist. Especially a team game like baseball which is supremely about the individual ie. a pitcher vs. batter game or fielder vs. batted ball game; It doesn't really matter what my personal team sports experiences have been because any critic would naturally be doubtful of some "mystical force" helping a team win but I've played through the college level in both ice hockey and baseball. I agree it's great to have good chemistry to make long games go by more quickly. And it's nice for everyone to just get along. But good chemistry simply does not help win games in my opinion from personal experience and personal observation and it's quite reasonable to think an intangible force is overrated. __________________ AFBL - Maryland Bridegrooms SBC - Western Suburbs Magpies no pressure no problem

10-31-2006, 09:32 AM	#41
mh2365 Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: louisville Posts: 14,941 Infractions: 0/2 (101)	I go for in this order ... I 2-4 starting pitcher .. like the idea of Schmidt, don't want to see them overpay for Zito. I think we have a good young core of starters with Beckett, Lester, and Papelbon but we need some more veteran leadship and Schmidt would provide that. Next we need a catcher. I know you don't want to keep 3 catchers on the roster so someone will have to learn to catch the knuckleball. Tek will go down again at some point in the season. Maybe find someone who can spell Youk at 1b and play Catcher. Other than that I like the team. I believe Nixon is a FA and would love to have him back mainly because I love the guy but Wily Mo would be a fine replacement there. I might see if Nixon can handle first base and move Youk back to 3rd. Not sold on Lowell having any more decent years. Crisp should be fine in Center. Love the glove at SS and always have been a fan of Loretta.

10-31-2006, 07:29 PM	#46
1998 Yankees Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Yankee Stadium, back in 1998. Posts: 8,645	Um, what he ^ said (especially thinking about Jeter), but with a wee bit less emphasis.

10-31-2006, 08:51 PM	#59
TheCartel Minors (Single A) Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 59	Its an immeasurable force, sort of like karma. You cant prove its there, but if you experience it, you know its there.

10-31-2006, 08:54 PM	#60
QuestGAV Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,008	I think it's true that there are guys out there like Jeter, Ortiz, and Tom Brady that possess intangible attributes that help their team win. It's also amazingly less important than their tangible attributes and these three guys all score pretty high on the tangible skill scale. As for chemistry in particular, it's impossible to build a team with chemistry in mind. There are too many variables to predict an outcome based on the input so you've just got to find the best players you can and hope they coexist. I'll take the high talent-low intangible guy each and every time, especially in a game dependent on individual encounters like baseball. In basketball I'd probably look a bit closer at how the pieces fit together.