abuck1220

He has about 20 on the season. his arm is probably the part of his game that i'm most impressed with.

I think the Farnsworth trade has been considered good for quite a while now. unless moore pans out, it was nothing better than a wash. novoa has been horrible.

Boston team ERA by month: April: 4.67 May: 4.62 June: 4.46 July: 4.60 August: 5.81 Varitek last played on July 31. I think it's been proven that Varitek meant more to that pitching staff than anything else. He was probably overpaid a bit for that batting line but if you lower your team's ERA by over a run as a catcher, you're worth a decent amount of money. don't you think the fact that they've been running a bunch of scrubs out there for starts in august (plus all the injuries) has anything to do w/ the higher era? nah, it's all varitek's heartgritsoul.

argh...BAD LUCK strikes again!!!

putting the pressure on aramis or trying to make the farnsworth trade look good?

i can't decide who i want to win between HBC and buddiga. it looks like buddiga would have double starts from cabrera and arroyo next week, while HBC would only have double starts from meche. go HBC???

damn it! think of all the moves i could have made to make up .4 points...still, that's a damn close race!

I still can't wrap my head around this. It's basically saying "don't have the wrong opinion, because people are going to make you pay." it does seem as though you're having trouble wrapping your head around this because that's not what i'm saying at all. Or else? you'll get called out for it later, which is something that's apparently bothering you quite a bit. Interesting how you are calling people out but starting from a couple of years ago I remember quite a few times you being wrong on a couple of things, did somebody call you out then? i'm not calling anybody out.

I still can't wrap my head around this. It's basically saying "don't have the wrong opinion, because people are going to make you pay." it does seem as though you're having trouble wrapping your head around this because that's not what i'm saying at all. Or else? you'll get called out for it later, which is something that's apparently bothering you quite a bit.

well, [expletive], looks like barrett's done for the year. good thing i've held on to martin... and it also looks like i'm getting double starts from harang and clemens in a week that means nothing. :evil:

I still can't wrap my head around this. It's basically saying "don't have the wrong opinion, because people are going to make you pay." it does seem as though you're having trouble wrapping your head around this because that's not what i'm saying at all.

again, this wasn't a told you so...because i never said hill was going to be good. all i've ever said about hill is 1) he deserved to be in the major league rotation (based on his stellar AAA numbers) and 2) you couldn't judge him based on 40 big league innings. never did i say he was the second coming of sandy koufax or that i was penciling him in for 18 wins next year. he is certainly one my favorite prospects, but i've never predicted any kind of success for him, so there'd be nothing for me to tell you so. these opinions were morphed into claims that i was his boy, his boyfriend, or, as mentioned in this very thread, his mother. plenty of people who certainly know much more than me doubted (and probably still doubt) hill's potential. and i'm a-ok with that...as i said, they know more than me, and it wouldn't shock me completely (though i'd be somewhat surprised) if hill never amounts to anything. the posts that pissed me off were posts by people who had never seen hill outside of the televised cub games, and likely knew nothing about him until last summer. as i've said 8 billion times, you simply cannot judge a guy based on 40 big league innings, but that didn't stop some self-annointed experts from doing it (and giving hell to hill's supporters in the process). so, yeah, i wouldn't feel bad in the slightest rubbing it in those people's faces if hill ends up winning 18 games next year. like someone earlier in the thread said, if you don't want being wrong rubbed in your face, don't make definitive statements based on eight starts.

:D and they weren't even really told you so's. just showing how quickly people's opinions (and a player's performance) can change. i'm sure everyone who said they didn't like hill are glad to see him doing well now. i've been wrong about tons of guys, and i'll be wrong again in the future (despite my immense smartness). though i do have no problem throwing blatant, obnoxious told you so's at people who definitively wrote hill off after 40 innings (not saying that any of the people i quoted did that)...i'm not above that one bit. there were some pretty annoying "experts" out there right up until august or so. strangely enough, most of those people haven't posted in many hill threads since then.

yeah, well, maybe you shouldn't have said that you wished rich hill would go to hell. that wasn't very cool either.

not at all (though i am, admittedly, very, very smart). i never even said that hill would be good, though i did (and do) think will be successful. my main contention during the million hill arguments that i had was that you couldn't write him of based on his limited starts, which many, many, many people were doing.

give me a break. just admit that, as of right now, you were dead wrong about him. Oh, come on. Did you ever admit when he was sporting a 9+ ERA that you were dead wrong about him at that time? He's had a few good games, and some absolutely miserable ones. When he starts putting up numbers like he did today with some sort of consistency, then we'll talk. sorta like he's done over the past month plus...a span during which he's been unquestionably the cubs best pitcher? or do we have to dig up the '27 yankees and have him shut them out 12 times?

ah, old game threads are fun...

give me a break. just admit that, as of right now, you were dead wrong about him.

if anybody's exposing personal lives, it's dusty. he's the one that continues to harp on the racist letters, how they're affecting his family, what darren's daily routine is, etc. with all the stuff in the past about hundley, farnsworth, sosa, etc, i'd say this season is pretty low on the personal life exposure scale.

new scapegoat alert, new scapegoat alert!!!!

seriously, what's with the negativity, people? can't anyone write about all the positives that come with a 95 million dollar team sitting at 25 games under .500?

no kidding...just ask the white sox (anderson) and the tigers (granderson)...they've gone with inexperienced centerfielders, and have two of the worst records in baseball to show for it. i swear, some people just have never watched a game of baseball...

ahh...the Mel Rojas rule. or the latroy hawkins rule, the mike remlinger rule, the bob howry rule, etc. relievers are too fickle to be dumping huge contracts on.

That's not entirely fair at all and you know it. Dempster wasn't a closer his whole career. but he's been a pitcher his whole career. and not a very good one. i don't know why people expect some miraculous turnaround out of a guy becaues he's now pitching one inning instead of five. it's still the same pitcher.

Wow, I just looked it up the roster, and you're right. That team had no business winning 90 games at all. It's like Major League all over again, plus Sammy. It wasn't all bad. Grace and Morandini had some sexy OBPs, Brant Brown had upwards of 400 PA's with an .850 OPS, and Glenallen Hill had upwards of 150 PA's with a near 1.000 OPS. yeah, while it may be fun to pretend that team was all about hustle, grit, scrappiness, etc, it's not the case. and while beck (the guy a lot of people think represented this team's scrappiness/guts) may have been gassed at the end of the season, he was pretty good during the regular season (despite a somewhat high whip).