Report: RED SOX win top bid for Japanesse pitcher

[phunwin]

EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!:sidelol:

The Yanks don't do things to BLOCK players from going to other teams that compete with them!!!


Thank you! Debate over!!!

You mean aside from the time they put in a waiver claim on Jose Canseco, who they didn't want (and got stuck with him)?

Or when the Mariners were looking to trade Randy Johnson, and the Yankees jerked them around forever, even though they had no intention of consummating such a deal (and as a result, the Mariners got stuck trading him for 75 cents on the dollar to Houston)?

I agree with your larger point; that they didn't deal him to Detroit just to keep him from Boston, but let's not totally lose our sense of history.

 

[FaninPatsyLand]

The 1st time Evil Empire was ever used was after the whole Jose Contreras incident.. The quote was "The Evil Empire extends its tentacles even into Latin America". Larry Lucchino said it not John Henry.. So how exactly did Henry fool us with this quote.. ?

Yup.. the Evil Empire comment was after the Contreras signing. It had nothing to do with the ownership trying to divert attention away from the supposed "shady" auction that took place for the Red Sox.

MikeO, what are you talking about?

You're trying to put down the Red Sox ownership based on stuff that never happened, and you have the audacity to call out others for showing their supposed "2nd city mentality"? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Even as a Marlin fan I can say Beckett was never that good besides that one playoff stretch, I wouldnt be scared of him if my team was playing him.

Papelbon has never been a starter in the MLB he could turn out to be Eric Gagne (Great Closer but gets rocked around as a starter) even though Gagne was a starter first its the same principal

Japanese dude has never started a game in the MLB, thats not to say he wont be great but he could also be terrible

Schilling is the only one that scares me really.

Not true. Papelbon started 3 games in 2005 and got no decisions in all of them if I remember correctly. The only reason why Papelbon wasn't in the rotation in 2006 was because they had no one to close and they threw Paps in there to see what he could do and he responded big time. I really think Papelbon is going to be a very good starter. He has 3 above average pitches in his fastball, splitter and slider. He also has a curve, change up and is working on a 2 seamer now.

Beckett is still young though, 26 years old and has tons of talent (no one can deny that). He just hasn't put it together yet.... maybe he never will, but if he can learn how to pitch he'll be very scary. People forget that Schilling wasn't anything special when he was 26 years old. Beckett is entering the prime of a pitchers career (between the age of 26 to 32-34). I would take Beckett's potential over a Clement type.

The fact is, the rotation could be very very dominate if everyone clicks. The Sox right now have to be the favorites for the best rotation in the AL East, of course they play the games on the field- not on paper.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Personally I could care less what Henry and Company did before they came to the Sox. That doesn't matter to me nor should it matter to Sox fans because it's in the past.

It's like saying yeah Ortiz has been great for the Red Sox but man he sucked in Minnesota. Who cares?

 

[phunwin]

Not true. Papelbon started 3 games in 2005 and got no decisions in all of them if I remember correctly. The only reason why Papelbon wasn't in the rotation in 2006 was because they had no one to close and they threw Paps in there to see what he could do and he responded big time. I really think Papelbon is going to be a very good starter. He has 3 above average pitches in his fastball, splitter and slider. He also has a curve, change up and is working on a 2 seamer now.

Beckett is still young though, 26 years old and has tons of talent (no one can deny that). He just hasn't put it together yet.... maybe he never will, but if he can learn how to pitch he'll be very scary. People forget that Schilling wasn't anything special when he was 26 years old. Beckett is entering the prime of a pitchers career (between the age of 26 to 32-34). I would take Beckett's potential over a Clement type.

The fact is, the rotation could be very very dominate if everyone clicks. The Sox right now have to be the favorites for the best rotation in the AL East, of course they play the games on the field- not on paper.

Obviously, Clement's gone downhill pretty fast, but be fair; ability has never been his problem. Clement had awesome stuff, and not THAT long ago, either. Fact is, he's been screwed up ever since that line drive smacked him right in the ol' coconut. As far as potential goes, Clement had every bit as much a few years ago as Beckett does now...which just goes to show that talented young pitchers are ALWAYS a speculative investment. (And when they're as injury prone as Beckett, that's doubly true.)

 

[Ray Finkle]

Obviously, Clement's gone downhill pretty fast, but be fair; ability has never been his problem. Clement had awesome stuff, and not THAT long ago, either. Fact is, he's been screwed up ever since that line drive smacked him right in the ol' coconut. As far as potential goes, Clement had every bit as much a few years ago as Beckett does now...which just goes to show that talented young pitchers are ALWAYS a speculative investment. (And when they're as injury prone as Beckett, that's doubly true.)

I agree 100%.

 

[Alex44]

Not true. Papelbon started 3 games in 2005 and got no decisions in all of them if I remember correctly. The only reason why Papelbon wasn't in the rotation in 2006 was because they had no one to close and they threw Paps in there to see what he could do and he responded big time. I really think Papelbon is going to be a very good starter. He has 3 above average pitches in his fastball, splitter and slider. He also has a curve, change up and is working on a 2 seamer now.

Beckett is still young though, 26 years old and has tons of talent (no one can deny that). He just hasn't put it together yet.... maybe he never will, but if he can learn how to pitch he'll be very scary. People forget that Schilling wasn't anything special when he was 26 years old. Beckett is entering the prime of a pitchers career (between the age of 26 to 32-34). I would take Beckett's potential over a Clement type.

The fact is, the rotation could be very very dominate if everyone clicks. The Sox right now have to be the favorites for the best rotation in the AL East, of course they play the games on the field- not on paper.

Exactly and that is a BIG if.

Im not sold on Papelbon on a starter, 3 games.....obviously none of those hitters had seen him before so there is still potential to fail, sure he was great pitching out of the bullpen but thats a completely different thing. I think he COULD be a great starter but who knows?

The only one guaranteed to be good is Schilling, and thats IF he can stay healthy for the year.

Right now Id call your rotation a coin flip....one side says it could be great and the other side says it could be terrible.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Exactly and that is a BIG if.

Im not sold on Papelbon on a starter, 3 games.....obviously none of those hitters had seen him before so there is still potential to fail, sure he was great pitching out of the bullpen but thats a completely different thing. I think he COULD be a great starter but who knows?

The only one guaranteed to be good is Schilling, and thats IF he can stay healthy for the year.

Right now Id call your rotation a coin flip....one side says it could be great and the other side says it could be terrible.

I'll take my chances that the rotation will be more great than terrible.

And how can you say you're not sold on Papelbon being a starter? You didn't even know he started before. Yes 3 games is a small sample size but he's been an effective pitching so far in his short MLB career. You just can't dismiss he won't be good because other closers or relief pitchers aren't effective starters.

 

[Alex44]

I'll take my chances that the rotation will be more great than terrible.

Maybe.



I think Papelbon and Schilling will probally be good.

Then you have Beckett who IMO probally wont be.

Then you have Mr. Japan who is an unknown.

So Id give you probally a 50% chance of being good. 25% chance of failure and 25% chance of being great.

Just my opinion of course, you know your team better than I do.

 

[Alex44]

I'll take my chances that the rotation will be more great than terrible.

And how can you say you're not sold on Papelbon being a starter? You didn't even know he started before. Yes 3 games is a small sample size but he's been an effective pitching so far in his short MLB career. You just can't dismiss he won't be good because other closers or relief pitchers aren't effective starters.

Im not saying he wont be good. Im saying he needs to prove he will be good out of that role is all.

 

[unifiedtheory]

The Oakland A's cry poor, but then go spend $300-$400 mill OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET to build a new stadium in San Jose

They cry poor because they ARE poor WHILE they play in the stadium they are currently playing in. They will not be poor in 2011 when they finally get a new yard.

Previous ownership was trying to extort the city of Oakland into publicly financing a stadium and the city would not bite.

Lew Wollf came on board and gave Billy Beane more money last offseason (they did not lose any MAJOR free agents last winter). In that time Wollf has been in charge he has been trying to:

1. Find a location for the new stadium
2. Find some financing for the new stadium

These things do not happen over night. I would never expect an owner of a team to dump money into a bottomless pit. That is what Oakland is right now. Worst stadium in baseball by a wide margin, bad location and their attendance is around 20,000 a night even though they are a competative team.

Once Wollf got his ducks in a row (a location and the financing) he stepped forward to get the deal done.

Would it be better for him to spend the money on players instead? Great idea. Go out and have a $120 million dollar payroll but stay in the same ****ty ballpark.

Don't give me the "teams that spend more are more sucessful on the field and get better attendance" crap because this team has been to the playoffs 5 times in 7 years and were still drawing flies. Spending more on players would achieve NOTHING without a new ballpark.

If they went by your economic model they would have a huge payroll, no new stadium and be drowning in debt.

Instead the NEW OWNER came in, got things done and is moving the team to a new ballpark spending PRIVATE money, and for that he is wrong?

You are the KING of blanket statements. The A's get an owner (FINALLY) who is ready to step up and build a new park and the first thing out of your mouth is "they have been crying poor, how can they afford a new stadium?" Well, the guy needed time to get everything together. You don't find a location and get the financing together for a new ballpark, while dealing with territorial rights in a week.

I know for a FACT that you'll totally disregard this entire post because your'e always right and everyone else is always wrong unless they agree with you, regardless of evidence.

 

[phunwin]

Maybe.



I think Papelbon and Schilling will probally be good.

Then you have Beckett who IMO probally wont be.

Then you have Mr. Japan who is an unknown.

So Id give you probally a 50% chance of being good. 25% chance of failure and 25% chance of being great.

Just my opinion of course, you know your team better than I do.

Matsuzaka is a better investment than any free agent pitcher on the market. A rotation of Matsuzaka, Schilling, Papelbon, Beckett and Door #5 would be among the very best in baseball.

Things could go wrong, but then, Francisco Liriano could miss an entire season with a rotator cuff injury too...oh wait, that's actually going to happen.

Point is, pitching will ALWAYS have more question marks than hitting. Pitchers are, by nature, less durable and less predictable. You can sit and poke holes in anyone's rotation. Look at Detroit: they're relying on an old fart who pitched way over his head last year and a bunch of kids with, what, a total of 800 big league innings to their credit? Jeremy Bonderman, Justin Verlander and Nate Robertson are all talented, but hey, can they keep it up? What if they get hurt, as young pitchers who have hefty workloads seem to often do? But I'd bet that a minimum of 28 teams would happily swap starting rotations with the Tigers without a moment's hesitation.

The Red Sox have question marks in their rotation, but so does everyone else. Their question marks are just a little less significant.

 

[MikeO]

I know for a FACT that you'll totally disregard this entire post because your'e always right and everyone else is always wrong unless they agree with you, regardless of evidence.

No I won't disregard it. I just disagree with it. They got $400 mill for a stadium but they must have a fire sale of every pitcher and say they can't afford them. I don't get that logic and won't fall for their BS.

 

[MikeO]

You're trying to put down the Red Sox ownership based on stuff that never happened, and you have the audacity to call out others for showing their supposed "2nd city mentality"? Absolutely ridiculous.

I'm not gonna get into this with you if you can't talk calm and present facts. If we can't debate this like adults, I won't engage.

 

[Alex44]

No I won't disregard it. I just disagree with it. They got $400 mill for a stadium but they must have a fire sale of every pitcher and say they can't afford them. I don't get that logic and won't fall for their BS.

I think your both right in a sense

All owners have money and are rich....lets just face that fact first, you know it and I know it and so does the world.

The new stadium will bring them profit if it works out correctly.

Spending that much on payroll might not bring in the same profit

When owners say they are broke or poor what it really means IMO is that if they spend what they have then they cant turn a profit.