Heatwave

For me, it's Gille Melle and "Primitive Modern."

"You call Tim Wakefield "awful" - I've demonstrated statistically that Tim Wakefield was having an excellent year." I can demonstrate statistically that he was NOT having an excellent year. By checking his ERA, which is far from excellent. Please, just stop the lying and deception. You have absolutely no statistical evidence to back up any of your points and are just a sad Red Sox homer who is bitter about his shitty team and their lost season -- a season that was lost before ANY significant injuries occurred and before Lester was sent running for the chemo machine.

If I remember correctly, none of that 6-14 came against National League teams, on which Boston fattened up their record and made their 2006 campaign appear deceptively successful until the start of August. It is probable that some small part of the pitching ineffectiveness was the result of the starting catcher being out, but most of it is likely because the competition got tougher and the young pitchers weren't ready for the majors -- or, in the case of Lester, are overrated prospects who will never be any good.

The Truth Patrol Back Once Again: THE FACTS: Every baseball observer knows that Varitek is much more than his "non-existent bat". His pitch calling, his knowledge of hitters and his knowledge of his pitching staff are talents that cannot be utilized from the bench. Lopez (who has always been a crappy catcher) and Mirabelli were on their own trying to do a job they are not equipped to do on a full time basis. But don't take my word for it. Consider the experienced voice of Mike Bauman of MLB.com. He actually earns a LIVING with his knowledge of baseball: Truth Patrol Signing off For the Night. Baseball is full of mediots who "make a living" perpetuating unsubstantiated myths about baseball, and "leadership" is another one of those myths. I guess no team who never had a player-manager never got leadership from their manager, right? Because he wasn't also out on the field? Any of Varitek's bogus "leadership" is just as present when he's on the bench as when he's grounding into a double play and generally embarassing himself by attempting to hit (which pretty much defines his 2006 season). The Red Sox lost absolutely nothing offensively by Varitek going down, and they'll gain absolutely nothing on offense when he comes back. Truth Patrol Back One More Time:: THE FACTS: You have NO READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS WHATSOEVER, RIGHT? The facts are that we are talking about LEADING a pitching staff. CALLING games. SETTLING DOWN and ENCOURAGING young pitchers. Furthermore, Berigan has identified that Varitek's bat was far from worthless, and on a pace to easily match his average 80 RBI season. He was actually on a pace for 100 RBIs, but I'm factoring in the usual late season slump. YOU ARE A FOOL. "A few injuries to unimportant players:" Keep saying shit like this and NO ONE on this board will have an ounce of respect for you or your opinions. Let's tally them up, in chronological order: THE STARTING CENTERFIELDER FOR 7 WEEKS. (FINGER) THE NUMBER THREE PITCHER FOR FOUR MONTHS (ASIDE FROM TWO STARTS) (KNEE) THE NUMBER FIVE PITCHER SINCE JUNE 16 (SHOULDER) THE NUMBER FOUR PITCHER SINCE JULY 20TH (BROKEN RIB) THE FOURTH OUTFIELDER FOR 6 WEEKS (WRIST) THE FOURTH OUTFIELDER AGAIN FOR 8 DAYS (WRIST) THE STARTING RIGHTFIELDER FOR FOUR WEEKS (BICEPS) THE STARTING CATCHER AND LINCHPIN OF THE STAFF (KNEE) THE REPLACEMENT NUMBER THREE PITCHER FOR THE FINAL 5 WEEKS AND PROBABLY MORE (CANCER) AND THE TEAM'S TWO MVP CANDIDATES, AND THEIR ACE CLOSER, FOR AN UNDETERMINED LENGTH OF TIME You are embarassing yourself now. And I am laughing my ass off. I love how you don't include names, because to do so would destroy your argument. Put names and numbers in, please. Nobody cares about Tim Wakefield or Clement. They are awful, ineffective pitchers who the Red Sox are better off not making starts. Nobody cares about the embarassment of a catcher that is Jason Varitek in the 2006 season. And your pathetic plea for his RBI total is nauseating: RBIs aren't a very good statistic to evaluate an offensive player, because it's not an individual stat. Anybody hitting in the Red Sox lineup after Ortiz and Ramirez who has an ounce of power will get an RBI total around 100. This means virtually nothing and is the equivalent of you flailing around mindlessely after being beaten down by the truth -- yet again. Fourth outfielders are eminently replaceable by big-spending organizations like the Red Sox who can throw money at whomever they want, and Trot Nixon is a platoon outfielder, not a starter. The time missed by Ortiz, Ramirez and the Cancer Kid aren't even relevant, because the Red Sox were out of it by then. And Cancer Boy was sucking up the ballpark, anyway, with his bad starts and watching his trade value plummet. Bad management. Bad front office. Bad team. And nothing looks to improve for 2007. Enjoy all that. Maybe if they put a chemo unit in the clubhouse, Cancer Boy can provide the "leadership" you covet?

The Truth Patrol Back Once Again: THE FACTS: Every baseball observer knows that Varitek is much more than his "non-existent bat". His pitch calling, his knowledge of hitters and his knowledge of his pitching staff are talents that cannot be utilized from the bench. Lopez (who has always been a crappy catcher) and Mirabelli were on their own trying to do a job they are not equipped to do on a full time basis. But don't take my word for it. Consider the experienced voice of Mike Bauman of MLB.com. He actually earns a LIVING with his knowledge of baseball: Truth Patrol Signing off For the Night. Baseball is full of mediots who "make a living" perpetuating unsubstantiated myths about baseball, and "leadership" is another one of those myths. I guess no team who never had a player-manager never got leadership from their manager, right? Because he wasn't also out on the field? Any of Varitek's bogus "leadership" is just as present when he's on the bench as when he's grounding into a double play and generally embarassing himself by attempting to hit (which pretty much defines his 2006 season). The Red Sox lost absolutely nothing offensively by Varitek going down, and they'll gain absolutely nothing on offense when he comes back. Again, stop making excuses for your team. They outspend every other team in baseball except the Yankees and can't handle a few injuries to unimportant players. This is the mark of a front office that isn't doing its job.

Well, his record was better than some of his other stats would suggest. He has trouble commanding the strike zone and would get into high pitch counts and rarely work past the 5th inning. What was impressive was his ability to get out of trouble. All in all, being a 22 year old rookie, its been a decent debut, that's for sure. Hopefully this is all just a bump in the road and he'll get the chance to build on this and become a solid #3. Now watch for Heatwave to show up with his blather. After ripping Big Papi when the man may have a serious heart condition, God only knows what he'll say about a kid who could be facing cancer. Just wondering -- do you think Lester's cancer will raise or lower his trade value? My hunch is that a diagnosis of cancer would *lower* one's trade value, but considering the bizarre perspective you offered last week -- where his shaky 2006 performance would have no effect -- perhaps you have other ideas. I'm gonna stick with "cancer = lower trade value" myself, though. The Truth Patrol Back Yet Again: THE FACTS: When you are 22 years old and post a 7-2 record in your rookie season, you have done NOTHING to lower your trade value. 3/4 of the league would be happy to have Jon Lester on their roster. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT OF ALL IS THAT ANYONE WHO BRINGS UP THE TRADE VALUE OF A 22 YEAR OLD DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER IS A MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. This is non-persuasive. I'm gonna have to stick with "cancer=lower trade value." I'm betting that most baseball GMs feel the same way.

Time yet again for the Truth Patrol: THE FACTS: As a lefthanded hitter, Trot Nixon could already be expected to play in approximately 75% of all games as there are more righthanded starters than lefthanded. Yet the fact is that throughout the time that Wily Mo Pena was injured, Nixon started against virtually everyone, righthanded or lefthanded. The bottom line is that when Nixon went down, the team had played 104 games and he had appeared in 92 of them. He had also compiled a .294 BA and an OBP of .396. Anyone with any knowledge of the game knows that despite his decline in power numbers, Nixon was a critical part of the Red Sox lineup, and far more than a "platoon outfielder". Which brings us to Varitek. Anyone who has watched Varitek for the last five years knows full well that he is far more important to the team's success than this year's .243 BA. His team leadership, handling of the pitching staff and pitch calling skills are second to none. While he was on the roster, the young pitchers performed at their highest level to date. No one with any knowledge of the game is surprised at how the pitching staff has collapsed with Mirabelli and Lopez trying to fill Tek's shoes. In fact, what happened the last time the Red Sox lost Varitek for an extended period of time? That would be 2001 when he broke his elbow and the team finished 82-79. Coincidence? Every knowledgeable observer knew that the Red Sox would be in deep trouble when Varitek went down. The Truth Patrol signing off for the night. We're not talking about 2003 or 2004 Varitek, we're talking about the 2006 model, which flat-out sucked at the plate. As for his leadership abilities (which aren't a factor in winning baseball games anyway) 'Tek can "lead" from the dugout, can't he? Stop making excuses. Losing a non-existent bat should have no effect whatsoever on the team. Stop making excuses and, frankly, stop lying. I know you hate it when the facts don't back up your insane ramblings, but one might think you'd be used to it now.

Well, his record was better than some of his other stats would suggest. He has trouble commanding the strike zone and would get into high pitch counts and rarely work past the 5th inning. What was impressive was his ability to get out of trouble. All in all, being a 22 year old rookie, its been a decent debut, that's for sure. Hopefully this is all just a bump in the road and he'll get the chance to build on this and become a solid #3. Now watch for Heatwave to show up with his blather. After ripping Big Papi when the man may have a serious heart condition, God only knows what he'll say about a kid who could be facing cancer. Just wondering -- do you think Lester's cancer will raise or lower his trade value? My hunch is that a diagnosis of cancer would *lower* one's trade value, but considering the bizarre perspective you offered last week -- where his shaky 2006 performance would have no effect -- perhaps you have other ideas. I'm gonna stick with "cancer = lower trade value" myself, though.

"Time for the first installment of the Truth Patrol: THE FACTS: On July 20th, the Red Sox were 58-36, 22 games over .500. Interleague play was long finished at that point, and the Red Sox were 16-2 against the NL. THIS MEANS THAT THE RED SOX WERE 8 GAMES OVER .500 AGAINST AL TEAMS." Of course, I said since August... that reading comprehension flaw again... "What happened on July 20th? Tim Wakefield was placed on the DL." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Holy shit, my side is hurting. Tim Wakefield?!?!?!? This is would be like the Yankees blaming a losing streak on the loss of Jaret Wright. In any event, the loss of the ineffective Wakefield opened the doors for your vaunted prospects who disgraced themselves and lowered their potential trade value by promptly falling on their collective faces. Bravo, Theo! "Within 10 days, Trot Nixon and Jason Varitek followed him, and in the month since, Gonzales, Manny, Lester and Ortiz have been disabled or lost for significant periods. And we all know what their record has been ever since." Trot Nixon was a platoon outfielder and Jason Varitek was having a bad year. Manny and Ortiz didn't stop playing until a few days ago, when the Red Sox season was ALREADY OVER. The Yankees, by contrast, sustained far more extensive, serious injuries (four all-stars in Pavano, Matsui, Sheffield and Cano) and they made it through. That's because they simply a much better team this year. Deal with those facts, you ignorant mass of gorilla ejaculate.

Reading comprehension just isn't your thing, is it? "The prediction was, in all iterations, predicated on David Wells joining the Twins, and/or Liriano returning in time for the playoffs." Which I mentioned. You might be the one in need of reading comprehension. "Also, don't be embarassed to move your lips while reading. It has been shown to aid comprehension in low IQ individuals." My IQ is in the top 1%. I'm pretty sure yours is not. Looks like your threat to ignore me was just an idle one. Keep the idiocy coming, my little uninformed bitch. I love tearing you a new one on a daily basis!

Last installment for now of the Truth Patrol: THE FACTS: Schilling WAS NOT a free agent. No offer was made to Schilling to secure his services; an offer was made to the D-Backs; after the trade was accepted, Theo convinced Schilling to approve the trade and signed him to an extention. THE FACTS: Roger Clemens "retired" after the 2003 season. The Yankees made no decision to "let him walk" but simply took him at his word and did not even offer salary arbitration. Clemens "unretired" after Pettite signed with Houston. Truth Patrol signing off til the next time. The real truth: Nowhere did I say that Schilling was a free agent. Obviously frustrated by my superior knowledge, you pathetically try to misquote me on an irrelevant issue in order to "prove" me wrong. My point stands: The Yankees were interested in getting Schilling from the D-Backs the same year that Boston was, and they decided to let Boston be the highest bidder. Boston was determined to offer more, and the Yankees deemed Schilling not worth it. A franchise with unlimited resources could have have made a cash offer to Arizona that they would not have refused, had the Yankees really wanted Schilling.

Truth Patrol back again: THE FACTS: Manny Ramirez is signed through the 2008 season. The club holds an option on the 2009 season. Truth Patrol signing off. The real truth: Manny will be traded by 2008. That is what I was referring to. The team has tried frantically to trade him every year since 2004. There were no takers because he's not worth his contract, but with only a year remaining on it, it is likely that they'll find someone to bite either this offseason or during next year.

Did you come here just to belittle people about baseball? I suggest you look back and see who started belitting who.

Did anyone hear anything? No? I didn't think so. HAHA!! Spoken like a true pathetic pussy. I guess I don't blame you. You aren't smart or learned enough to hang with me, and you're probably getting tired of being beaten to a pulp by me when you try to argue. Run away, run away! Anyway, we have, on record, these (obviously untouched by Red Sox bias) predictions which you don't have the option of ignoring: a 48 home run season by Willy Moe Pena, and a sweep by the Twins if they should play the Yankees in the playoffs. I'm sure we'll get more jewels like these to chuckle about in due time.

Nice idea, but I don't know if the Twins would do it. They keep a pretty tight hold on all of their prospects. Terry Ryan (Twins GM) doesn't seems willing to give up prospects for a player that will only help in the short term. In recent years, at the trade deadline, he has passed on trades for many impact players that were available for this reason. Thank goodness they did because many of the deals demanded Liriano as one of the prospects. I bet you're right, but with Wells retiring, maybe a deal could be made for a low-level, nothing to write home about prospect. I'm just looking at any possibility that strengthens the Twins to take their shot at the Yanks with a great chance to ruin their season. Ah, the blithering idiot is back, making more foolish prognostications. It's nice to see that Mr. Clutch was terrified into an irregular heartbeat by the pummeling that the Yankees administrered on the hapless Red Sox last week. So much for the MVP. And it's also nice to blame injuries for the Red Sox lost season. Douchebag: the season was lost long before this week. Are you so stupid that you failed to monitor HOW the Red Sox managed to stay competetive in the A.L. until July? They beat up on the National League, which is an absolutely awful league this year. Even before the Yankees stuck a sword in them, the Red Sox were a .500 team vs. their own league. That's simply not playoff caliber. Incidentally, it's also how the Tigers managed to swell their winning percentage to .750 before they started playing within their division again. The Red Sox simply cannot blame their 2006 failure on injuries; the failure is on one of the worst front offices in baseball. These injuries take a mediocre team and make them a bad one, they don't take a good team and make them bad. As far as the Yankees go, they are the best team in the A.L., and stand the best chance of all of these teams of making the World Series. Of course, any team can win a short series, but your wishful thinking that a healthy Twins team would beat them in three games is pretty laughable. But, then, that's your MO around here -- to provide people who know better with hilarious blatherings based on a crippling Red Sox bias and without a shred of factual foundation. Keep it coming, little bitch, keep it coming! I'm laughing my ass off here!

Agreed. '96 is definitely an example of a year when the best team didn't win it. But then so was '95, '97, '01, '02, '03, '04...

You comprehension of baseball is incredibly low, which is unfortunate, since you have such a big mouth. You're also a disgusting human being, since your reaction to being shown that you are wrong is to attack the messenger. I only started insulting you after you began it yourself, and after you made yourself such an easy target. You might want to learn to read (your many reading comprehension errors are going to be a serious problem for you if you continue to have such an egotistic persona), and you might want to learn basic things about baseball player analysis before you attempt to make substantive comments on the subject. I'll be around, because publicly humliating troglodytic assholes such as yourself is quite enjoyable to me. You're my fucking bitch, and I'm going to continue treating you like one for so long as I deem appropriate. Enjoy the toilet that is the rest of your season, and 2007. You have a shitty general mananger who couldn't think his way out of a game of tic-tac-toe. And because of that you have a shit team. Enjoy, dipshit, enjoy. And enjoy Willy Mo Pena, the homeless man's Mel Hall. I'll remember the comment about 48 home runs.

It is regrettable that at this time you must be dubbed a know-nothing blowhard, but that's exactly what you've revealed yourself as. Your technique is generally to spout off unsupportable nonsense, backtrack when shown up and raise non-issues when proven wrong. Let me guess, you're in 9th or 10th grade? Another tip: writing in all caps neither makes you look smarter nor more authoritative; it makes you look all the more like a jackass. Good luck with that. "So, it took the collapse of the Red Sox to make you want to post. I simply found it odd that someone jumped full force into this thread for his very first two posts." I go where my expertise and interests guide. "And how do YOU know what the Red Sox revenue is and what exactly is going to the owners/investors???" I don't need to, since I didn't state my point in terms of absolute dollars, like you did. I know what the Sox spent in '04-'06 and I know that they increased their revenues greatly in that span, yet did not increase payroll much. Knowing the absolute dollars obviously isn't necessary to draw the obvious conclusion. Get your head out of your ass. "How do YOU know the balance sheet? THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY THAT THE RED SOX CAN SPEND "ON THE SAME MARGINS" AS THE YANKEES. THE YANKEE REVENUE DWARFS THE RED SOX." I guess you lack a comprehension of the term "margins." Again, I'm not talking about absolute dollars. You might also want to check ESPN.com, which today ran a story stating that the Yankees have lost money over the last three years. This is because Steinbrenner is willing to spend his own money to fund the team. This is what owners do who really want to win. Apparently, the idiots in Boston just care about making money off their team. Well, they do make money. That's great. And the fans have to suffer through the garbage that was given them this year, as well as Theo's pie-in-the-sky fantasies about how great their prospects supposedly are. "RED SOX OWNERSHIP REFUSES TO PLAY THE SAME GAME, AS IS THEIR RIGHT. THEIR OBLIGATION TO THE FANS IS TO FIELD A COMPETITIVE TEAM. WITHOUT THE CRUSHING INJURIES THEY HAD THIS YEAR, THE TEAM WAS COMPETITIVE TO A POINT. BUT NO TEAM HAS TO SPEND LIKE A DRUNKEN ASSHOLE MINI-STEINBRENNER JUST BECAUSE GEORGE DOES IT. YOU KNOW WHY? LOOK AT THE TEAMS THAT HAVE WON SINCE THE END OF THE LAST STEINBRENNER DYNASTY. THERE IS ANOTHER WAY. YOU'RE DRINKING THE KOOL-AID IF YOU THINK THAT THE ONLY WAY TO CONTEND WITH THE YANKEES IS TO SPEND SPEND SPEND." Then I sincerely hope that this is the last I hear from you about the Yankees payroll. If the payroll is not the main reason why the Yankees have won recently, then that's that. Apparently, you like to cry about payroll when it suits you, but cite it as less important when it doesn't. "To say that their value on the trade market is diminished is simply asinine. The Sox asked the Braves about Andruw Jones. Their response was "Coco, Hansen and Lester". If you think that these growing pains have done anything to reduce their value, you are every bit as stupid as 99% of what you have posted." Let me get this straight... you think that the trade value of any of these prospects *increased* or stayed the same since their horrible performances in the majors??? By comparison, check out Coco Crisp, a young player who was cited early on as a good value pickup by the Sox. At the trade deadline, they couldn't GIVE the guy away. So you think that the same reasons why Crisp's trade value declined (sub-par performance over a relatively small sample of games) will have no bearing on the trade values of these other players, whose performances were also sub-par? I'm not saying that the floor fell out on them, I said that their trade values declined. Had they played well, their values would have increased. This is a fairly simple concept, is it not? "[PENA] IS ONLY 24. Time will tell - and time is most assuredly on his side." Pena has no plate discipline and it is highly unlikely that he will put ever put together a 48 homer season. You sure are good at coming to unrealistic, unsupportable conclusions about your players. Why did no other team want this future 50-home run guy, I wonder... "As for your list of players "allowed to walk" or "given more attractive offers": SCHILLING WASN'T A FREE AGENT. CLEMENS RETIRED." Please, I'd love to see where I said anything about Schilling walking. I used Schilling in the context of the teams competing for the same players. The Yankees wanted Schilling but the Sox gave him the better offer. When you have so many fundamental problems with reading comprehension, it's no surprise that higher-level reasoning poses such obstacles as well...

"First of all, thanks for answering my questions. Not." What questions? These? "Before I depart this thread, who are you, heatwave? Have you lurked here long? What are your baseball allegiances? And will you join us in the jazz discussions?" Who am I? I am a jazz fan living in the United States. Have I lurked here long? More than week and less than five years. What are my baseball allegiances? Baseball is my favorite sport, although NFL Sundays are events that the baseball season can't replicate until the playoffs. Will I join you in the jazz discussions? I don't know if I joined you specifically, but I already made posts in other threads. "More importantly, you are frightfully misinformed on a number of counts." This should be interesting... "The Phils ARE not paying Abreu's salary in 2006." Yes. they are. The Yankees are only paying the two-month prorated portion corresponding to his play in NY. People like to add his whole 2006 salary so that they can artificially inflate the Yankees payroll, but it would be disingenuous to do so. "The Red Sox ARE NOT with unlimited resources." This is a red herring argument. Nobody's resources are unlimited. The Red Sox are the second richest team in baseball and can spend almost on par with the Yankees, yet their stingy ownership refuses to do so. Red Sox fans have absolutely every right to expect that RS ownership will spend on the same margins that George Steinbrenner will. "Theo's limits are approximately 125 mil in salary and another 20-25 mil in luxury tax." You're drinking the Kool-Aid. How in the world do YOU know what Boston has to spend? Here are the facts: Boston has kept the payroll close to static since 2004, yet revenues have mushroomed. And you're buying the baloney that they're maxed out. Congratulations -- it's this kind of burying one's head in the sand that allows the disgrace of the current management in Boston to keep this team from achieving what it can. "Abreu's salary plus luxury tax would have been 24 million, the vast majority of it next season. It was not an option." Boston could have paid Abreu without even blinking. But it probably would have meant that somebody would have gone without another summer house. For shame. "How can anyone say that Theo "overestimated" his own prospects? Lester has made what? 12 starts? Delcarmen and Hansen haven't reached 50 appearances between them. The problem is not over-estimating their talents, its throwing them into the fire when they aren't quite ready. Hansen and Delcarmen will be major league pitchers for a long time, and are likely to excel." They overestimated their prospects because they were willing to forfeit 2006 and 2007 (with Manny, Ortiz, Schilling and, as we have learned this year, the best closer since Mariano Rivera) on the expectation that they could achieve the same level of success with these prospects major-league ready and somebody else in the lineup to replace some of their best players. The Yankees have already learned the difference between keeping a special, championship-level nucleus of players and acquiring the best players available, and they'll learn even more about this when Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera are gone. That level of greatness isn't replaceable by simply signing players to bring the collective OPS of the lineup or ERA of the pitching staff up to a certain number. Epstein failed his team and failed his fans by failing to realize the necessitiy to build around the winner that he already had. Trying to win by spending less on a team with the huge resources of the Red Sox is like an attorney trying to get the high score on a bar exam -- it don't mean shit as long as you pass. It's foolhardy. As for the current crop of failed Boston prospects, of course they might be excellent players in two years. At least one of them probably will be a star. But the failures of all of them this year has functioned as a double-edged sword -- 1) they killed the team's chances of making the playoffs when they had a chance to contribute and 2) they have now diminished their own value on the trade market, which almost forces Epstein to wait them out. Oh well -- he made his bed. Now he has to sleep in it. "Pena is a "career" fourth outfielder ... ok, but WHY? Because he ran out of minor league options at the age of TWENTY ONE and has been forced to learn at the major league level for three years. Of course he's been a fourth outfielder - what team can afford to put such a young, inexperienced player into the every day lineup? His development got screwed by the contract the Yankees gave him. In less than a full year learning from Papa Jack, Manny and David, his OBP has jumped by 80 points over his career average, and his BA has jumped by nearly 50 points (when he was up over .300 up until recently, his jump in BA was over .60 points). Call Gabe Kapler a career fourth outfielder - he came up on a normal course of development, played, stuck around, and settled into what his skills make him: a fourth outfielder. WMP CANNOT be described the same way. So long as his development continues as it has this year, I will predict that within two years, he'll put up a line something like: .290 - 48 - 120 - with an OBP of .380. Talk to me in two years and we'll see if I am right. But don't write him off as some marginal player when he's only 24 and has to learn his craft against major league pitching." These projections for Willy Mo Pena are so completely outlandish that they're not even worth responding to. Suffice it to say that Pena has done nothing at any level of his development to suggest that he's likely to achieve these numbers. I might be wrong and he might someday make a solid starting corner outfielder, but he's never going to become the next Manny. "About John Henry and the supposedly never-ending stream of revenue. Henry and the rest of the ownership group paid 750 million dollars for the team, iirc. It wasn't cash money. There was financing involved. In fact, said financing requires significant payment starting I believe in 2007. So the idea that endless revenue can simply go back into the payroll is simply stupid." So what you are saying is that Red Sox ownership *depended* on the revenue windfall of the 2004 championship simply to make their financing payments? If so, then their acquisition of the team was not only foolish, but Major League Baseball's approval of their ownership was a gross error. Of course, this argument is hogwash. There's plenty of money and the management owes it to the fans who pay the highest ticket prices in baseball to reinvest in the team, instead of making excuses. "Which brings us to Theo: It is simply STUPID to suggest that "locks on the checkbook" drove him away. The argument that led to Theo's departure was about that very attitude of win now at any cost. Theo does not want to take the approach of win at all costs, always. With a budget and financial limits, a team MUST develop its own talent, and give that talent a chance to fail. The simple fact is that the Yankees, with unlimited payroll, can simply spend out of any problems that may come up with aging former stars. The Red Sox cannot. That means looking long and hard at players who are leaving their prime and entering the decline phase." It is wrong to suggest that the Yankees have "limitless" revenue. They have a bit more to spend than Boston, but compared to the rest of baseball, these two teams operate in nearly identical ways. They (and the Mets, when Fred Wilpon is in a good mood) compete for the same players. Sometimes the Red Sox make the more attractive offer (Schilling, Ramirez), and sometimes the Yankees do (Bernie Williams, A-Rod). Sometimes the Red Sox make the hard decision to let a productive player walk and spend the money elsewhere (Damon, Pedro), and sometimes the Yankees do (Pettitte, Nelson, Gordon, Clemens and probably Bernie Williams and Gary Sheffield for 2007) Red Sox fans have gotten so used to finishing second to the Yankees and so used to using the excuse that the Yankees simply buy their championships that they've allowed their management to continue feeding them this excuse long after it has had any validity. The Red Sox won the WS in 2004 and benefitted greatly by this in terms of revenue. They are not a small market team, they are one of three franchises who can rule the roost of major league baseball and can at least consider signing any virtually player that they want. The Red Sox fans who support this team deserve a GM and front office that thinks this way instead of like the Oakland A's. "So looking ahead to 2007: Yes there are big issues for the starting rotation and there may be even more growing pains and general unhappiness. In the NL, I would consider only Jason Schmidt and Roy Oswalt as pitchers who could succeed in the AL (plus Clemens, should he do the same thing as this year and return in June). Schmidt is too old however. Barring some sort of trade, the key to the season will be whether or not Beckett turns out to be stubborn and stupid or smart enough to make the adjustments necessary. With the addition of a closer that allows Papelbon to start, I'll take Schilling, Papelbon and Beckett against any other group in the major leagues." Schilling is getting old for a power pitcher and it is unlikely that he will be a top starter next year. Expect something along the lines of 2005-2006 Randy Johnson. Beckett is a total wild card, but he's been so awful this year (few "quality starts," which is a fairly low barometer of success, when you think about it) that hoping for him to ever become an ace in the A.L. is probably wishful thinking. It's a shame that Papelbon might be asked to become a starter, since he already appears to be the next incarnation of Mariano Rivera as a reliver. Unless he's the second coming of Pedro as a starter, the Red Sox should really consider not permanently converting him. "Now, with the payroll restraint they've instituted (Youklis, Pedroia, Papelbon, Lester, Delcarmen, Hansen all playing important roles at very low salary; Crisp signed cheaply; there are other very good players on the way from AA) I will bet that the Sox will activate the option on Manny and he will be here through at least 2008." It's hard to believe, since they've tried so hard to trade him over the last few years, but if they're going to go down the road of starting a bunch of their own prospects, they may have to re-sign Manny to save some face. It would be un-Theo like to overpay for an aging slugger, though, and Manny would skip town in a heartbeat for a team that offered him a few bucks more. "With the limited investment in younger players, they will have the ability to build the necessary firepower around Ortiz-Manny, through free-agency. How about Vernon Wells or Andruw Jones?" This isn't just an idea, it's a necessity, when you look at the probable composition of this team in two years. I'm partial to Wells, myself.

"You may not "recognize" the team anymore, but no one can argue that those moves were the correct ones, particularly now. As for Trot Nixon: His injury history and declining production marks him as gone after this season." Theo dropped the ball by not re-signing Pedro and Damon, though I basically agree about the other players. Anybody who has Pedro will have to deal with a few weeks on the DL, but he's still a great pitcher. Theo made two fairly glaring errors of judgement after 2004. He 1) overestimated his own prospects (typical gaffe of a young GM) and 2) underestimated the need to keep the 2004 team intact and to mortage some of the future on a win-now situation. When you have a deadly duo of Ortiz and Manny in the middle of your lineup, you need to build around them, win now and let the future be damned. The second-richest team in the sport can certainly afford to do this, because when you have Boston's money, you don't need to ever "rebuild," you can just buy what you need when you need it. But Theo would have his fans believe otherwise -- since 2004, he has steadfastly refused to raise the team's payroll despite the revenue streams exploding with dollars. Where is this money going, I wonder? Lining the pockets of John Henry, no doubt. Maybe these locks on the checkbook were part of what nearly drove Theo out of town; I don't know. All I know is that what was a very special situation in 2004 has been dismantled by poor management since then. 2007 doesn't look to be much better, as the Sox are in dire need of pitching and there is little to be had via free agency. And what there is will be competed for by the Yankees, who will be in the market for a star starter of their own next year. As for Nixon, if his injury history and declining production mark him as being gone next year, then why in the hell didn't Boston offer a bag of baseballs of their own to get Bobby Abreu? The Yankees gave up virtually nothing to get him; they just assumed his contract (which they made Philly pay for, for 2006!) Why couldn't Boston do this? The money certainly isn't an issue, as they have plenty of it, and they also are in need of a RF next year. Wily Mo Pena is a career fourth outfielder, so I can't imagine they have plans to start him in right next year... Bad management. Theo apparently dismantled his 2004 team to build for 2008 (when Schilling and Ramirez will be gone). Good luck with that.

IMO on the Corner is a very good album, just not a great one. It starts out well but eventually wears on the listner because of the lack of creativity in the beat. The first 25-30 minutes are like a firecracker but I can't possibly imagine sitting through hours of this stuff, though!

Interesting thing that Lacy and Waldron had in common -- both played with European prog/fusion bands in the 1970s -- Waldron with the German band Embryo (check out the fantastic "Rocksession" album recorded in 1972) and Lacy with Area, one of the best Italian progressive bands.

"Well, lemme tell ya, after what happened in 2004, NY could be 10 games out w/12 to play and I still wouldn't breathe easy... and the playoffs are a whole new season." This series is precisely *why* we can't draw comparisons between what happens over the course of the regular season and a short series (in the playoffs or whenever). Going into Fenway, the Yankees had just lost a three game series to Baltimore, a team that they are obviously much better than. Then they swept Boston 5-0, a team that they are better than, but not by the tremendous margin that a 5-0 sweep (in Boston's park, no less) would suggest. The whole "anything can happen" argument works in a 5 or 7 game series because anybody can get hot and go on a run. We saw that with the Sox in 2004, who improbably came back vs. the Yankees and then swept the Cardinals. But "anything can happen" doesn't work over the course of a large sample size. Over the final 38 games, Boston is confronted by the reality of a bad starting rotation and a worse bullpen, and a lineup that relies too much on two players. The division is over and they're chasing two teams who are better than they for the wild card spot. Could the Sox take three in a row from the White Sox or Twins if they were to play them right now? Sure they could. Will the Sox play the .700 ball over their final 38 games which will be necessary to get them into the playoffs? Highly unlikely. 38 games is just too many to not expose their flaws.

I think it's safe to say that the Sox are finished, even if they should come back and win today's game (which I doubt). They'd be 5 games back of the Yankees in the division and if you look at the teams' respective schedules the rest of the way, it's easy to see that there really is no possible way for the Red Sox to overcome the Yankees, unless the Yankees play sub-.500 ball the rest of the way. After September 4, the Yankees only play 4 games over the final month against a team with a winning record -- and those are four vs. the Sox in Yankee Stadium. The Yankees seem well on their way to 100 wins. So forget the Yankees. What about the Wild Card? The wild card winner this year will win at least 95 games, and probably more. Assuming the Red Sox lose today, they will need to go 27-11 to get to 96 wins. Check out their schedule and make a realistic assessment of their pitching (they have one good starter and a good closer and that's it; the rest are terrible) and tell me how they are going to play over .700 ball over that stretch. Vs. the Angels, A's, White Sox, Minnesota and Yankees? It's simply not going to happen.