SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
9/10-9/12 Red Sox @ Rays Series Thread
|
Post by jmei on Sept 10, 2013 23:57:15 GMT -5
Drew just looked awful all night. I suppose the rationale is that Drew is better defensively and you want that for Buchholz, but Farrell has to get over his unwillingness to play Xander versus lefties by the playoffs, or else Ben Cherington and Larry Lucchino aren't doing their jobs properly. I get that this is a prospect website, but the Red Sox were not facing Walton McLefty. It was David Price, there are some great odds that Xanny would have looked as clueless as Drew did. Besides, Cherington said himself that Drew is the starter. And how do you picture this "aren't doing their jobs properly"? Do you think BC and Larry are taking a nap, or that they could be home eating a pizza when suddenly they go OMFG FARRELL HAS TO PLAY XANDER? Any GM has serious input over who should and shouldn't play and Farrell doesn't look the kind to say "screw that noise", and especially Lucchino doesn't look the kind to take that lightly. You can bet your house that this "unwillingness" to play Xander versus lefties is pretty much how they all designed to ease him in. No need to rush him, the Red Sox have like a billion game lead on the division. Read my post more carefully. I'm not that upset about Drew starting this game for some of the reasons you alluded to. But Drew is a very bad hitter versus left-handed pitchers, and Xander is almost certainly a significantly better player on a per-game basis against lefties. If John Farrell continues to play Drew versus left-handed pitchers when the games start to really count or especially in an elimination game, it actively reduces the likelihood that the Red Sox win in a meaningful way. Do you disagree with that statement? And yeah, I absolutely think Cherington and Lucchino are responsible for making sure that the manager (who writes out the lineups) is doing so in a way that maximizes the team's chance to win. If Xander isn't starting versus LHP in the playoffs, it's partly the front office's fault for either not realizing that starting Xander gives them the best chance to win or for not pressuring Farrell enough to start him. You yourself agree that this is the case later on in the thread ("But it makes no sense blaming only Farrell and not also BC, Larry or anyone else"). The idea that there might be a disconnect between Farrell and the front office isn't far-fetched either-- there are tons of examples, often of philosophical disagreements between a progressive GM and a manager who is less so (see, e.g., Moneyball and Beane/Howe or this year's Angels and Dipoto/Scioscia). Frankly, I think you're being a contrarian just to be a contrarian. Unless you really think that Drew's .189/.247/.348 (55 wRC+) line versus lefties in 2013 or his career .234/.292/.393 (75 wRC+) line is going to cut it in the postseason.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Sept 11, 2013 0:04:38 GMT -5
He did say this: Considering he hasn't been use in such a way I can't make the leap to think thats how they plan to use him. BTW he would make a handsome cheerleader.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 11, 2013 0:08:17 GMT -5
Thanks for the link Norm, just left WeEI several minutes ago and must have over looked that fine article. JBJ would seem to be another great decent PR for base running slugs Napoli/Ortiz late, then take over for Nava/Gomes/Carp as defensive replacement late in games. Great news also that seems Farrell won't have any issues cutting ties with a veteran, in this case Dempster on a PO spot. He wasn't going to help. Would like to see Britton even (or Morales) with the lefty slot over Doubront and Felix given simulated starts over the 1st series, then possibly a start in round 2 if the Sox make it that far, see if he is rested enough by then. Give him the entire series off.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Sept 11, 2013 8:12:38 GMT -5
I get that this is a prospect website, but the Red Sox were not facing Walton McLefty. It was David Price, there are some great odds that Xanny would have looked as clueless as Drew did. Besides, Cherington said himself that Drew is the starter. And how do you picture this "aren't doing their jobs properly"? Do you think BC and Larry are taking a nap, or that they could be home eating a pizza when suddenly they go OMFG FARRELL HAS TO PLAY XANDER? Any GM has serious input over who should and shouldn't play and Farrell doesn't look the kind to say "screw that noise", and especially Lucchino doesn't look the kind to take that lightly. You can bet your house that this "unwillingness" to play Xander versus lefties is pretty much how they all designed to ease him in. No need to rush him, the Red Sox have like a billion game lead on the division. Read my post more carefully. I'm not that upset about Drew starting this game for some of the reasons you alluded to. But Drew is a very bad hitter versus left-handed pitchers, and Xander is almost certainly a significantly better player on a per-game basis against lefties. If John Farrell continues to play Drew versus left-handed pitchers when the games start to really count or especially in an elimination game, it actively reduces the likelihood that the Red Sox win in a meaningful way. Do you disagree with that statement? And yeah, I absolutely think Cherington and Lucchino are responsible for making sure that the manager (who writes out the lineups) is doing so in a way that maximizes the team's chance to win. If Xander isn't starting versus LHP in the playoffs, it's partly the front office's fault for either not realizing that starting Xander gives them the best chance to win or for not pressuring Farrell enough to start him. You yourself agree that this is the case later on in the thread ("But it makes no sense blaming only Farrell and not also BC, Larry or anyone else"). The idea that there might be a disconnect between Farrell and the front office isn't far-fetched either-- there are tons of examples, often of philosophical disagreements between a progressive GM and a manager who is less so (see, e.g., Moneyball and Beane/Howe or this year's Angels and Dipoto/Scioscia). Frankly, I think you're being a contrarian just to be a contrarian. Unless you really think that Drew's .189/.247/.348 (55 wRC+) line versus lefties in 2013 or his career .234/.292/.393 (75 wRC+) line is going to cut it in the postseason. Agree completely. I don't think Xander will get every start against lefties in the playoffs (even though he should), but even now he is getting the start once every few days. Another golden sombrero or two for Drew against lefties and I think it will be pretty obvious to everyone. Sometimes it just takes some time and proof of just how much better a new player is in handling certain situations.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Sept 11, 2013 8:48:17 GMT -5
And yeah, I absolutely think Cherington and Lucchino are responsible for making sure that the manager (who writes out the lineups) is doing so in a way that maximizes the team's chance to win. If Xander isn't starting versus LHP in the playoffs, it's partly the front office's fault for either not realizing that starting Xander gives them the best chance to win or for not pressuring Farrell enough to start him. You yourself agree that this is the case later on in the thread ("But it makes no sense blaming only Farrell and not also BC, Larry or anyone else"). The idea that there might be a disconnect between Farrell and the front office isn't far-fetched either-- there are tons of examples, often of philosophical disagreements between a progressive GM and a manager who is less so (see, e.g., Moneyball and Beane/Howe or this year's Angels and Dipoto/Scioscia). Frankly, I think you're being a contrarian just to be a contrarian. Unless you really think that Drew's .189/.247/.348 (55 wRC+) line versus lefties in 2013 or his career .234/.292/.393 (75 wRC+) line is going to cut it in the postseason. I don't disagree that Xander is a better option against lefties than Drew. What I don't see is this "philosophical disagreement" you mentioned between the manager and the FO. BC and Larry are responsible for making sure that the manager helps maximize the team's chance to win, my point is that their approach is already hands on, they all came up with a plan and that plan includes Xander not playing against lefties for whatever reason. I don't think that's the right call. But I would put the blame on that decision on all three of them (and the rest of the FO, sure). What I disagree with you is in the notion that Farrell somehow took that decision without Larry and BC being a part of it.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 11, 2013 8:53:52 GMT -5
That curve by Clay was one of the nastiest I've seen him throw in a long time. My thoughts exactly! So biting. I am a bit concerned with how Pedey looks at the plate. He is the opposite of Victorino...standing quite far from the plate and then (as he always does) pulling out toward third. To me the result is that he is lunging back even on middle of the plate fastballs. He is getting a lot of weak contact rolling over to third and short. Is he standing farther away from the plate than normal??
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 11, 2013 9:01:13 GMT -5
OK, every other bit of evidence we have suggests very strongly that a) John Farrell is not an idiot; and b) the Red Sox are a well-run organization with a plan that its employees follow. So, I think we can make a fair assumption that Bogaerts and Drew are being used according to a plan with some thought behind it. The question is, what is that plan? It's kinda boring and useless to keep posting the same complaints about the use of Drew v Bogaerts ... clearly the Sox see a value in doing things this way, so what is it? I think that they believe this is important development time for Bogaerts, that is vital because he will be given the starting shortstop job next year, and that that is the #1 objective in having him up in Boston. But that still doesn't really explain days like last night. Seems like giving Xander a look at Price would help that goal rather than hurt it.
So why play Drew? Is it because they want him to face lefties to stay sharp for the playoffs? Do they not want to give him two days off in a row at any point? There must be some reason beyond, "Farrell is an idiot!!1!" Even if I (we) disagree with it.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 11, 2013 9:04:25 GMT -5
OK, every other bit of evidence we have suggests very strongly that a) John Farrell is not an idiot; and b) the Red Sox are a well-run organization with a plan that its employees follow. So, I think we can make a fair assumption that Bogaerts and Drew are being used according to a plan with some thought behind it. The question is, what is that plan? It's kinda boring and useless to keep posting the same complaints about the use of Drew v Bogaerts ... clearly the Sox see a value in doing things this way, so what is it? I think that they believe this is important development time for Bogaerts, that is vital because he will be given the starting shortstop job next year, and that that is the #1 objective in having him up in Boston. But that still doesn't really explain days like last night. Seems like giving Xander a look at Price would help that goal rather than hurt it. So why play Drew? Is it because they want him to face lefties to stay sharp for the playoffs? Do they not want to give him two days off in a row at any point? There must be some reason beyond, "Farrell is an idiot!!1!" Even if I (we) disagree with it. Stage three: bargaining. There's really nothing mysterious about Farrell's bad decisions. They're all based around babying veteran players. Not platooning them, not pinch hitting for them, not making them take days off when they clearly need them, letting starters stay in the game too long, etc. Which is weird to me, because all we've heard about the Red Sox is how great their clubhouse is and how much they love Farrell. So isn't that the perfect time to ask your vets to sacrifice a few PAs for the greater good of the team?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 11, 2013 9:15:48 GMT -5
I get that, barring an injury, they won't start Xander over Drew in a playoff game, but if they are considering putting him on the playoff roster as a RH bat off the bench, then getting ABs against high quality pitchers - and especially LH pitchers - can only help in that goal. A start last night against Price, or at the very least, a pinch hit appearance for Drew when you had a potential run on 3rd and 2 outs late, is about as close as Xander will get to playoff pitching. That was my real disappointment with the non-moves. I didn't expect a straight platoon, but really, with a thick bench right now - and a defensive replacement in MacDonald who could've come in for the 9th, it just seemed like a smart baseball opportunity that was lost.
If you're going to try out flaccid veterans like Thornton and other new guys in the pen to see what they have over the next few weeks, then why not do the same with one of the biggest potential impact bats you have available? It's just puzzling.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 11, 2013 9:21:51 GMT -5
If you're going to try out flaccid veterans like Thornton and other new guys in the pen to see what they have over the next few weeks, then why not do the same with one of the biggest potential impact bats you have available? It's just puzzling. Honestly, at this point I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Xander isn't even on the postseason roster.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Sept 11, 2013 9:35:57 GMT -5
OK, every other bit of evidence we have suggests very strongly that a) John Farrell is not an idiot; and b) the Red Sox are a well-run organization with a plan that its employees follow. So, I think we can make a fair assumption that Bogaerts and Drew are being used according to a plan with some thought behind it. The question is, what is that plan? It's kinda boring and useless to keep posting the same complaints about the use of Drew v Bogaerts ... clearly the Sox see a value in doing things this way, so what is it? I think that they believe this is important development time for Bogaerts, that is vital because he will be given the starting shortstop job next year, and that that is the #1 objective in having him up in Boston. But that still doesn't really explain days like last night. Seems like giving Xander a look at Price would help that goal rather than hurt it. So why play Drew? Is it because they want him to face lefties to stay sharp for the playoffs? Do they not want to give him two days off in a row at any point? There must be some reason beyond, "Farrell is an idiot!!1!" Even if I (we) disagree with it. Stage three: bargaining. There's really nothing mysterious about Farrell's bad decisions. They're all based around babying veteran players. Not platooning them, not pinch hitting for them, not making them take days off when they clearly need them, letting starters stay in the game too long, etc. Which is weird to me, because all we've heard about the Red Sox is how great their clubhouse is and how much they love Farrell. So isn't that the perfect time to ask your vets to sacrifice a few PAs for the greater good of the team? Well, they couldn't have expected Xander to be MLB ready this year. Perhaps the continued playing of Drew is partly to make statement to future vet FA's - especially ones seeking pillow contracts - that they'll still get there AB's and their opportunity to perform and earn a mult-year deal.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Sept 11, 2013 10:08:23 GMT -5
OK, every other bit of evidence we have suggests very strongly that a) John Farrell is not an idiot; and b) the Red Sox are a well-run organization with a plan that its employees follow. So, I think we can make a fair assumption that Bogaerts and Drew are being used according to a plan with some thought behind it. The question is, what is that plan? It's kinda boring and useless to keep posting the same complaints about the use of Drew v Bogaerts ... clearly the Sox see a value in doing things this way, so what is it? I think that they believe this is important development time for Bogaerts, that is vital because he will be given the starting shortstop job next year, and that that is the #1 objective in having him up in Boston. But that still doesn't really explain days like last night. Seems like giving Xander a look at Price would help that goal rather than hurt it. So why play Drew? Is it because they want him to face lefties to stay sharp for the playoffs? Do they not want to give him two days off in a row at any point? There must be some reason beyond, "Farrell is an idiot!!1!" Even if I (we) disagree with it. Stage three: bargaining. There's really nothing mysterious about Farrell's bad decisions. They're all based around babying veteran players. Not platooning them, not pinch hitting for them, not making them take days off when they clearly need them, letting starters stay in the game too long, etc. Which is weird to me, because all we've heard about the Red Sox is how great their clubhouse is and how much they love Farrell. So isn't that the perfect time to ask your vets to sacrifice a few PAs for the greater good of the team? Seems to me that they are winning these games such as last night for the greater good of the team ... are we now advocating changing the whole system when they are winning at a rate higher than anytime this season? They are rolling over their division with a W% (in a very tough division) of .580 with a 36-26 record. They are also playing some tough opponents to a tone of 13-3 in this last stretch. I would think the front office and Farrell using the starting line up to prepare to clinch the division would make common sense. Also it was noted or quoted closely by the front office that Xander was up here to LEARN the Sox ways and to get a small experience of that which it looks like he is. Even Xander noted that after a game a while ago.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Sept 11, 2013 10:14:57 GMT -5
OK, every other bit of evidence we have suggests very strongly that a) John Farrell is not an idiot; and b) the Red Sox are a well-run organization with a plan that its employees follow. So, I think we can make a fair assumption that Bogaerts and Drew are being used according to a plan with some thought behind it. The question is, what is that plan? It's kinda boring and useless to keep posting the same complaints about the use of Drew v Bogaerts ... clearly the Sox see a value in doing things this way, so what is it? I think that they believe this is important development time for Bogaerts, that is vital because he will be given the starting shortstop job next year, and that that is the #1 objective in having him up in Boston. But that still doesn't really explain days like last night. Seems like giving Xander a look at Price would help that goal rather than hurt it. So why play Drew? Is it because they want him to face lefties to stay sharp for the playoffs? Do they not want to give him two days off in a row at any point? There must be some reason beyond, "Farrell is an idiot!!1!" Even if I (we) disagree with it. Stage three: bargaining. There's really nothing mysterious about Farrell's bad decisions. They're all based around babying veteran players. Not platooning them, not pinch hitting for them, not making them take days off when they clearly need them, letting starters stay in the game too long, etc. Which is weird to me, because all we've heard about the Red Sox is how great their clubhouse is and how much they love Farrell. So isn't that the perfect time to ask your vets to sacrifice a few PAs for the greater good of the team? This guy nailed it. Drew is now 0-10 against Price and under .200 against lefties this season I believe. At a certain point, you're just throwing away outs. The Rays are a good team. I think its important to not forget they won like 25/28 or something fairly recently. This also extends to leaving in guys like Dempster and Peavy too long when they're clearly getting tired, not pinch hitting Carp, not getting Victorino the rest he needs, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 11, 2013 10:40:21 GMT -5
But I would put the blame on that decision on all three of them (and the rest of the FO, sure). What I disagree with you is in the notion that Farrell somehow took that decision without Larry and BC being a part of it. I don't know where you got that from. I was the only other person that I can remember in this thread also blaming the front office for not starting Xander.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 11, 2013 10:46:41 GMT -5
Stage three: bargaining. There's really nothing mysterious about Farrell's bad decisions. They're all based around babying veteran players. Not platooning them, not pinch hitting for them, not making them take days off when they clearly need them, letting starters stay in the game too long, etc. Which is weird to me, because all we've heard about the Red Sox is how great their clubhouse is and how much they love Farrell. So isn't that the perfect time to ask your vets to sacrifice a few PAs for the greater good of the team? This guy nailed it. Agreed. Are 'we' trying too hard to be a players' manager in contrast to last year? Isn't this Terry Francona all over again and endemic to old school baseball? If Farrell were put in a vacuum, had no relationship with the players and made decisions purely on a rational, tactical basis, how much different would those decisions be? I'm sure there is a place for faith and loyalty but it seems that we are going a bit far here. Your job, Mr. Farrell, is to put the team in the best position to win.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 11, 2013 10:58:54 GMT -5
Seems to me that they are winning these games such as last night for the greater good of the team ... are we now advocating changing the whole system when they are winning at a rate higher than anytime this season? They are rolling over their division with a W% (in a very tough division) of .580 with a 36-26 record. They are also playing some tough opponents to a tone of 13-3 in this last stretch. I would think the front office and Farrell using the starting line up to prepare to clinch the division would make common sense. Also it was noted or quoted closely by the front office that Xander was up here to LEARN the Sox ways and to get a small experience of that which it looks like he is. Even Xander noted that after a game a while ago. I don't think sitting Drew versus a tough lefty with big splits (career 2.72 FIP versus lefties, 3.64 versus righties) is going to cause the clubhouse to descend into chaos or anything. The thing that confuses me is that Farrell is willing to make other veteran-adverse moves (i.e., benching Dempster, platooning Gomes), but he won't play Xander. It's not just about starting Xander, either. If Pedro Ciriaco was still on the roster, I'd consider starting him versus lefties. Drew's splits are that bad and Price is that good versus lefties.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 11, 2013 11:15:37 GMT -5
... Stage three: bargaining.There's really nothing mysterious about Farrell's bad decisions. They're all based around babying veteran players. Not platooning them, not pinch hitting for them, not making them take days off when they clearly need them, letting starters stay in the game too long, etc. Which is weird to me, because all we've heard about the Red Sox is how great their clubhouse is and how much they love Farrell. So isn't that the perfect time to ask your vets to sacrifice a few PAs for the greater good of the team? Sorry, I don't see this at all. Gomes has sat his ass down for a pinch hitter whenever he's been asked to and I believe he's a veteran. He put Carp in just the other day after Napoli's absolutely blistering week. And they took Clay out last evening after five innings, to the chagrin of some posters. As for the "cabal" theories, that stuff is a bunch of horse manure. The idea that Cherrington and/or ownership is somehow moderating every single decision made by the manager is far-fetched at best, not that it hasn't been regular fodder for the conspiracy-minded. The best organizations don't work like that at all. And right now this does look like a pretty good organization. Drew looked bad against Price, but he wasn't the only one. The team only collected three hits against the guy. And there is something to be said for his defensive chops. That may just play a part in this also. Side note: the team won again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 11:22:01 GMT -5
To weigh in on this debate, I think it's very easy for us as fans to look at the statistics and conclude who should play and who should not.
There is little doubt that in a vaccum playing Bogarts gives the team a slightly better chance of winning the individual game. A manager SHOULD absolutely look at statistics, but in the real world managers have to consider other things.
The team has been raking recently and has built a likely insurmountable lead in the AL East. A big part of that has been the play of the veteran SS. The manager has to consider how the rest of the team will react to the benching of the veteran SS in a big game versus our main division rival in their house. How will the rookie react if he makes a big error that loses the game? How will the rest of the team react?
The right time to put a rookie into a game for a veteran isn't an exact science. However if history is any guide you can bet that Bogarts will be in there in the post-season should Drew or Middlebrooks start to struggle.
In short, if the team is winning, it's hard to argue that a change to the every day lineup should be made even if the statistics say it's optimal to do so.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Sept 11, 2013 11:24:25 GMT -5
Clay was on a strict pitch count yesterday. The people who wanted him in there may not have known he was at 74 pitches after 5 and his limit was 75-80.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Sept 11, 2013 11:26:45 GMT -5
Side note: the team won again. Don't cloud the issue with irrelevant details, damnit Norm, you're out of your league.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Sept 11, 2013 13:45:04 GMT -5
Winning the game changes everything. People can't disagree with a descisions because the team won.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Sept 11, 2013 15:08:23 GMT -5
#RedSox: Pedroia 2B, Victorino RF, Ortiz DH, Napoli 1B, Nava LF, Drew SS, Middlebrooks 3B, Ross C, Bradley CF + Dempster
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 11, 2013 15:19:54 GMT -5
Stage three: bargaining. There's really nothing mysterious about Farrell's bad decisions. They're all based around babying veteran players. Not platooning them, not pinch hitting for them, not making them take days off when they clearly need them, letting starters stay in the game too long, etc. Which is weird to me, because all we've heard about the Red Sox is how great their clubhouse is and how much they love Farrell. So isn't that the perfect time to ask your vets to sacrifice a few PAs for the greater good of the team? Well, they couldn't have expected Xander to be MLB ready this year. Perhaps the continued playing of Drew is partly to make statement to future vet FA's - especially ones seeking pillow contracts - that they'll still get there AB's and their opportunity to perform and earn a mult-year deal. Then why bring him up? The whole decision is puzzling, at least from outside looking in. If they brought him up to get a look at him with an eye to being a spark/match=up SS vs. lefties for the playoffs, or even an off-the-bench bat then sitting him is just a bad decision. He has excelled when he's played by he's playing about as much as Carp right now. If they want him for the post-season roster then they need to get him reps. If it was just to get a taste, they could've done that after Paw finished out and not used up service time. I guess the main frustration is many here see him as an asset, esp. against LH pitching. He has proven that by doing well whenever he's played so far, but it's just tough to watch Drew flail vs. most lefties knowing you have a guy with a good approach and success (albeit at lower levels) vs. LH pitching - and he has POP. Makes me wonder if, when they hired Farrell they promised not to muck around with the line-up. Remember how resistant he was to starting Iggy no matter how hot he got. It seemed like when he finally did do it he was a bit chagrinned by it. Wonder of the F.O. intervened then and made him start Iglesias more until they sent Middlbrooks down and rendered it all moot. All speculation, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 11, 2013 15:24:17 GMT -5
Winning the game changes everything. People can't disagree with a descisions because the team won. I know this is sarcasm, but I've never agreed with this. You can still make a bad decision and win a game or a battle or close a deal. It doesn't mean it was a good decision. I think Julio Lugo in '07 is the human poster for that. Was it a good decision - no. DId they win the World Series anyway - yes. (though there were more than a few games they lost directly because of Lugo - and Schilling also lost a perfect game and then a no-no all because of Julio). Just to be clear though - the 07 team would crush the current team with or without Lugo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2013 15:26:53 GMT -5
I think there are a couple of possibilities but I will go with what they have said/implied publicly.
Bogarts is going to be a major part of the Red Sox future. In fact he's the team's most important prospect in a long time. It doesn't hurt to help him see what a major league pennant race is like. Plus, if there's an injury or a slump to Middlebrooks or Drew, they can put him in. Further, sitting next to David Ortiz for a few hours can't hurt.
|
|
|