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.
4/29-5/1 Red Sox vs Athletics Series Thread
art
Veteran
Posts: 357
Member is Online
|
Post by art on May 2, 2019 11:04:00 GMT -5
Either way, you have a stingy owner when it comes to spending a ton of money on contracts (Mookie is asking for 100 million more than David Price) and you have a superstar that isn't backing down from his asking price (turned down 100 and 200 million dollars from the Sox in 2 different off-seasons). It took Henry 13-15 years since he owned the team to spend on a contract larger than Manny Ramirez, just to put that into perspective. I don't have much faith in Henry to spend the money to keep Betts. Let's see. They've won 4 World Series since he's been the owner? I think I trust his judgment. In fact, I think he deserves a statue somewhere in Boston.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 2, 2019 11:07:57 GMT -5
John Henry, like every owner, could afford to and almost certainly should be spending a higher amount of his outlandish wealth on payroll. However, I don't think there are many players who have signed mega-contracts in free agency during the Henry era who I'm like "oooh, I wish he'd signed that dude!" so I think that specific worry is misguided. He tried very hard to acquire Alex Rodriguez, and gave David Price the seventh-largest free agent contract in baseball history. The whole Carl Crawford thing. Gonzalez and Bogaerts extensions... There's a lot of money here.
The Red Sox going cheap on the bullpen and catcher and maybe first base and second base is a legitimate criticism of Henry and the organization. "John Henry isn't going to spend on Mookie Betts because he doesn't buy big ticket items" doesn't make any sense to me, especially because he... very well may end up paying a lot of money for Mookie Betts. To run with this I feel like you really have to be specific about what free agent you think Henry should've shelled it out for. I guess Jon Lester was kind of a mistake? But I don't think that was a cheapness mistake, I think that was a "we don't want to spend money on Lester in his 30's" and Lester, to his credit, proving that to be a miscalculation.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 11:12:39 GMT -5
Either way, you have a stingy owner when it comes to spending a ton of money on contracts (Mookie is asking for 100 million more than David Price) and you have a superstar that isn't backing down from his asking price (turned down 100 and 200 million dollars from the Sox in 2 different off-seasons). It took Henry 13-15 years since he owned the team to spend on a contract larger than Manny Ramirez, just to put that into perspective. I don't have much faith in Henry to spend the money to keep Betts. Let's see. They've won 4 World Series since he's been the owner? I think I trust his judgment. In fact, I think he deserves a statue somewhere in Boston. He was very innovative as a owner (creative). He hired very smart people who were ahead of their times by taking advantage of the old broken labor agreement with the old compensation system. Theo, Dombrowski, and a little bit of Cherrington made the guy look great. He deserves a lot of high praise, but being the highest spender for 2 years is not one of those praises. In fact, it's probably one of the worst attributes he has. You own one of the top franchises in all of sports and you can only spend to the max for only two years? In a time where the new labor agreement pushes teams to be cheap?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 2, 2019 11:20:01 GMT -5
This is a very strange turn in the conversation regarding a team that has had the highest payroll in MLB both this year and last. This is kind of like being the most generous mafia don in the city.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 11:23:49 GMT -5
John Henry, like every owner, could afford to and almost certainly should be spending a higher amount of his outlandish wealth on payroll. However, I don't think there are many players who have signed mega-contracts in free agency during the Henry era who I'm like "oooh, I wish he'd signed that dude!" so I think that specific worry is misguided. He tried very hard to acquire Alex Rodriguez, and gave David Price the seventh-largest free agent contract in baseball history. The whole Carl Crawford thing. Gonzalez and Bogaerts extensions... There's a lot of money here. The Red Sox going cheap on the bullpen and catcher and maybe first base and second base is a legitimate criticism of Henry and the organization. "John Henry isn't going to spend on Mookie Betts because he doesn't buy big ticket items" doesn't make any sense to me, especially because he... very well may end up paying a lot of money for Mookie Betts. To run with this I feel like you really have to be specific about what free agent you think Henry should've shelled it out for. I guess Jon Lester was kind of a mistake? But I don't think that was a cheapness mistake, I think that was a "we don't want to spend money on Lester in his 30's" and Lester, to his credit, proving that to be a miscalculation. Mark Texiera, Johnny Damon, Pedro Martinez, Jon Lester, Jose Abreu, Jose Contreras, Arodlis Chapman (when he defected). These were all players that were outbid by Henry and the Sox. Moncada, JD Drew, Pablo Sandoval, JD Martinez, Dice K, Crawford, and Price were all the ones that weren't. All besides Crawford, Sandoval, and Price were really good valued contracts at the time (or sign on bonus). Heck, Price might even end up being worth most of his contract too. Basically I have zero faith in this guy to spend the money for Betts. No way he's going to walk to the table with the largest offer for Betts. Someone will probably outbid him, especially given the payroll situation as it is right now (it gives Henry a reason not to spend).
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on May 2, 2019 11:40:12 GMT -5
I really don't get your argument right now. There's 30 teams, at least 5 if not more who regularly spend on big contracts, and based on your examples the Red Sox are almost 50% in winning the bidding wars. Considering the amount of competition that seems pretty damn good to me.
You can add Hanley's deal to the "wins" column as well. You can quibble with the value but you can't argue that the intent to win a bidding war hasn't been there.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 2, 2019 11:47:54 GMT -5
Man... we went from feel good to Betts’s long term future. Let’s reach .500?
But I think there is a difference between being cheap and being selective. The Lester contract might have been cheap. But a number of cases strike me as selective. I hardly think it is bad policy not to spend a fortune on a closer, especially one over 30. Caution about innings-heavy starters 30-and-over is not foolish, etc. The Sox got badly burned on Lester, but it doesn’t make the broader principle dumb or cheap. Letting Pedro walk was wise, for example.
There are a lot of outrageously expensive free agents that I’d pass on. Not to say they aren't excellent players, but no matter how rich you are, there is only so much. I’d rather, for example, have the ability to sign two $150 million players than one Manny Machado. Neither signee will be as good as him, but I’d love to have both, say, a 6th place hitter and a very solid 3rd starter.
Anyway, I think it is fair to criticize examples of the team-building philosophy, but I don’t know that the Sox are cheap.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 11:56:48 GMT -5
I really don't get your argument right now. There's 30 teams, at least 5 if not more who regularly spend on big contracts, and based on your examples the Red Sox are almost 50% in winning the bidding wars. Considering the amount of competition that seems pretty damn good to me. You can add Hanley's deal to the "wins" column as well. You can quibble with the value but you can't argue that the intent to win a bidding war hasn't been there. The Sox should be winning a lot more bidding wars than that. You have a franchise that's worth as much as it is right now, and you bow out half the time. Two of them you got burned bad at twice with the Texeira and Damon contracts. They should be the top 3 spenders every year and they should be at the high end of every bidding war. When they see a player, they should get said player. That's what I expect as a fan. Yeap I'll get a lot of snark for that, but it's exactly what I expect as a fan of the Boston Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 2, 2019 11:57:32 GMT -5
John Henry, like every owner, could afford to and almost certainly should be spending a higher amount of his outlandish wealth on payroll. However, I don't think there are many players who have signed mega-contracts in free agency during the Henry era who I'm like "oooh, I wish he'd signed that dude!" so I think that specific worry is misguided. He tried very hard to acquire Alex Rodriguez, and gave David Price the seventh-largest free agent contract in baseball history. The whole Carl Crawford thing. Gonzalez and Bogaerts extensions... There's a lot of money here. The Red Sox going cheap on the bullpen and catcher and maybe first base and second base is a legitimate criticism of Henry and the organization. "John Henry isn't going to spend on Mookie Betts because he doesn't buy big ticket items" doesn't make any sense to me, especially because he... very well may end up paying a lot of money for Mookie Betts. To run with this I feel like you really have to be specific about what free agent you think Henry should've shelled it out for. I guess Jon Lester was kind of a mistake? But I don't think that was a cheapness mistake, I think that was a "we don't want to spend money on Lester in his 30's" and Lester, to his credit, proving that to be a miscalculation. Mark Texiera, Johnny Damon, Pedro Martinez, Jon Lester, Jose Abreu, Jose Contreras, Arodlis Chapman (when he defected). These were all players that were outbid by Henry and the Sox. Moncada, JD Drew, Pablo Sandoval, JD Martinez, Dice K, Crawford, and Price were all the ones that weren't. All besides Crawford, Sandoval, and Price were really good valued contracts at the time (or sign on bonus). Heck, Price might even end up being worth most of his contract too. Basically I have zero faith in this guy to spend the money for Betts. No way he's going to walk to the table with the largest offer for Betts. Someone will probably outbid him, especially given the payroll situation as it is right now (it gives Henry a reason not to spend). Look at the guys and the circumstances. 1) Teixeira. When George Steinbrenner was alive, if it came down to a bidding war between Boston and NYY, it would be the Yankees who would get the player. That's what happened there. 2) Damon. Damon was a free agent during the Red Sox offseason Theo vs Larry drama. Even if he wasn't I think Theo would have let him walk, knowing that his days in CF were numbered, that they already had a LF in Manny, and that they couldn't move Manny to RF to let Damon play LF, and they couldn't let Damon and his weak arm play RF. 3) Pedro. Theo didn't get outbid. He didn't want him back. He figured Pedro was nearing the end. He was right, but Pedro did have a great 2005 before getting injured and never being the same again. 4) Lester. The Red Sox screwed that up pure and simple. They figured Lester would wilt in his 30s. They figured wrong, and more importantly, John Henry said that they screwed that up. Honestly is a good trait in an owner. 5) Abreu. That one was timing. He signed as a free agent while the Red Sox were actually playing in the World Series. That would have looked weird if they signed him while Mike Napoli was a pending free agent playing in the World Series. I honestly think if Abreu would have waited until the offseason to sign, the Red Sox might have come away with him. 6) Contreras. Again George would always get his man. The Sox thought they had a deal for him and George swooped in and got him. Fortunately, the Sox returned the favor the following season, stealing Schilling from out under the Yankees' noses. 7) Chapman - no idea. Maybe they didn't think he was all that. The Yankees didn't bid a ton for him either. None of the big market teams did. It's really not hard to outbid the Reds. At the end of the day, you can't always sign every free agent you want. Sometimes it doesn't happen. The Sox were the highest bidders for a young Adrian Beltre, but he didn't want to go there. He wanted to stay on the west coast so he went to Seattle, and when his career started to flag a bit, he then took the pillow contract in Boston. I think if the Red Sox really, really want Betts and don't jerk him around, they'll get him. They have to show him the money. The problem might be what if Betts has another 2017 type season? He'll want to be paid for producing at 2018 levels rather than 2017 levels. If he's near his 2018 production over the 2019 season and 2020 season, it'll probably be easier for them to sign him as there would be lesser chance for disagreement about his value. That part remains to be seen. What I do know is that the Dodgers have backed off their spending. They were the highest spenders for a few years when Magic first came in. The Yankees don't spend the way they used to. They binge and then don't spend for awhile. And maybe you have to look at perspective. I'm old enough to remember the Haywood Sullivan days. You think John Henry is cheap? Hah!! The Red Sox went through the entire 1980s without signing any free agents (unless you count Bruce Kison and Skip Lockwood). Then in 1990 the Sox went back to signing free agents, some pretty dubious (Matt Young, Jack Clark, Danny Darwin, Andre Dawson, Tony Pena gave them nothing after 1990). Even Jeff Reardon was toward the end of the line when they signed him. They didn't sign an impact free agent until they were selling the team, when they signed Manny. Comparatively speaking, Henry has spent. Yeah, I quibble with the penny-wise, pound-foolish concept of not adding to the pen, and I find it staggering that the Sox did go over - when they dealt for Ian Kinsler of all people. And if there's a difference maker at the deadline and they don't get him because of the $, I'll be disappointed. But I can't complain that in general they don't spend enough money relatively speaking, especially when they're at the top and they spend so much more than what they used to, relatively speaking. Now if you want to say, look at their wealth and what they're spending, well that's a different conversation, one that can be had about all 30 owners in baseball, and all over the world with business owners pocketing obscene amount of money while the workers who make them rich struggle to survive. With major league baseball, nobody is struggling to survive, so I have no sympathy for either side.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 12:02:43 GMT -5
Letting Pedro walk was wise, for example. There are a lot of outrageously expensive free agents that I’d pass on. Not to say they aren't excellent players, but no matter how rich you are, there is only so much. I’d rather, for example, have the ability to sign two $150 million players than one Manny Machado. Neither signee will be as good as him, but I’d love to have both, say, a 6th place hitter and a very solid 3rd starter. Anyway, I think it is fair to criticize examples of the team-building philosophy, but I don’t know that the Sox are cheap. Pedro has already talked about the negotiation from the Red Sox after he retired. He said that it took until the final days that the Sox finally offered the third year in a contract. He said he already accepted the Mets 4 year contract. The Sox wanted Pedro back, they were just too cheap to come in with a 3rd year until it was too late. The second part sounds like we are making excuses for this team not to spend. Yeap, I think Henry agrees with you. The Sox would much rather spend on 2 extensions for Xander and Benintendi in the 100 million dollar range rather than to spend 300 million dollars for Betts.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by atzar on May 2, 2019 12:05:01 GMT -5
I really don't get your argument right now. There's 30 teams, at least 5 if not more who regularly spend on big contracts, and based on your examples the Red Sox are almost 50% in winning the bidding wars. Considering the amount of competition that seems pretty damn good to me. You can add Hanley's deal to the "wins" column as well. You can quibble with the value but you can't argue that the intent to win a bidding war hasn't been there. The Sox should be winning a lot more bidding wars than that. You have a franchise that's worth as much as it is right now, and you bow out half the time. Two of them you got burned bad at twice with the Texeira and Damon contracts. They should be the top 3 spenders every year and they should be at the high end of every bidding war. When they see a player, they should get said player. That's what I expect as a fan. Yeap I'll get a lot of snark for that, but it's exactly what I expect as a fan of the Boston Red Sox. This is irrational.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on May 2, 2019 12:05:56 GMT -5
The Sox should be winning a lot more bidding wars than that. You have a franchise that's worth as much as it is right now, and you bow out half the time. Two of them you got burned bad at twice with the Texeira and Damon contracts. They should be the top 3 spenders every year and they should be at the high end of every bidding war. When they see a player, they should get said player. That's what I expect as a fan. Yeap I'll get a lot of snark for that, but it's exactly what I expect as a fan of the Boston Red Sox. There are 30 teams in the league, yeah the Red Sox won't get every player and it might be frustrating, but remember that there is a plan in place and honestly that's more than could be said for like 20 of those 30 teams. They have won 4 titles in 15 years, that to me tells me that Henry has been successful in putting smart baseball people in charge and not meddling with said smart baseball people. Aside from some unrealistic HE SHOULD BE SPENDING ALL OF HIS WEALTH IN THE PAYROLL thing, that's the best you could ask of any owner.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 12:09:58 GMT -5
The Sox should be winning a lot more bidding wars than that. You have a franchise that's worth as much as it is right now, and you bow out half the time. Two of them you got burned bad at twice with the Texeira and Damon contracts. They should be the top 3 spenders every year and they should be at the high end of every bidding war. When they see a player, they should get said player. That's what I expect as a fan. Yeap I'll get a lot of snark for that, but it's exactly what I expect as a fan of the Boston Red Sox. This is irrational. It's what I expect as a fan of one of the most valued sports franchises in all of sports.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 2, 2019 12:18:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 2, 2019 12:22:36 GMT -5
Letting Pedro walk was wise, for example. There are a lot of outrageously expensive free agents that I’d pass on. Not to say they aren't excellent players, but no matter how rich you are, there is only so much. I’d rather, for example, have the ability to sign two $150 million players than one Manny Machado. Neither signee will be as good as him, but I’d love to have both, say, a 6th place hitter and a very solid 3rd starter. Anyway, I think it is fair to criticize examples of the team-building philosophy, but I don’t know that the Sox are cheap. Pedro has already talked about the negotiation from the Red Sox after he retired. He said that it took until the final days that the Sox finally offered the third year in a contract. He said he already accepted the Mets 4 year contract. The Sox wanted Pedro back, they were just too cheap to come in with a 3rd year until it was too late. The second part sounds like we are making excuses for this team not to spend. Yeap, I think Henry agrees with you. The Sox would much rather spend on 2 extensions for Xander and Benintendi in the 100 million dollar range rather than to spend 300 million dollars for Betts. But what is wrong with wanting someone at a fixed price? Was Pedro a great investment for the Mets? He averaged 20 starts and 122 innings for his four years. I’ll pay some for that.... but not a ton. Let’s see on Betts. People seem to assume he’s gone. If he is a $300 million player, how many teams are going to spring for him? The Rays? Pirates? Royals? Will the Phillies or Pads add a second? The Angels stick him next to Trout? I hardly think the Sox gave let him walk. But keeping X on a good contract may HELP keep Betts. Edit: one more thing on Pedro. He had 8 WAR value for the Mets. 7 in his first year. Were the Sox “cheap” for wanting a shorter contract? That fourth year was negative WAR.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 12:29:09 GMT -5
It's what you should be saying. The Sox are a top 10 franchise value based wise in all of sports. Mock me, but more people should be like me.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 12:33:06 GMT -5
Pedro has already talked about the negotiation from the Red Sox after he retired. He said that it took until the final days that the Sox finally offered the third year in a contract. He said he already accepted the Mets 4 year contract. The Sox wanted Pedro back, they were just too cheap to come in with a 3rd year until it was too late. The second part sounds like we are making excuses for this team not to spend. Yeap, I think Henry agrees with you. The Sox would much rather spend on 2 extensions for Xander and Benintendi in the 100 million dollar range rather than to spend 300 million dollars for Betts. But what is wrong with wanting someone at a fixed price? Was Pedro a great investment for the Mets? He averaged 20 starts and 122 innings for his four years. I’ll pay some for that.... but not a ton. Let’s see on Betts. People seem to assume he’s gone. If he is a $300 million player, how many teams are going to spring for him? The Rays? Pirates? Royals? Will the Phillies or Pads add a second? The Angels stick him next to Trout? I hardly think the Sox gave let him walk. But keeping X on a good contract may HELP keep Betts. Edit: one more thing on Pedro. He had 8 WAR value for the Mets. 7 in his first year. Were the Sox “cheap” for wanting a shorter contract? That fourth year was negative WAR. The White Sox already told the world that they have 250 million to spend on a worse player in Machado. The Braves have money they haven't spent. The Blue Jays have I think have 16 million AAV committed in 2020. There's a ton of teams out there just hoarding money waiting to spend. Pedro would have accepted the 3 year offer if the Sox came with that offer sooner.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on May 2, 2019 12:46:25 GMT -5
But what is wrong with wanting someone at a fixed price? Was Pedro a great investment for the Mets? He averaged 20 starts and 122 innings for his four years. I’ll pay some for that.... but not a ton. Let’s see on Betts. People seem to assume he’s gone. If he is a $300 million player, how many teams are going to spring for him? The Rays? Pirates? Royals? Will the Phillies or Pads add a second? The Angels stick him next to Trout? I hardly think the Sox gave let him walk. But keeping X on a good contract may HELP keep Betts. Edit: one more thing on Pedro. He had 8 WAR value for the Mets. 7 in his first year. Were the Sox “cheap” for wanting a shorter contract? That fourth year was negative WAR. The White Sox already told the world that they have 250 million to spend on a worse player in Machado. The Braves have money they haven't spent. The Blue Jays have I think have 16 million AAV committed in 2020. There's a ton of teams out there just hoarding money waiting to spend. Pedro would have accepted the 3 year offer if the Sox came with that offer sooner. Then I’m glad they didn’t. They’d have paid for 5 starts in that 3rd year. Looking at Pedro’s time on the Mets, do you honestly wish the Sox had kept him?
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by atzar on May 2, 2019 12:50:17 GMT -5
It's what I expect as a fan of one of the most valued sports franchises in all of sports. Then your expectations are skewed. We can't just buy every good player. It doesn't work like that. This isn't Pokemon; you don't catch em all. Frankly, I look at our track record in signing players and come to the exact opposite conclusion that you do. I think it's actually very impressive that we land as many of our targets as we do. There are 29 other teams in this league; only the Yankees and Dodgers have pockets deeper than ours, but many more can be selective and compete with us on free agents at least part of the time. That we get our guy roughly half the time is enviable. Also, evaluations exist. Sometimes one more year or one more million is more than a player is worth. It's not worth overpaying a guy just to win a financial pecker-measuring contest.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 2, 2019 12:52:20 GMT -5
I can't believe you've all been trolled into arguing against "every free agent signed by the other 29 teams in the last 17 years is John Henry's personal failure."
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 12:55:05 GMT -5
The White Sox already told the world that they have 250 million to spend on a worse player in Machado. The Braves have money they haven't spent. The Blue Jays have I think have 16 million AAV committed in 2020. There's a ton of teams out there just hoarding money waiting to spend. Pedro would have accepted the 3 year offer if the Sox came with that offer sooner. Then I’m glad they didn’t. They’d have paid for 5 starts in that 3rd year. Looking at Pedro’s time on the Mets, do you honestly wish the Sox had kept him? Yes. The Sox would have been better off in 2005-2007.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 12:56:00 GMT -5
I can't believe you've all been trolled into arguing against "every free agent signed by the other 29 teams in the last 17 years is John Henry's personal failure." Nope. Not trolling. You're taking what I said completely out of context once again. You keep doing this.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 2, 2019 12:57:14 GMT -5
It's what I expect as a fan of one of the most valued sports franchises in all of sports. Pedro, I get it but at some point you sign too many of these free agents it becomes an issue. You can only afford so many Sandoval contracts. Even Betts - you say give him a ton. Most of us do. But here's the reality. He's going to command 10 years on his deal if not more. So he's going to be making $35 - $40 million/year. At first it might be fine. Maybe he gives them six years of strong production, odds are they don't match 2018, but ok - it's the going rate. What happens on the back half of the long contract? That contract might look like an albatross as he ages - and one that drags on for more years than you'd hope. That's the nature of free agency, so while the player is in age or injury related decline, now you have to spend more money to make up for that lost production, and so now you're spending even more money. Yes, they have the money to make up for some of those issues but if you lean too heavily on free agency, you're going to have issues. You'll lose that war with the treadmill. Now even with what I think is realistic, my heart wants Mookie back and I think I can convince my head that the front half of the contract will justify the back half of the contract or close enough, and if the Red Sox make a half hearted attempt to sign him, I'd be upset. But I think the Red Sox have every intention of offering top $. They've made it clear they want him to stay. Now they'll have to put their money with their mouth is and like I said before? Will it be Mike Trout money or a step below if Mookie doesn't really come close to 2018's production between now and the time he's a free agent, and if the Sox do judge him a step below and Mookie doesn't agree, will another team swoop in? I think if Mookie remains MVP candidate Mookie, the Sox will offer more than Trout's deal, and if they do, I think they have a reasonable shot at keeping him.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 2, 2019 12:59:41 GMT -5
Then I’m glad they didn’t. They’d have paid for 5 starts in that 3rd year. Looking at Pedro’s time on the Mets, do you honestly wish the Sox had kept him? Yes. The Sox would have been better off in 2005-2007. Better off in 2005, yes. Would have won them the division title although they still probably would have lost to the White Sox. It was their year that year. But in 2006 and 2007, no. Clay Buchholz's no-hitter in 2007 provided more for the Sox than anything Pedro would have done that year and Buchholz was the comp pick for letting Pedro walk. Pedro was never the same again after 2005. And I'm a huge Pedro fan.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by atzar on May 2, 2019 13:05:26 GMT -5
I can't believe you've all been trolled into arguing against "every free agent signed by the other 29 teams in the last 17 years is John Henry's personal failure." Nope. Not trolling. You're taking what I said completely out of context once again. You keep doing this. When they see a player, they should get said player. What is out of context here? How else is anybody supposed to interpret this sentence?
|
|
|