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.
Recent Posts
|
Post by p23w on Dec 30, 2015 16:38:43 GMT -5
Truth. Screenplays rarely reflect the literature they are derived from. I don't believe Dick was in on the screenplay for Bladerunner. The closest I've seen Hollywood follow a literary work was Harris's Silence of the Lambs. Even Crichton's, work suffered at the hands of Hollywood, despite his influence on the scripts. More often than not the use of the Author's name is a marketing tool for the production and distribution companies. The current Hollywood culture is different then it was back then. Authors of books or stories are fairly often kept in the loop. This has been especially true for adaptations of popular books like The Martian, where screenwriter Drew Goddard was in touch continually with Andrew Weir as he wrote the screenplay. But take the 2016 sci-fi film I'm most psyched about, Story of Your Life, directed by Denis Villeneuve ( Incendies, Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario) and starring Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, Forrest Whitaker, and Michael Stulhbarg. It's based on a short story by Ted Chiang, who's published just 15 stories in 25 years; two won the Hugo Award, two won the Nebula Award (including this one), and two won both. Among others. Ted often pops up at the convention I used to help run, and when he did last July he told me he was going to be on the set as they were filming. Which is one of the reasons I'm psyched; the story as written seems unfilmable, but it would lend itself to a radical storytelling structure like Memento, and that Ted got to at least hang out suggests that they've retained more of the story's content than I would have thought possible. Memento hurt my brain at first viewing. Story of Your Life sounds interesting. Know of a release date? Last sci-fi flick that was worth admission (mho) was Ex Machina.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 28, 2015 19:10:27 GMT -5
Looking at the Szymborski ZiPS projections, something caught my eye. Ortiz .264/.350/.523 Betts .297/.355/.474 Ramirez .277/.358/.449 Pedroia .279/.339/.398 Bogaerts .289/.332/.415 Bradley .247/.319/.405 Travis .262/.313/.396
Holt .277/.333/.367 Shaw .238/.305/.393
Young .231/.304/.408 Sandoval .266/.314/.407 Castillo .260/.308/.369 Swihart .252/.297/.371 Obviously projections are just that, but it is interesting. What are the odds of Sam Travis actually getting a shot to contribute on the big league roster in 2016? That Swihart line seems really, really conservative (unfairly so) to me. I think he'll outperform that by a lot. Not to set my standards too high on him, but didn't he bat around .300 with a pretty good OBP in the second half? I wouldn't be surprised at all if his average is around .275 with a .320-.330 OBP and 10 homers, at the least. ITA. Swihart's projections stood out the most to me. Less OBP and more power than Castillo? Don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 28, 2015 18:58:57 GMT -5
This trade and Chapman's baggage will be remembered.... and forgotten respectively by NYYankee fans. They forgave Arod, they will forgive Chapman. Just as they remember how the ARod trade to the Sox fell through. Wonder if George would have given Cashman the green light for this deal?
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 28, 2015 14:39:34 GMT -5
Right? Boggs was a terrible teammate... who earned millions of dollars for everyone who ever hit behind him. Right... can't wait to hear all those accolades and thanks from all the teammates Boggs earned those millions of dollars for. Don't hold your breath.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 28, 2015 10:35:52 GMT -5
I don't know that it's a marketing ploy to have the numbers retired necessarily. It's interesting that when Lucchino was running the show Boggs number was not retired. As soon as Sam Kennedy takes over, Boggs number gets retired. I'd pretty sure Clemens won't be far behind. Sam Kennedy is about 42 years old and grew up watching the Sox, particularly in the 1980s (and this bodes well for Dwight Evans, too). He grew up enjoying Boggs, Rice, Clemens, and Evans. Those were the teams of his youth. I could be totally wrong, but I think the change from Lucchino to Kennedy is kind of what is driving this. Lucchino didn't grow up idolizing this e guys. He was a Pirates fan and his team was probably the 1960 Pirates. All you have to do to realize the marketing ploy for what it is, would be to visit Legends Field in Tampa anytime from February till the end of March. Largest, busiest, souvenir shop in baseball.... they even have two #8 jersey's, one with Berra's name and one with Dickey's name. It is a veritable gold mine. Wouldn't be surprised if they started selling Boggs momentos from 1996 (yes they have the horse poster for sale already). IMO if you want to sell out all the way... retire Wade's number.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 27, 2015 16:15:28 GMT -5
I'll take Ted Williams' observations and opinion over Stats, anytime. Stats don't tell you why Bruce Hurst asked to be traded. I've met the players behind the numbers retired by the Red Sox (with the exception of Cronin and Rice). Besides being very good at their craft each man was a straight shooter. Character counts. Heard so not so good things about Cronin, but since I never met him, it would be unfair to hold an opinion. Heard some offbeat things about Rice, but the source was questionable so I discount it. Never met Boggs. Never heard anything good about his character, from multiple sources. Saw plenty of his game. Not overly impressed, particularly in critical situations. My lasting impression of Wade Boggs was his 3000th hit, when he knelt down and kissed home plate. Bottom line for me is that Wade Boggs does not belong with the other's numbers that have been retired. But I guess if the MLB HOF can induct former Klansman I shouldn't mind or care that the Red Sox induct a selfish jerk. Nobody ever said Boggs was a saint, although his wife might be. I would say Joe Cronin was worse than Wade Boggs ever was. He let his ego and power get in the way of Pee Wee Reese taking his spot at SS. He was a primary reason why Billy Evans, a rare competent employee was fired by a drunk Tom Yawkey. Evans was merely a guy doing a great job of running the farm system. Joe Cronin was very much a part of the racist culture in Boston. It was kind of telling that an aging and very sick Jackie Robinson was giving a speech in 1972 and AL president Joe Cronin, couldn't be bothered to stop eating his hot dog long enough to be present for the speech. Obviously the bad blood goes back to the tryout Robinson had in 1945. The negative stuff I heard about Cronin was muted, but came from sources that worked with and for him. The stuff about the tryouts for Robinson and Mays is well documented..., less well known is that as the President of the AL he hired the first black umpire. I respect Williams' opinion on hitting - who wouldn't? Nobody ever knew more. But Boggs would know himself better (as far as his true abilities go) than Williams would. He must have known that he'd lose at least 50 point of his BA and OBP to gain about 50 points on his slugging average and that the tradeoff wasn't worth it. The key is always to get on base. Never make an out and the offense goes on forever. Outs are really bad. With the exception of one year (1987 - the juiced up ball season) Boggs didn't have the rare ability to get on base as often as Williams if he went for power. That's why Boggs, as great as he was, couldn't be Ted Williams. Nobody ever could be. There was Babe and there was Ted. That's about it. Maybe Gehrig. Bonds was a cheater so you can't put him there. When talking about all of Boggs' positives as a hitter Ted got agitated and specifically brought up both park effects and Bagwell. Park effects, because he said Lansford would have had far better career numbers at Fenway than at the coliseum, and Bagwell because he got on base as often as Boggs and developed his power game while playing in Houston. FWIW he loved Nomar's swing. But if it comes to character, yeah you surely can question it. I would say Bobby Doerr was and is a prince of a man. Johnny Pesky was beloved by all, and after meeting him 25 years ago, I can see why. Yaz had hit foibles, too (and he was my first favorite player). Williams could be tough to get along with (by I'll always admire how he stuck up for Pumpsie Green and the amazing HOF speech he gave, among many other things I admire about him.) Williams was in real life who John Wayne played in movies. Fisk seems like a good guy but he wasn't perfect either - I believe he got arrested in 2011 or thereabouts on a drinking incident. The double tag out at home and the fight with Munson were even better than his walk-off in game #6. Jim Rice was a surly guy who could pollute a clubhouse at times, but you also have to balance that out with what he was going through from a racial standpoint, and you also have to think about that day in 1982 when he was a true hero - I remember a little boy getting struck by a foul ball and Jim Rice taking that little boy to safety - I'll always admire him for that. I guess if you're looking for saints for retired numbers, other than the very genteel Bobby Doerr and Johnny Pesky, it's tough to come up with a perfect list. I'm not looking for saints so much as real teammates.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 27, 2015 15:51:18 GMT -5
Sigh. Cafardo today wants the Red Sox to follow the Yankees' lead (and the Celts', I must admit) and retire the numbers of standout players of the distant and recent past: #3 for Jimmie Foxx #7 for Dominic DiMaggio #11 for Frank Malzone #21 for Roger Clemens (not surprising; Nick also said he favors his election, along with Bonds, Bagwell, Piazza, etc., to the HoF) #23 for Luis Tiant #24 for Dwight Evans (many would agree) #33 for Jason Varitek #49 for Tim Wakefield Surprised he left out Tony C's 25 and Schilling's 38 while he was at it ... said Tony's career was tragically too short, and never mentions Schilling at all (short-career criteria would probably apply). We know that 34 is going up on the wall and so, probably, is 15. They'll have to build a new upper deck to handle all these numbers. I don't think we'll see 33 or 49 on anyone's backs -- except Varitek's and Wakefield's -- anytime soon. Number 21 is clearly going up for Clemens at the appropriate moment. A strong argument exists for Evans. But the others are just a reach -- and I loved Tiant. Who today thinks of Foxx when they see #3 out there? Same for DiMaggio and Malzone. Let 33 and 49 be reserved for select future players who might merit the numbers. Double "XX" was a notorious drunk, but so was the rep for U.S. Grant. I'm down with both. Dom DiMaggio.... most definitely. Class act unlike his bro'. Frank Malzone.... the man who was Brooks Robinson before Brooks Robinson, why not> Roger Clemens, one of two pitchers featured at Ted Williams hitters HOF, got my vote. Luis Tiant, should have already been retired. Dwight Evans, see Luis Tiant. Jason Varitek close, but the shoving match with ARod is one of my all time favorite Red Sox moments... so yeah. Tim Wakefield gets in for his selflessness alone. Not sure about Tony C., only know that Ted thought very highly of him. Curt? The bloody Sock alone gets him in. I'm projecting that Betts has the stuff to one day earn this distinction.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 27, 2015 9:09:44 GMT -5
I didn't like how they changed the entire ending in the movie. Absolutely. The movie is a very good movie, but I can't think of it as an adaptation of the book. As a version of the book, it's a desecration. Compare Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The movie retains much less of the book's plot than The Natural adaptation does, and it even reverses key plot points (the androids in the novel are pointedly incapable of empathy, while in the film, the point is that they have begun to be capable of it). And yet it is true to the themes and concerns of the book: they both ask the question "what does it mean to be truly human?" and give the same answer, "to have empathy for other humans." Whereas the book of the Natural is based on the truth that if you root for a baseball team, the odds in a given year are that your heart will be broken at the end. And the movie is about the rare exceptions. Great works of narrative art tend to be about universal truths, while great and satisfying entertainments tend to be about exceptions to truths (especially the negative truths); they are wish-fulfillment. The Natural movie makes you feel good (if you ignore that they're violating the spirit of the book), but it's a transient high; the book makes you feel human, and it's a lasting feeling. Truth. Screenplays rarely reflect the literature they are derived from. I don't believe Dick was in on the screenplay for Bladerunner. The closest I've seen Hollywood follow a literary work was Harris's Silence of the Lambs. Even Crichton's, work suffered at the hands of Hollywood, despite his influence on the scripts. More often than not the use of the Author's name is a marketing tool for the production and distribution companies.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 27, 2015 8:54:26 GMT -5
And your hero worship of Wade is..... ludicrous. 70.7 WAR, yeah, terrible. Why would anyone like one of those guys on our team? Fix your quoting. I'll take Ted Williams' observations and opinion over Stats, anytime. Stats don't tell you why Bruce Hurst asked to be traded. I've met the players behind the numbers retired by the Red Sox (with the exception of Cronin and Rice). Besides being very good at their craft each man was a straight shooter. Character counts. Heard so not so good things about Cronin, but since I never met him, it would be unfair to hold an opinion. Heard some offbeat things about Rice, but the source was questionable so I discount it. Never met Boggs. Never heard anything good about his character, from multiple sources. Saw plenty of his game. Not overly impressed, particularly in critical situations. My lasting impression of Wade Boggs was his 3000th hit, when he knelt down and kissed home plate. Bottom line for me is that Wade Boggs does not belong with the other's numbers that have been retired. But I guess if the MLB HOF can induct former Klansman I shouldn't mind or care that the Red Sox induct a selfish jerk.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 25, 2015 22:17:46 GMT -5
FWIW Ted was no fan of Wade Boggs. Lansford teams also won more often in the post season than did Bogg's teams. In fact, Bogg's only had one post season series victory as a Red Sox player (coutesy of D. Evans and D. Henderson). His other post season successes came as a NYYankee, where Joe Torre had the sense to bat him in the #2 slot. The same slot that Lansford batted for most of his career. So if I understand correctly, had Boggs played on Oakland and Lansford on Boston, then the Sox would have won all those years - got you. That makes sense. Never mind that Oakland had superior teams with deeper starting pitching (Stewart always seemed to get the best of Clemens), a much better bullpen (Eck was pretty unhittable), and a lineup full of juiced up power hitters. But yeah, Lansford was superior to Boggs, so Oakland won. Right. Either reading comprehension or logic escapes you. Did it occur to you that Boggs batted 2nd in 1996 because he wasn't quite the on-base force he had been in his heyday? By 1996 he had a good OBP, but it wasn't as it had been. That's why he was batting 2nd on a stacked team. Boggs batted 2nd so as not to clog up the bases. He was miscast as a leadoff hitter for his entire career in Boston. Boggs actually batted 2nd in 1983 when he hit .361 behind OBP machine Jerry Remy. Then Remy got hurt in 1984 and Houk decided to go with a lineup that actually made sense. As far as Williams go - he hated the Walt Hriniak/Charlie Lau batting style which Boggs employed. I doubt Williams thought that Boggs was a lousy hitter. Williams thought Boggs wasted his potential. That Boggs could have been a much more valuable team asset if he hit for more power, which Ted thought he could. FWIW Ted also thought Bagwell was a fantastic hitter who provided more value to his team precisely because he swung hard and hit for power, unlike Boggs. Ted's analogy not mine. I get that you can't stand Boggs. That's fine, but your arguments are ridiculous. And your hero worship of Wade is..... ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 24, 2015 14:57:11 GMT -5
When it counted...... 5 Yrs (8 Series) 33 141 128 17 39 3 0 2 18 4 1 10 10 .305 .355 .375 .730 48 3 0 3 6 Yrs (9 Series) 39 174 154 15 42 9 1 2 16 0 0 16 20 .273 .337 .383 .720 59 6 0 2 2 Guess whose post season stats belong to Lansford, and which set belongs to Boggs..... Jeez, didn't somebody shoehorn some of Ted Williams' biggest ABs in the "most important games of his career" and have that he came out to be a .200 hitter or so in those games? Guess he must have stunk. Ted Williams - OVERRATED!!! The rest of the time when he was hitting .344 lifetime - just window dressing. FWIW Ted was no fan of Wade Boggs. Lansford teams also won more often in the post season than did Bogg's teams. In fact, Bogg's only had one post season series victory as a Red Sox player (coutesy of D. Evans and D. Henderson). His other post season successes came as a NYYankee, where Joe Torre had the sense to bat him in the #2 slot. The same slot that Lansford batted for most of his career.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 24, 2015 14:42:01 GMT -5
When it counted...... 5 Yrs (8 Series) 33 141 128 17 39 3 0 2 18 4 1 10 10 .305 .355 .375 .730 48 3 0 3 6 Yrs (9 Series) 39 174 154 15 42 9 1 2 16 0 0 16 20 .273 .337 .383 .720 59 6 0 2 2 Guess whose post season stats belong to Lansford, and which set belongs to Boggs..... Guess who was 37, 38 and 39 for 3 of their playoff appearances? Hint - it wasn't Lansford who had retired long before then. That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Do you care about BABIP at all? Boggs' post season BABIP was 45 points lower than his career average. Do you care about small sample sizes at all? If not, I'll just put you on ignore now. Please do.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 23, 2015 16:17:10 GMT -5
When it counted......
5 Yrs (8 Series) 33 141 128 17 39 3 0 2 18 4 1 10 10 .305 .355 .375 .730 48 3 0 3
6 Yrs (9 Series) 39 174 154 15 42 9 1 2 16 0 0 16 20 .273 .337 .383 .720 59 6 0 2 2
Guess whose post season stats belong to Lansford, and which set belongs to Boggs.....
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 23, 2015 13:19:30 GMT -5
FTR I'm a HUGE Boggs "hater". Once a bum always a bum. I thought the guy Boggs replaced, Carney Lansford was the real deal. You honestly preferred Lansford over Boggs? Yeesh. Lansford was a good average, so-so OBP guy with some power who had limited range. Boggs replaced Lansford but easily could have shifted to 1b had the Sox kept Lansford. They didn't dump Lansford to open up 3b for Boggs as much as they wanted to replace the Miller/Nichols platoon with a power hitting OF, so they dealt for Tony Armas (and the Sox certainly had no concept of OBP when they made that deal). As you might recall, Lansford played 3b and Boggs shifted over to 1b in the summer of 1982, but at that point the Sox were so desperate for help out in CF they actually played 43 year old Yaz there for a game. Absolutely. Not even close. Armas was a total stiff. Boggs was the poster child of a self absorbed, me first player. The ANTITHESIS of Lansford who gave everything for the team. The main difference remains "team player" as opposed to stat monger. I got sick of watching Boggs clog the bases and decline to advance runners in critical situations of close games. Lansford ability to advance runners in those same situations was almost legendary. Have a talk with Tony LaRussa sometime about the differences between these two players. You went to war with Lansford, you hoped like heck Boggs didn't crawl into your foxhole.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 21, 2015 21:40:09 GMT -5
FTR I'm a HUGE Boggs "hater". Once a bum always a bum. I thought the guy Boggs replaced, Carney Lansford was the real deal.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 18, 2015 16:24:21 GMT -5
If all goes according to Hoyle, this lineup will lead the league in scoring.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 8, 2015 22:49:10 GMT -5
Buchholz is almost certainly not going to throw 200 regular season innings, but do any of us actually want that? It would pretty much guarantee he goes into September and the playoffs already at a career high. If they can get 150-175 pre-postseason from Clay and have him be healthy in October, I'm pretty sure everyone will take that Pretty much agree that Buch won't throw 200 IP. I think 180 IP is his ceiling for 2016. Absolutely critical that he be at the top of his game come October.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 5, 2015 17:50:57 GMT -5
The trio of Price, Porcello, and Miley is a good bet to go 600 innings, which means keeping a six-man bullpen and a deeper bench (ideally for a 4-corner masher who can pinch hit is probably awful defenively) is something I think would be good, but I'm pretty much shaking my fist at a cloud on this issue at this point. I've got that trio penciled in for 615 IP. Then again, I'm an optimist.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 21, 2015 15:57:55 GMT -5
Trea Turner >>>>> Deven Marrero. Nats don't need a SS guys. Fair enough. Is Marrero >>>> Danny Espinosa?
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 21, 2015 15:51:06 GMT -5
Can you explain how the Sox trade Bradley then afford to replace him and add a top starter and a fourth outfielder all while having a realistic payroll? It's easy to look a Bradley in a vacuum and say they have Betts so he's able to be dealt. That makes complete sense. I think where you are losing it is that JBjrs salary is of huge value to this team right now for this year. Take a look, explain it to me, because I'm all about selling high on Bradley. That being said, if you are trading Bradley, it's not for one year of Storen and it better not include more than him for Giles. Grossman would be the equivalent to Bradley, with respect to payroll. The only payroll "hit" would be to extend Storen or Giles with a 4 year deal. I'm not a cash flow bottom line baseball fan. Whether or if the RS sign a top starter is irrelevant to this thread. There are a plethora of examples where big ticket deals are consummated by the front office that make next to zero baseball sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 21, 2015 15:34:35 GMT -5
It's been reported multiple times that he doesn't want to relieve and that he wants to be a starter. I wish the Sox could have gotten him to return, but it was never ever ever ever a fit unless no one else gave him the chance to start. Schilling tweets: "This'll come back to bit[e] Sox" which makes no sense, then again, when does Schilling ever make much sense on twitter. Makes perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 20, 2015 15:01:22 GMT -5
I love bullpens as much as anyone and am as skeptical on Bradley as almost anyone. That being said, this team NEEDS JBjr in a bad way. Not only does he have a chance to be excellent, but his salary in the OF is too valuable. This team doesn't have the salary spot to absorb the reliever and an outfield replacement and a top line starter. As it is, they would need to dump salary to get both a top bullpen guy and starter. Buchholz is that guy IMO. I'm all for adding another big piece to the pen but I'd try to do it in FA. The advantage to doing it via trade is the guy has no choice and it may be hard to get a Soria or ODay here when Kinbrel is closing. I'm probably not trading Shaw in a package for one of them either because he's an important piece to the team this year. Marrero and Vasquez for Giles.... Hahahaha just kidding. Hope Eric and other posters are still alive. Maybe you could sell them on something like Marrero, Chavais, Ball and Light for Giles, but I doubt it. I'm sure people here will think that's way too much but I think Philly laughs at it. I'm pretty sure both Philly and the Nationals want ML line up players in exchange for Giles or Storen. JBJ would be that guy with a near ready prospect (Marrero or Shaw) to seal the deal. Both teams are significant underachievers, for a variety of reasons. Both (much like the Braves and the Padres) need to "shake things" up. I think the RS can take advantage of this. I don't trust or like either Soria or O'Day. I think we need to get younger in the bullpen (Koji is 41), and we need to acquire one of these two guys. The Nats in particular are in need of new faces. Between their front office and their manager they were a bigger disappointment to their fans in 2015 than the RS were in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 20, 2015 14:49:01 GMT -5
I wouldn't trade JBJ for any reliever. Maybe Betances, but that's not happening obviously. The hole he'd leave is way bigger than the hole he'd fill in the bullpen. Well you are welcome to your opinion. Methinks you're in la-la land to so much as postulate a trade for Betances. The difference between JBJ and Mookie, defensively is limited to arm strength. There are a plethora of replacement 4th OFers available, Robbie Grossman for example.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 20, 2015 14:44:10 GMT -5
JBJ could easily be worth more than the entire bullpen by himself. I'm rooting for the team with the worst bullpen to win the WS from now on. Switch sports. It ain't happening.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Nov 20, 2015 14:42:41 GMT -5
JBJ could easily be worth more than the entire bullpen by himself. I'm rooting for the team with the worst bullpen to win the WS from now on. This has been the RS MO for far too long. The Giants, and more recently the Royals have proved the value to a world class BP.
|
|
|