January 31, 200422 yr It has been 7 years in a row we have taken it and we upgraded more so this offseason than Boston. You have to go with the Yankees.
February 1, 200422 yr im going with the Red Sox ... too much hitting, too much pitching, shaky bullpen as usual but at least they have a good closer now. watch out for the Blue Jays
February 1, 200422 yr I'm going with The Sox... What makes THe Yankees off season so much better Soriano, Kevin Brown is awesome for the games he can pitch plus he's getting up there in age and Vasquez, like so many others it appears he's already hit his peak.
February 1, 200422 yr im going with the Red Sox ... too much hitting, too much pitching, shaky bullpen as usual but at least they have a good closer now. watch out for the Blue Jays They did not add any hitters unlike the Yankees and added LESS pitching than the Yankees. The Yankees are superior. What makes THe Yankees off season so much better Soriano Kevin Brown is awesome for the games he can pitch plus he's getting up there in age and Vasquez, like so many others it appears he's already hit his peak. , Curt Schilling, who pitched far less innings than brown last year, who's also in his late 30s is somehow not "getting up in age"? And no, all statistics elad to that Vazquez has only begun hitting his peak. The Yankees had a better team than the red sox LAST year, agreed? Off season moves for the red sox? Schilling, Reese, and Foulke For the Yankees? Brown, Vazquez, Sheffield, Quantrill, Gordon Now you tell me who had the better offseason.
February 1, 200422 yr Why have The Yank's been held out of the past 3 WS, could it have anything to do with TEAM CHEMISTRY!? Sheff is not going to help that and you know it as well, I'd take Foulke over Gordon who's arm is hanging on by a string and Quantrill. Plus if Vasquez is just beginning to hit his peak, why did that lead to ESPN The Mag taking back it's proclamation that he was The Next Superstar?
February 1, 200422 yr Why have The Yank's been held out of the past 3 WS, could it have anything to do with TEAM CHEMISTRY!? Sheff is not going to help that and you know it as well, I'd take Foulke over Gordon who's arm is hanging on by a string and Quantrill. Plus if Vasquez is just beginning to hit his peak, why did that lead to ESPN The Mag taking back it's proclamation that he was The Next Superstar? I love your argument. "Why haven't we won more world series." We were in 2 out of the last 3 world series, that's pretty chemistry-full if you ask me. Sheff is not going to be as much as a chemistry drain as MANNY RAMIREZ, and no one intelligent would take one foulke over one quantrill and gordon. So now ESPN is gospel? They took it back? Would they take it back if he went on the red sox? If the yankees had schilling and boston had vazquez, the media would say the yankees rotation is too old and that vazquez is the next pedro martinez. Statistically, Vazquez K/BB and adjusted era are superb and HE PITCHES A LOT OF INNINGS. He was a superb pick up. face it, when one assesses that the socks made less additions than the yankees this offseason and were worst last season, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE RED SOX TO BE BETTER.
February 1, 200422 yr Why have The Yank's been held out of the past 3 WS, could it have anything to do with TEAM CHEMISTRY!? Sheff is not going to help that and you know it as well, I'd take Foulke over Gordon who's arm? is hanging on by a string and Quantrill. Plus if Vasquez is just beginning to hit his peak, why did that lead to ESPN The Mag taking back it's proclamation that he was The Next Superstar? I love your argument. "Why haven't we won more world series." We were in 2 out of the last 3 world series, that's pretty chemistry-full if you ask me. Sheff is not going to be as much as a chemistry drain as MANNY RAMIREZ, and no one intelligent would take one foulke over one quantrill and gordon. So now ESPN is gospel? They took it back? Would they take it back if he went on the red sox? If the yankees had schilling and boston had vazquez, the media would say the yankees rotation is too old and that vazquez is the next pedro martinez. Statistically, Vazquez K/BB and adjusted era are superb and HE PITCHES A LOT OF INNINGS. He was a superb pick up. face it, when one assesses that the socks made less additions than the yankees this offseason and were worst last season, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE RED SOX TO BE BETTER. You yourself said The Team's chemistry is not the same as it's Champions of the past, what is it whenever it comes to the red sox though you get defensive, don't give me that crap because you know as well as I do when you have a top 3 rotation, an amazing bullpen, An infield that has the likes of Soriano, Giambi, and Jeter plus an outfield that teams would die to have, oh yeah they have The American League's best catcher. Yet they don't win the world series, what is the real reason then when they get beat by a team you call "inferior". Then we go back to The Bullpen, are you going to tell me that Gordon's arm is fine? I would take Foulke over both of those men because their is no way set up pitchers can be compared in importance to a closer. Then we go back to Vasquez, he has gone down in every stat from 2001 except ERA and SO but his walks went up dramatically, but The most important stat in baseball wins he's lacking and before you tell me THe Yankee's run support will cure that, in 2001 the spo's were not as good as 02 or even 03 but yet he still hammered out more wins. Then you tell me Kevin Brown is healthier than Shill based on one season, answer me this who is the pitcher who was a disaster for his NL West team, spending time on THE DL, every season he was there? Shill is healthier and better in the long term.
February 2, 200422 yr you have a top 3 rotation, an amazing bullpen, An infield that has the likes of Soriano, Giambi, and Jeter plus an outfield that teams would die to have, oh yeah they have The American League's best catcher. Yeah, we do. That's why we will win the East...again. Yet they don't win the world series, what is the real reason then when they get beat by a team you call "inferior". No, the marlins have won more games since may 15th I believe than any team in baseball. Then we go back to The Bullpen, are you going to tell me that Gordon's arm is fine? I would take Foulke over both of those men because their is no way set up pitchers can be compared in importance to a closer. Gordon's arm seemed healthier come end of last year than Foulke, who by the time the ALDS came around was sporting a DEAD ARM. It comes to supply and demand. The Yankees already had a top tier closer...Mariano Rivera. We get two closer quality guys and add to the team. The Red Sox just get Foulke. Its obvious the Yankees upgraded their bullpen more so than Foulke, because they acquired two guys combined are worth more than foulke. In fact, I assert Quantrill is better than Foulke. Quantrill 2003 era+ 231 2003 era 1.75 G 89 IP 77.3 Foulke 2003 era+ 205 2003 era 2.08 G 72 IP 86.7 Quantrill is a ground baller and he does not have good infield defense behind him, however, Foulke is a fly baller and has started to give up more homers per season and is now going into a flyball hitter's park. So even if Foulke was STILL better than quantrill, which he really isn't, the addition of Tom Gordon and return of Steve Karsay are far more than the red sox bullpen. The Yankees probably have the best bullpen in the major leagues. Then we go back to Vasquez, he has gone down in every stat from 2001 except ERA and SO but his walks went up dramatically, but The most important stat in baseball wins he's lacking and before you tell me THe Yankee's run support will cure that, in 2001 the spo's were not as good as 02 or even 03 but yet he still hammered out more wins. Brandon Webb went 10 and 9 last year, are you going to tell me that his wins and losses make him a mediocre pitcher? He's simply phenominal. Curt Schilling went 8 and 9, and you tell me to worry about vazquez who went 13 and 12??? That's surely laughable. Josh Beckett went 9 and 8, okay so he's mediocre? Wins and losses do not reveal a pitchers skill. A great example of this is Andy Pettitte who won 21 games. What's most laughable is your assertion that Vazuez is declining. 2001 era+ 135 era 3.42 K/BB 4.73 K 208 BB 44 WHIP 1.08 2002 era+ 106 era 3.91 K/BB 3.65 K 179 BB 49 WHIP 1.27 2003 era+ 153 era 3.24 K/BB 4.23 K 241 BB 57 WHIP 1.11 Walking 57 people in 230 innings is no climb, and there's no DRAMATIC increase. You claim he has been declining since 2001, but he improves since 2002, so by this logic he can certainly improve more in 2004. Beckett walked 56 in 142 innings and prior walked 50 in 211 innings. Are they all of the sudden mediocre pitchers? So how is vazquez? You're being ridiculous, and judging from how his era is the best he ever had, he has learned to pitch better with runners on. I would say that his superb numbers and era only confirm his worth, and is age makes him prime to improve dramaitically over the next 4 years. Then you tell me Kevin Brown is healthier than Shill based on one season, answer me this who is the pitcher who was a disaster for his NL West team, spending time on THE DL, every season he was there? Shill is healthier and better in the long term. You're wrong. Throughout their careers (Brown's was longer) Schilling had 4 injury years compared to brown's 5. Big difference, one. Furthermore, Brown is fully recovered from a condition that he rushed to recover from, which forced him to miss 2 out of his 5 seasons with the dodgers. He is fully recovered, coming off a season healthier than Curt Schilling, who has his own history of injuries. So no, Schilling really isn't healthier or better in the long term. KEvin Brown always was the better pitcher than schilling besides the years of his shoulder injury. Now that this injury no longer exists, I don't see how Curt Schilling all of the sudden has a rubber arm. Face it, the yankees are better. All numbers disagree with you. But hey "we lack the chemistry we used to have" right? Since when were the whiny Pedro Martinez, Manny Ramirez, and etc have better chemistry. That's laughable in its own right!
February 2, 200422 yr Once again Soriano, since when is George playing to win the east? You yourself said their chemistry doesn't mix which is why they haven't matched their success so what know that it comes to the east and The Red Sox, you suddenly don't want to mention this, Sheff is only going to hurt a team that has the chemistry of water and oil. Then you didn't ask my question, what's more important in a bullpen, a closer or a set up man, so if we go by your standards Quantrill and Gordon are more important than Rivera, trying to compare set up men to closer in terms of importance is laughable. Gordon is not healthy and you know that, Foulke is going to last a lot longer than Gordon and if your so sure that Gordon is healthier why don't you put something up. Right now if by the all star break Gordon has missed fewer games(Games appeared in does not count where going by who's suited up in the pen and is capable to pitch) than Foulke, I'll take the avatar of your choice if you Foulke misses fewer games I'll choose your avatar up until The World Series... Also, why do you change your opinion so much? You have continued to badgar about The Yankees being a better team than the fish. 2001... 16 wins, second lowest era of his career, lowest walk total of since 2001, 104 WHIP, face it 2001 was his best year, he's hit his peak, when did I say Decline, Genius? I said he has had his best season,nothing more but I guess like Maddox you just don't read,
February 2, 200422 yr I'm voting for Boston, just to see SorianoFan's blood pressure rise some more. Yeah....that's it...
February 2, 200422 yr Once again Soriano, since when is George playing to win the east? You yourself said their chemistry doesn't mix which is why they haven't matched their success so what know that it comes to the east and The Red Sox, you suddenly don't want to mention this, Sheff is only going to hurt a team that has the chemistry of water and oil. I assert that Boston has worse chemistry, and so this is a non-issue in the AL East. Simple, do you understand? Then you didn't ask my question, what's more important in a bullpen, a closer or a set up man, so if we go by your standards Quantrill and Gordon are more important than Rivera, trying to compare set up men to closer in terms of importance is laughable. So you one of those people who think a man with 86 innings and a two era has only half the worth of an identical pitcher with 40 saves? So yes, there is a relative difference in importance. And two pitchers of the caliber of quantrill and gordon ARE more important than one keith foulke. Gordon is not healthy and you know that, Foulke is going to last a lot longer than Gordon and if your so sure that Gordon is healthier why don't you put something up. Right now if by the all star break Gordon has missed fewer games(Games appeared in does not count where going by who's suited up in the pen and is capable to pitch) than Foulke, I'll take the avatar of your choice if you Foulke misses fewer games I'll choose your avatar up until The World Series... And you totally disregard the fact that foulke's arm was abused last year from oakland. Look what happened to Koch after his stint in oakland. Furthermore, Foulke was totally out of gas during the ALDS. Gordon does have injury history, but he's looking healthy now and Foulke isn't. Also, why do you change your opinion so much? You have continued to badgar about The Yankees being a better team than the fish. No, the 2004 yankees are better than the 2004 marlins. I have said several times on this site and even wrote in my very own website that the marlins come postseason had a better team than the yankees. I'm not changing my opinion at all, but I ask you, why do you turn your head in the face of facts? 2001... 16 wins, second lowest era of his career, lowest walk total of since 2001, 104 WHIP, face it 2001 was his best year, he's hit his peak, when did I say Decline, Genius? I said he has had his best season,nothing more but I guess like Maddox you just don't read, He hit his peak at 26? There's no room for improvement? Beckett when 8 and 9, I guess he's only going down, right? you're being illogical. Vazquez is still young, he can still get better wise guy. And by the way, I do not copy maddox. I emailed maddox's official fansite about the issue and they agreed with me. Come next october I'm going to be laughing my ass off again, something yankees fans ave become very used to. It is absurd that in the face of countless statisitcs you still choose the red sox over the yankees. That's crazy. But hey, I'll have the last laugh.
February 2, 200422 yr Once again Soriano, since when is George playing to win the east? You yourself said their chemistry doesn't mix which is why they haven't matched their success so what know that it comes to the east and The Red Sox, you suddenly don't want to mention this, Sheff is only going to hurt a team that has the chemistry of water and oil. I assert that Boston has worse chemistry, and so this is a non-issue in the AL East. Simple, do you understand? Then you didn't ask my question, what's more important in a bullpen, a closer or a set up man, so if we go by your standards Quantrill and Gordon are more important than Rivera, trying to compare set up men to closer in terms of importance is laughable. So you one of those people who think a man with 86 innings and a two era has only half the worth of an identical pitcher with 40 saves? So yes, there is a relative difference in importance. And two pitchers of the caliber of quantrill and gordon ARE more important than one keith foulke. Gordon is not healthy and you know that, Foulke is going to last a lot longer than Gordon and if your so sure that Gordon is healthier why don't you put something up. Right now if by the all star break Gordon has missed fewer games(Games appeared in does not count where going by who's suited up in the pen and is capable to pitch) than Foulke, I'll take the avatar of your choice if you Foulke misses fewer games I'll choose your avatar up until The World Series... And you totally disregard the fact that foulke's arm was abused last year from oakland. Look what happened to Koch after his stint in oakland. Furthermore, Foulke was totally out of gas during the ALDS. Gordon does have injury history, but he's looking healthy now and Foulke isn't. Also, why do you change your opinion so much? You have continued to badgar about The Yankees being a better team than the fish. No, the 2004 yankees are better than the 2004 marlins. I have said several times on this site and even wrote in my very own website that the marlins come postseason had a better team than the yankees. I'm not changing my opinion at all, but I ask you, why do you turn your head in the face of facts? 2001... 16 wins, second lowest era of his career, lowest walk total of since 2001, 104 WHIP, face it 2001 was his best year, he's hit his peak, when did I say Decline, Genius? I said he has had his best season,nothing more but I guess like Maddox you just don't read, He hit his peak at 26? There's no room for improvement? Beckett when 8 and 9, I guess he's only going down, right? you're being illogical. Vazquez is still young, he can still get better wise guy. And by the way, I do not copy maddox. I emailed maddox's official fansite about the issue and they agreed with me. Come next october I'm going to be laughing my ass off again, something yankees fans ave become very used to. It is absurd that in the face of countless statisitcs you still choose the red sox over the yankees. That's crazy. But hey, I'll have the last laugh.
February 2, 200422 yr Once again Soriano, since when is George playing to win the east? You yourself said their chemistry doesn't mix which is why they haven't matched their success so what know that it comes to the east and The Red Sox, you suddenly don't want to mention this, Sheff is only going to hurt a team that has the chemistry of water and oil. I assert that Boston has worse chemistry, and so this is a non-issue in the AL East. Simple, do you understand? Then you didn't ask my question, what's more important in a bullpen, a closer or a set up man, so if we go by your standards Quantrill and Gordon are more important than Rivera, trying to compare set up men to closer in terms of importance is laughable. So you one of those people who think a man with 86 innings and a two era has only half the worth of an identical pitcher with 40 saves? So yes, there is a relative difference in importance. And two pitchers of the caliber of quantrill and gordon ARE more important than one keith foulke. Gordon is not healthy and you know that, Foulke is going to last a lot longer than Gordon and if your so sure that Gordon is healthier why don't you put something up. Right now if by the all star break Gordon has missed fewer games(Games appeared in does not count where going by who's suited up in the pen and is capable to pitch) than Foulke, I'll take the avatar of your choice if you Foulke misses fewer games I'll choose your avatar up until The World Series... And you totally disregard the fact that foulke's arm was abused last year from oakland. Look what happened to Koch after his stint in oakland. Furthermore, Foulke was totally out of gas during the ALDS. Gordon does have injury history, but he's looking healthy now and Foulke isn't. Also, why do you change your opinion so much? You have continued to badgar about The Yankees being a better team than the fish. No, the 2004 yankees are better than the 2004 marlins. I have said several times on this site and even wrote in my very own website that the marlins come postseason had a better team than the yankees. I'm not changing my opinion at all, but I ask you, why do you turn your head in the face of facts? 2001... 16 wins, second lowest era of his career, lowest walk total of since 2001, 104 WHIP, face it 2001 was his best year, he's hit his peak, when did I say Decline, Genius? I said he has had his best season,nothing more but I guess like Maddox you just don't read, He hit his peak at 26? There's no room for improvement? Beckett when 8 and 9, I guess he's only going down, right? you're being illogical. Vazquez is still young, he can still get better wise guy. And by the way, I do not copy maddox. I emailed maddox's official fansite about the issue and they agreed with me. Come next october I'm going to be laughing my ass off again, something yankees fans ave become very used to. It is absurd that in the face of countless statisitcs you still choose the red sox over the yankees. That's crazy. But hey, I'll have the last laugh. Ah taking back your word, it's like a new tradition, you also said on these forums my friend, that The Red Sox only competed last year because they had chemistry, that it looked like their having fun out there... Onto the closer role, Tell me what was the biggest factor for THe Phils september explosion, it wasn't their setup because they had one of the best in Cormier, instead they blew up because of their lack of fight at The Closer's role because The Closer role is that much more important than a Set up man, The Set up man do not finish a game they only hold it for the finisher to come in and close it out. When it comes down to it the most important part of the game is how you end because how you start or how you do in middle ground is not going to stop the game. Then if your so sure about Gordons' health, why not take my bet? Tell me something, Fernando V how much success did he have after he did so well in the early parts, it's becoming clear Pat Burrell may never reach what he did in 02 but he's still young? Players are hitting their peaks early on and I fail to see how Javier Vasquez is ever going to do as well as he did in 01 with an even weaker Expo team than those in 02, 03... But your the baseball mind you tell me why is he going to do better than 01 despite clear indication that it was his best? I'm leaving to watch Survivor but I'll resond tomorrow...
February 2, 200422 yr Ah taking back your word, it's like a new tradition, you also said on these forums my friend, that The Red Sox only competed last year because they had chemistry, that it looked like their having fun out there... Good luck finding a quote of me saying that, BECAUSE I NEVER DID! Thanks for knowing what kind of person you are, a clintonesque liar. Onto the closer role, Tell me what was the biggest factor for THe Phils september explosion, it wasn't their setup because they had one of the best in Cormier, instead they blew up because of their lack of fight at The Closer's role because The Closer role is that much more important than a Set up man, The Set up man do not finish a game they only hold it for the finisher to come in and close it out. When it comes down to it the most important part of the game is how you end because how you start or how you do in middle ground is not going to stop the game. Mesa and Williams sucked. If they had Quantrill or Gordon as their closer, they could of won wild card (that's how bad Mesa and Williams are!) Then if your so sure about Gordons' health, why not take my bet? Take my bet, who will win the division? I'll bet you money on that. Tell me something, Fernando V how much success did he have after he did so well in the early parts, it's becoming clear Pat Burrell may never reach what he did in 02 but he's still young? Players are hitting their peaks early on and I fail to see how Javier Vasquez is ever going to do as well as he did in 01 with an even weaker Expo team than those in 02, 03... But your the baseball mind you tell me why is he going to do better than 01 despite clear indication that it was his best? Players have never hit bumps in the road? Using your logic, the moment a young player hits a bump, it is all over. That's ridiculous. Vazquez definitely has skill and he could become better, but you don't think so, you think that he peaked at 26. Here are examples of guys who "peaked" according to you, but than became much better because the talent was there: 1989 Barry Bonds (age 24) .777 ops. Do I even have to mention all the MVPs he won since then? 1997 Sammy Sosa (age 28) .780 ops. The next year he hit 66 homers. 2002 Javy Lopez (age 31) .670 ops. The next year he broke Hundley's catcher's single season homer record. 1993 Roger Clemens (age 30) 4.46 era (won 3 cy young awards afterwards) 1993 Curt Schilling (age 26) 4.02 era (had only 1 year with an above 3.81 era since) 1990 Tom Glavine (age 24) 4.28 era (would win 2 cy youngs afterwards) 1994 John Smoltz (age 27) 4.14 era (won 1996 cy young award, now one of the top 3 closers in the game) 1994 Kevin Brown (age 29) 4.82 era (has been in the top 6 of cy young votes 4 times since then, and has had superb 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, and 2003 seasons.) Vazquez's bump, a high 3 era, was not close to as bad as the above, and Vazquez as the age and ability to dramatically improve or be just like last year for many more years. So by your logic, it was time to give up on all of these men? Thank god you are not a professional talent evaluator! Ha!
February 2, 200422 yr Here's your link Soriano, so I'd appreciate if you take back all you childish name calling... http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...=0entry241833 Now onto your issue of THe Closer's importance, just like The Yankees THe Phils did have two great set up men, Pleasac and Cormier all who had great 03 seasons but the closers failures led to their ultimate downfall. Set up men are important but they do not finish the game which is the most important part, The Red sox biggest falter was not their set up but towards the end of the games is where they blew it... I also proposed that bet to prove a point, you yourself do not have enough faith in Gordons' arm but I'll accept your Red Sox bet, The Foulke/Gordon bet stands and I'll take your bet the loser has his avatar controlled for four months after the break... Now onto Vasquez, your posting exceptions why did you fail to mention all the players who have yet or never did recap their great early year? Vasquez produced his best year on one of his worst years in terms of teams, the next two years when Montreal was semi competitive his numbers were not as good mainly in win totals? So what Vasquez best performs under no pressure? If that's the case what is New York going to do?
February 3, 200422 yr Well Soriano, are you going to respond to the bet or the fact that you did admit The Sox have chemistry?
February 3, 200422 yr Ah taking back your word, it's like a new tradition, you also said on these forums my friend, that The Red Sox only competed last year because they had chemistry, that it looked like their having fun out there... Good luck finding a quote of me saying that, BECAUSE I NEVER DID! Thanks for knowing what kind of person you are, a clintonesque liar. Onto the closer role, Tell me what was the biggest factor for THe Phils september explosion, it wasn't their setup because they had one of the best in Cormier, instead they blew up because of their lack of fight at The Closer's role because The Closer role is that much more important than a Set up man, The Set up man do not finish a game they only hold it for the finisher to come in and close it out. When it comes down to it the most important part of the game is how you end because how you start or how you do in middle ground is not going to stop the game. Mesa and Williams sucked. If they had Quantrill or Gordon as their closer, they could of won wild card (that's how bad Mesa and Williams are!) Then if your so sure about Gordons' health, why not take my bet? Take my bet, who will win the division? I'll bet you money on that. Tell me something, Fernando V how much success did he have after he did so well in the early parts, it's becoming clear Pat Burrell may never reach what he did in 02 but he's still young? Players are hitting their peaks early on and I fail to see how Javier Vasquez is ever going to do as well as he did in 01 with an even weaker Expo team than those in 02, 03... But your the baseball mind you tell me why is he going to do better than 01 despite clear indication that it was his best? Players have never hit bumps in the road? Using your logic, the moment a young player hits a bump, it is all over. That's ridiculous. Vazquez definitely has skill and he could become better, but you don't think so, you think that he peaked at 26. Here are examples of guys who "peaked" according to you, but than became much better because the talent was there: 1989 Barry Bonds (age 24) .777 ops. Do I even have to mention all the MVPs he won since then? 1997 Sammy Sosa (age 28) .780 ops. The next year he hit 66 homers. 2002 Javy Lopez (age 31) .670 ops. The next year he broke Hundley's catcher's single season homer record. 1993 Roger Clemens (age 30) 4.46 era (won 3 cy young awards afterwards) 1993 Curt Schilling (age 26) 4.02 era (had only 1 year with an above 3.81 era since) 1990 Tom Glavine (age 24) 4.28 era (would win 2 cy youngs afterwards) 1994 John Smoltz (age 27) 4.14 era (won 1996 cy young award, now one of the top 3 closers in the game) 1994 Kevin Brown (age 29) 4.82 era (has been in the top 6 of cy young votes 4 times since then, and has had superb 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, and 2003 seasons.) Vazquez's bump, a high 3 era, was not close to as bad as the above, and Vazquez as the age and ability to dramatically improve or be just like last year for many more years. So by your logic, it was time to give up on all of these men? Thank god you are not a professional talent evaluator! Ha!Yep, you have both convinced me. Both the Yanks and Sox will be in such disarray, the O's are going to sneak in and take the division. :whistle
February 3, 200422 yr The Blue Jays and O's combined having less votes than the Devil Rays is sad. Don't get me wrong, I like the D-Rays. But that's just a little too much optimism there.
February 3, 200422 yr Yep, you have both convinced me. Both the Yanks and Sox will be in such disarray, the O's are going to sneak in and take the division. :whistle No the yankees will win it. They were 6 games better than Boston last year, made more improvements this offseason, so it is almost impossible for boston to better NY this season unless sudden injuries occur (which can very well happen to either team.) Well Soriano, are you going to respond to the bet or the fact that you did admit The Sox have chemistry? Nice gloating, it is quite odd that you failed to read the topic right below this one, where I already responded. I will respond again. They DID (past tense) appear to have good chemistry, because they played like they were having fun. Things that occurred this offseason makes this no longer true. This is perfectly consistant and you lack certain observational skills.
February 3, 200422 yr Yep, you have both convinced me. Both the Yanks and Sox will be in such disarray, the O's are going to sneak in and take the division. :whistle No the yankees will win it. They were 6 games better than Boston last year, made more improvements this offseason, so it is almost impossible for boston to better NY this season unless sudden injuries occur (which can very well happen to either team.) Well Soriano, are you going to respond to the bet or the fact that you did admit The Sox have chemistry? Nice gloating, it is quite odd that you failed to read the topic right below this one, where I already responded. I will respond again. They DID (past tense) appear to have good chemistry, because they played like they were having fun. Things that occurred this offseason makes this no longer true. This is perfectly consistant and you lack certain observational skills. :lol All you said is that you never said The Redsox had good chemistry you also said The Yanks did have good chemistry and I proved both those to be lies, and when I called you out you called me a liar. BTW why have you not responded to the two bets, What don't you have enough faith in Gordon and your Yanks?
February 3, 200422 yr Note: I responded to this last night and the post was lost via net going down. Oh well, so here's my half assed response: Here's your link Soriano, so I'd appreciate if you take back all you childish name calling... I called you a liar (which is not a name.) Its not like I called you a douche bag. Follow your own link, see my response. Now onto your issue of THe Closer's importance, just like The Yankees THe Phils did have two great set up men, Pleasac and Cormier all who had great 03 seasons but the closers failures led to their ultimate downfall. Set up men are important but they do not finish the game which is the most important part, The Red sox biggest falter was not their set up but towards the end of the games is where they blew it... Yeah, but the Red Sox bridge to Foulke is far more inadequate than the best bullpen in baseball (according to some other than me), the yankees. You need a bridge and a closer. We have a better bridge and closer than the red sox, so your point is irrelevant. In relative worth, a very good pitcher (quantrill) and a good pitcher (gordon) or more important than one very good pitcher (foulke.) Of course, you never respond to statistical analysis of Quantrill (because he's damn good and had a better season than foulke other than saves), because you don't want to admit the yankees have better quality pitching, which in essence makes your whole argument totally useless. The Phillies lacked a closer and they failed to move a good reliver to that spot. Blame bowa. I also proposed that bet to prove a point, you yourself do not have enough faith in Gordons' arm but I'll accept your Red Sox bet, The Foulke/Gordon bet stands and I'll take your bet the loser has his avatar controlled for four months after the break... And you don't get the point. I was merely suggesting that Gordon isn't as injury riddled and Foulke isn't as injury free as you believe. I guarentee you Quantrill will avoid injury more likely than Foulke, do you want to take that bet? By the way, what are we wagering on the Yanks finishing first and the sox second? Now onto Vasquez, your posting exceptions why did you fail to mention all the players who have yet or never did recap their great early year? Vasquez produced his best year on one of his worst years in terms of teams, the next two years when Montreal was semi competitive his numbers were not as good mainly in win totals? So what Vasquez best performs under no pressure? If that's the case what is New York going to do? Thank god you are not some sort of assistant general manager or something. You arbitrarily decide that because Vazquez had one good season when he was 26 yet to be topped (though he had more Ks and a better era in 2003, so its debatable whether which season is his career year, I go with 2003.) So I respond with a crap load of players that fitted your definition as past their prime at a young age and you REMAIN speechless. That's because you are wrong. We really don't know what can happen to Vazquez next year. He's young and full and talent, he might pitch the best season of his career, he might have a 130 era+, we just don't know, but the SAD PART IS THAT YOU PRETEND YOU DO KNOW, and judging from your argument being proven wrong by the careers of the following, you still don't get it: 1989 Barry Bonds (age 24) .777 ops. Do I even have to mention all the MVPs he won since then? 1997 Sammy Sosa (age 28) .780 ops. The next year he hit 66 homers. 2002 Javy Lopez (age 31) .670 ops. The next year he broke Hundley's catcher's single season homer record. 1993 Roger Clemens (age 30) 4.46 era (won 3 cy young awards afterwards) 1993 Curt Schilling (age 26) 4.02 era (had only 1 year with an above 3.81 era since) 1990 Tom Glavine (age 24) 4.28 era (would win 2 cy youngs afterwards) 1994 John Smoltz (age 27) 4.14 era (won 1996 cy young award, now one of the top 3 closers in the game) 1994 Kevin Brown (age 29) 4.82 era (has been in the top 6 of cy young votes 4 times since then, and has had superb 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, and 2003 seasons.) Furthermore, you say that Vazquez's inability to have better than a 13-12 record on a better Expos team proves he can't handle pressure. That is preposterous. CURT SCHILLING (NOW A RED SOX) ON A BETTER THAN .500 TEAM WENT 8-9, so according to YOUR argument, neither can he handle pressure. Kevin Brown went 14-9 on the second worst offensive team in baseball, so by your logic, he is SEVERAL times better than schilling. Your argument has totally failed BECAUSE ITS PREMISES ARE WRONG, IT LACKS LOGIC, IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. If you at least don't feel stupid, you have a head like a rock.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.