PDA

View Full Version : Another GM tells Boston...


bobj4400
06-14-2004, 02:40 PM
From Boston Gammons current article regarding trades (specifically Freddy Garcia):

"Bill wants to wait and try to build some wins and momentum this year," says one GM, noting that Bavasi wanted to see what happened at home this weekend, and what happened was a three-game sweep of the punchless Expos. "If Kenny Williams can't shake the Mariners into the trade mode," says another GM, "no one can."

Here is the linky http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1821605

Randar68
06-14-2004, 02:44 PM
"If Kenny Williams can't shake the Mariners into the trade mode," says another GM, "no one can."
But Kenny Williams is the worst GM in baseball, don't you read these boards?

On a more serious note, does the Boston organization have the loosest lips in all of baseball?

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 02:52 PM
On a more serious note, does the Boston organization have the loosest lips in all of baseball?Certainly seems to be the case.

Randar68
06-14-2004, 02:56 PM
Certainly seems to be the case.
You'd think it would have been a lesson learned after the A-Rod fiasco, but hey, I like what I've heard, so I won't complain.

Sox also said they received about a half-dozen calls from other teams congratulating them on a great draft, something generally uncommon.

bobj4400
06-14-2004, 02:57 PM
Sox also said they received about a half-dozen calls from other teams congratulating them on a great draft, something generally uncommon.
Where did you get this information? Seems kind of weird for another team to take the time to do something like that...

Randar68
06-14-2004, 02:59 PM
Where did you get this information? Seems kind of weird for another team to take the time to do something like that...
article quoting Duane Shaffer, sorry no linky.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 03:00 PM
You'd think it would have been a lesson learned after the A-Rod fiasco, but hey, I like what I've heard, so I won't complain.

Sox also said they received about a half-dozen calls from other teams congratulating them on a great draft, something generally uncommon.Ya, I read that too, and I found it very reassuring. I thought we did well too, so it was more of an extra bonus. I still would have taken Syzmanski over Wes Whisler, but I very well may be overlooking something about him. If he ends up signing, no complaints. Are some of these guys waiting to sign until their season in college is completely over? Like Adam Ricks and some others?

Tekijawa
06-14-2004, 03:00 PM
Where did you get this information? Seems kind of weird for another team to take the time to do something like that...My guess is they we're 6 calls from Seattle or 6 calls from the royals trying to move their guys!

Unregistered
06-14-2004, 03:00 PM
Where did you get this information? Seems kind of weird for another team to take the time to do something like that...It was in a Tribune article last week, IIRC.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 03:01 PM
Where did you get this information? Seems kind of weird for another team to take the time to do something like that...It was in the Sun Times, but I don't think it's that weird. A lot of GM's have good relationships. They have the winter meetings where they all party and have fun. It's a business, but it's not all cut throat.

Randar68
06-14-2004, 03:03 PM
Ya, I read that too, and I found it very reassuring. I thought we did well too, so it was more of an extra bonus. I still would have taken Syzmanski over Wes Whisler, but I very well may be overlooking something about him. If he ends up signing, no complaints. Are some of these guys waiting to sign until their season in college is completely over? Like Adam Ricks and some others?
Yep, Syzmanski was gone before the Sox picked Whisler. I would have taken Suzuki, though. If you watch the Whisler video, his delivery is almost textbook Mark Prior, from the left side.

Unregistered
06-14-2004, 03:04 PM
Yeah, it was the Sun-Times. Link:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-sside11.html

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 03:07 PM
Yep, Syzmanski was gone before the Sox picked Whisler. I would have taken Suzuki, though. If you watch the Whisler video, his delivery is almost textbook Mark Prior, from the left side.Good to know, I watched several of the videos but I didn't recall his. I was going by his report which seemed kind of mixed. If he has that good of a delivery, that's a very good sign. Plus, and I know it will not come to it, but he seemed to be a pretty decent hitter. Do you know about some of the guys signing after their season is over, like Adam Ricks and others, or does that not really play into the timing of signings?

Randar68
06-14-2004, 03:09 PM
Good to know, I watched several of the videos but I didn't recall his. I was going by his report which seemed kind of mixed. If he has that good of a delivery, that's a very good sign. Plus, and I know it will not come to it, but he seemed to be a pretty decent hitter. Do you know about some of the guys signing after their season is over, like Adam Ricks and others, or does that not really play into the timing of signings?
Ricks is a marginal prospect. He's only going to be valuable if he indeed is converted to a catcher. He must wait for his season to end to sign, but he's the only Sox pick still playing.

After the initial announcement, you won't see formal press releases except for Fields. Lucy, Whisler, Russell, Ricks, etc... Those guys will most likely just show up on the Great Falls roster unless some local article is published...

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 03:18 PM
But Kenny Williams is the worst GM in baseball, don't you read these boards?

On a more serious note, does the Boston organization have the loosest lips in all of baseball?
One could read it that he tried to overpay for Garicia.

But did I miss something, the Boston line was referring to Gammons not the Red Sox. So just curious where loosest lips comment came from.

Randar68
06-14-2004, 03:20 PM
One could read it that he tried to overpay for Garicia.

But did I miss something, the Boston line was referring to Gammons not the Red Sox. So just curious where loosest lips comment came from.
:gulp:

Considering the source, aren't they one and the same? You really read it that way about overpaying? Talk about being slanted...

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 03:21 PM
Ricks is a marginal prospect. He's only going to be valuable if he indeed is converted to a catcher. He must wait for his season to end to sign, but he's the only Sox pick still playing.

After the initial announcement, you won't see formal press releases except for Fields. Lucy, Whisler, Russell, Ricks, etc... Those guys will most likely just show up on the Great Falls roster unless some local article is published...I liked Ricks swing, but I know you aren't really impressed.:smile: Anyway, I am excited about Lucy, he looked pretty good to me behind the plate. What's your confidence level of signing all of the names you mentioned above? The other guys seemed to be signed fairly quick, which was great.

Randar68
06-14-2004, 03:24 PM
I liked Ricks swing, but I know you aren't really impressed.:smile: Anyway, I am excited about Lucy, he looked pretty good to me behind the plate. What's your confidence level of signing all of the names you mentioned above? The other guys seemed to be signed fairly quick, which was great.They'll get Ricks, Lucy, and Whisler signed, IMO. Fields should be done by the end of the week. No rush to announce it, so they may wait for the press release until the Sox are back in town.

Russell is the one, in my mind, that may be the toughest sign, but I don't have any real info there aside from gut feel. Didn't have a great Jr. year but has a lot of upside, may want to try to improve with another year. I'm still shocked they signed Harrell, Allen, and Murphey in the first week. All sounded like they were going to be tough signs...

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 03:30 PM
:gulp:

Considering the source, aren't they one and the same? You really read it that way about overpaying? Talk about being slanted...
I would think Gammons because of his national stature at ESPN has more then one team as a source. The passage with him in Moneyball has Beane more willing to talk to Gammons then local reporters since Gammons has some clue what other team are doing.

Not really, but the statement was vague enough that one could infer that. We word the quote, "If the rumored deal Williams offered wasn't good enough then no bodies will be." That still retains its meaning, and Williams had to offer something good for it to merit the comment. I am also down on Garica so that factors in too.

jeremyb1
06-14-2004, 03:31 PM
:gulp:

Considering the source, aren't they one and the same? You really read it that way about overpaying? Talk about being slanted...

Come on Randar. It's a quite vague, one sentence comment. You can read any number of slants on it without being "slanted". Why is it ridiculous to assume the GM could've meant KW is agressive and will offer a lot of talent? That actually seems like the most likely interpreatation in my opinion.

Randar68
06-14-2004, 03:43 PM
Come on Randar. It's a quite vague, one sentence comment. You can read any number of slants on it without being "slanted". Why is it ridiculous to assume the GM could've meant KW is agressive and will offer a lot of talent? That actually seems like the most likely interpreatation in my opinion.Just start another Kenny Williams sucks thread and you and Dadawg can spank each-other silly.

"If Kenny Williams can't shake the Mariners into the trade mode," says another GM, "no one can."

Sounds like praise to me, but hey, I don't hate the man and every move he's ever made.

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 03:47 PM
Just start another Kenny Williams sucks thread and you and Dadawg can spank each-other silly.

"If Kenny Williams can't shake the Mariners into the trade mode," says another GM, "no one can."

Sounds like praise to me, but hey, I don't hate the man and every move he's ever made.

Why does that sound like praise to you?

And was the masturbation comment necessary?

bobj4400
06-14-2004, 03:50 PM
And was the masturbation comment necessary?


I dont know if it was necessary, but I found it pretty funny!

Dadawg_77
06-14-2004, 03:53 PM
I dont know if it was necessary, but I found it pretty funny!
It may be but what is funny when someone refutes a Randar claim instead of backing up his claim, he just makes personal attacks. Every time I have ever seen Randar in a debate with someone he is making personal attack by post four.

Randar68
06-14-2004, 03:59 PM
It may be but what is funny when someone refutes a Randar claim instead of backing up his claim, he just makes personal attacks. Every time I have ever seen Randar in a debate with someone he is making personal attack by post four.Every post you make is defaming KW trying to prop-up some weak-ass argument about Aaron Miles, or Jimenez, or some other rock-head that stat-geeks love because they conveniently ignore the fact that they have nothing between the ears, or lack some other critical trait that doesn't show up on stat sheets. You just can't let anyone praise or be optimistic about KW without crying foul that he is so damned terrible.

IT IS OLD. IT IS ANNOYING. GET A NEW SHTICK.

If a GM is able to move other GM's to deal when they don't want to, or is able to coax a deal out of somebody, whether it is by persistence or will, that is a positive. Being able to force people's hands is a positive business trait, and manipulating others to do something other than what they want to do is a positive as well. That's the way I read it. Sorry if the FOBB read it differently. Maybe that topic was covered in Moneyball and I missed it. Crazier things have happenned.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 05:42 PM
They'll get Ricks, Lucy, and Whisler signed, IMO. Fields should be done by the end of the week. No rush to announce it, so they may wait for the press release until the Sox are back in town.

Russell is the one, in my mind, that may be the toughest sign, but I don't have any real info there aside from gut feel. Didn't have a great Jr. year but has a lot of upside, may want to try to improve with another year. I'm still shocked they signed Harrell, Allen, and Murphey in the first week. All sounded like they were going to be tough signs...The Sox have been notorious as of late with the thought to be tough signs. We're either doing some good interacting with these guys or we're getting lucky. It's probably a mixture of the two.

SEALgep
06-14-2004, 05:43 PM
Come on Randar. It's a quite vague, one sentence comment. You can read any number of slants on it without being "slanted". Why is it ridiculous to assume the GM could've meant KW is agressive and will offer a lot of talent? That actually seems like the most likely interpreatation in my opinion.It implies aggressiveness, not necessarily overpaying.

gosox41
06-15-2004, 09:35 AM
Why does that sound like praise to you?

And was the masturbation comment necessary?


It's OK, because when it comes down to it, you'll be seen as trying to pick a fight with Randar. Even though he's getting personal and insults you that's fine.

But the fact that he keeps responding to our anti-KW opinions (no matter how repetitive they get to him) has nothing to do with it.


Maybe that should all be in teal, I don't know. I just think getting personal hurts an argument.

Us: 'KW sucks' .....reply 'Yeah but you masturbate.'


Bob

gosox41
06-15-2004, 09:38 AM
Every post you make is defaming KW trying to prop-up some weak-ass argument about Aaron Miles, or Jimenez, or some other rock-head that stat-geeks love because they conveniently ignore the fact that they have nothing between the ears, or lack some other critical trait that doesn't show up on stat sheets. You just can't let anyone praise or be optimistic about KW without crying foul that he is so damned terrible.

IT IS OLD. IT IS ANNOYING. GET A NEW SHTICK.

If a GM is able to move other GM's to deal when they don't want to, or is able to coax a deal out of somebody, whether it is by persistence or will, that is a positive. Being able to force people's hands is a positive business trait, and manipulating others to do something other than what they want to do is a positive as well. That's the way I read it. Sorry if the FOBB read it differently. Maybe that topic was covered in Moneyball and I missed it. Crazier things have happenned.
Why do you care so mcuh about KW and defamation? He's entitled to his opinions. I don't think 'Every' post he makes defames KW (and that was the word you used). Also, is insulting him (or me) defamation? 2 wrongs make a right?

As for the FOBB, guess what? I don't think BB is perfect and I've never seen anyone else here say that in those words (show me a thread where I said he was or stop putting words in our mouths).

But he is still a lot better on his worst day then KW on his best.
:D:


Bob

Randar68
06-15-2004, 09:39 AM
It's OK, because when it comes down to it, you'll be seen as trying to pick a fight with Randar. Even though he's getting personal and insults you that's fine.

But the fact that he keeps responding to our anti-KW opinions (no matter how repetitive they get to him) has nothing to do with it.


Maybe that should all be in teal, I don't know. I just think getting personal hurts an argument.

Us: 'KW sucks' .....reply 'Yeah but you masturbate.'


Bob
LOL! Way to resurrect a thread to take another shot. Keep saying the same, tired, repeated BS, and once I give my rebuttal, it's on to the ridicule and name-calling.

Your choice, but repetitive posting will be met with repetitive insults. If you don't like it, POST YOUR OPINION ONCE AND MOVE ON...

<shakes head in disbelief>

Frater Perdurabo
06-15-2004, 09:40 AM
Roadhouse?

Randar68
06-15-2004, 09:43 AM
Why do you care so mcuh about KW and defamation? He's entitled to his opinions. I don't think 'Every' post he makes defames KW (and that was the word you used). Also, is insulting him (or me) defamation? 2 wrongs make a right?

As for the FOBB, guess what? I don't think BB is perfect and I've never seen anyone else here say that in those words (show me a thread where I said he was or stop putting words in our mouths).

He let it go, yet you can't? You, Dadawg, and jeremy just can't leave well enough alone without spurring eachother on to keep posting the same CRAP over and over?

Oh yeah, now you're speaking for others? You can't even understand how the board dynamics here work, yet now you're speaking for others?

This is like bantering on and on with a mental midget.

:rolleyes:

Dadawg_77
06-15-2004, 09:52 AM
He let it go, yet you can't? You, Dadawg, and jeremy just can't leave well enough alone without spurring eachother on to keep posting the same CRAP over and over?

Oh yeah, now you're speaking for others? You can't even understand how the board dynamics here work, yet now you're speaking for others?

This is like bantering on and on with a mental midget.

:rolleyes:
You know for someone who is complaining about not letting it go, you just quoted the same poster twice with the same reply.

Randar68
06-15-2004, 10:10 AM
You know for someone who is complaining about not letting it go, you just quoted the same poster twice with the same reply.
:bandance:

gosox41
06-16-2004, 10:48 AM
You know for someone who is complaining about not letting it go, you just quoted the same poster twice with the same reply.

LMAO. Did you notice the name calling too?


Bob

Randar68
06-16-2004, 10:54 AM
LMAO. Did you notice the name calling too?


Bob
The 3 of you bonding is really touching.

:whocares

gosox41
06-17-2004, 09:04 AM
The 3 of you bonding is really touching.

:whocares



You?? As long as you keep responding and ripping us for the same stuff.


Bob