PDA

View Full Version : Lucy Continues To Struggle


Wealz
09-02-2004, 12:42 PM
One of their head-scratching 2nd round picks this year catcher Donn Lucy is hitting .223/.298/.289 with Great Falls. For comparisons sake, catcher Kurt Suzuki taken after Lucy, is hitting .295/.396/.449 with Vancouver.

Randar68
09-02-2004, 01:03 PM
One of their head-scratching 2nd round picks this year catcher Donn Lucy is hitting .223/.298/.289 with Great Falls. For comparisons sake, catcher Kurt Suzuki taken after Lucy, is hitting .295/.396/.449 with Vancouver.
Just like Whisler, right Wealz? One chicken little draft pick to the next, good to see you've moved down the line of unwarranted criticism...

He played 1 year at Stanford, not 3 like Suzuki or 4 like Powell.

:prozac

Wealz
09-02-2004, 01:24 PM
Just like Whisler, right Wealz? One chicken little draft pick to the next, good to see you've moved down the line of unwarranted criticism...

He played 1 year at Stanford, not 3 like Suzuki or 4 like Powell.
Whatever excuse you can come up with doesn't change the fact that a player drafted in the 2nd round out of college struggling as mightily as Lucy is in high rookie ball is a real cause for concern.

I hope you stick with Whisler and are proven right. You certainly were wrong about Borchard though.

Randar68
09-02-2004, 01:28 PM
Whatever excuse you can come up with doesn't change the fact that a player drafted in the 2nd round out of college struggling as mightily as Lucy is in high rookie ball is a real cause for concern.

I hope you stick with Whisler and are proven right. You certainly were wrong about Borchard though.
Yeah, Borch is already washed out of baseball, isn't he?

You have no F'in clue what you're talking about, just going down the line fishing for things to criticize with absolutely ZERO knowledge about the topic/subject. You're like a cyst that needs to be cut off.

:dtroll:

Wealz
09-02-2004, 01:42 PM
Yeah, Borch is already washed out of baseball, isn't he?

You have no F'in clue what you're talking about, just going down the line fishing for things to criticize with absolutely ZERO knowledge about the topic/subject. You're like a cyst that needs to be cut off.

:dtroll:
And you always have an excuse at the ready for the flops of the Sox farm system. Some of them are pretty funny too.

Randar68
09-02-2004, 01:49 PM
And you always have an excuse at the ready for the flops of the Sox farm system. Some of them are pretty funny too.
If you're going to diss people, at least have a clue *** you're talking about. There's no use commenting on or degrading a player you have absolutely no clue about. Self-serving POS.

Wealz
09-02-2004, 02:05 PM
If you're going to diss people, at least have a clue *** you're talking about. There's no use commenting on or degrading a player you have absolutely no clue about. Self-serving POS.
Yes, you must know a lot about these players. In fact, the way you defend some of them it's like your their best friend or something.

Randar68
09-02-2004, 02:11 PM
Yes, you must know a lot about these players. In fact, the way you defend some of them it's like your their best friend or something.
It's not fair to criticize players you don't know a damned thing about. Until I learn about their situations, I don't think it's fair to heap criticism upon them

You, on the other hand, have no problem calling players out by name, based on performance or otherwise, because they were selected ahead of your love-child Kurt Suzuki. It's one thing to criticize the organization, which again, I don't think is fair considering you have ZERO first hand knowledge of either their allocated $$$'s for the draft or the talents and abilities of any of the players selected.

You're a troll who has one over-whelming, self-serving, and completely biased and close-minded view of things, who just repeats the same tired horse**** over and over.

Get over it.

Move on.

Next.

BTW, defending players from unwarranted attacks != excuse making. You have no point other than a stat line from the internet. Using it to make some kind of broad-reaching claim about the abilities of said player versus another based on rookie-league numbers following a full collegiate year of baseball is about as stupid and ignorant as it gets.

But hey, it hasn't stopped you in the past, and I don't expect it to in the future.

Wealz
09-02-2004, 02:36 PM
It's not fair to criticize players you don't know a damned thing about. Until I learn about their situations, I don't think it's fair to heap criticism upon them

You, on the other hand, have no problem calling players out by name, based on performance or otherwise, because they were selected ahead of your love-child Kurt Suzuki. It's one thing to criticize the organization, which again, I don't think is fair considering you have ZERO first hand knowledge of either their allocated $$$'s for the draft or the talents and abilities of any of the players selected.

You're a troll who has one over-whelming, self-serving, and completely biased and close-minded view of things, who just repeats the same tired horse**** over and over.

Get over it.

Move on.

Next.

BTW, defending players from unwarranted attacks != excuse making. You have no point other than a stat line from the internet. Using it to make some kind of broad-reaching claim about the abilities of said player versus another based on rookie-league numbers following a full collegiate year of baseball is about as stupid and ignorant as it gets.

But hey, it hasn't stopped you in the past, and I don't expect it to in the future.
What is fair criticism Randar68? Is it fair to say McCarthey got squeezed by the homeplate ump last night when you didn't see the game?

If Lucy has the ability to hit and isn't hitting or Borchard has the abillity to hit and isn't hitting, there's either a legit excuse for it (i.e. injury) or the evaluation was wrong.

Randar68
09-02-2004, 02:47 PM
What is fair criticism Randar68? Is it fair to say McCarthey got squeezed by the homeplate ump last night when you didn't see the game?

If Lucy has the ability to hit and isn't hitting or Borchard has the abillity to hit and isn't hitting, there's either a legit excuse for it (i.e. injury) or the evaluation was wrong.It was a comment by the radio announcer on several close pitches early in the game. The announcer also said, (paraphrasing) "the ump is gonna miss some when you throw so many over the plate".

If only things in baseball were as black and white as you profess. Lucy didn't play regularly at Stanford behind Ryan Garko for the last 2 years. This year he plays essentially every game for them, then rolls straight into his first professional season, catching no less, and you're gonna bitch and moan about his BA and SLG% over 150-200 AB's? He's a catcher fer chrissakes. Improving defensively and learning the pitchers is a much more important aspect of his early development than his batting average.

You're simply unfairly over-critical of the players in this draft because the Sox didn't take a couple of your favorites based on BA.com, or "Billy Beane's favorites of the week", whatever.

Move on. Suzuki is someone else's property. I liked him too. We've been over it before. However, that doesn't preclude Donald Lucy from succeeding in the long haul, does it? I'm sure some A's website has a minor league message board, go use it if they're the only players you're interested in.

Wealz
09-02-2004, 03:14 PM
It was a comment by the radio announcer on several close pitches early in the game. The announcer also said, (paraphrasing) "the ump is gonna miss some when you throw so many over the plate".

If only things in baseball were as black and white as you profess. Lucy didn't play regularly at Stanford behind Ryan Garko for the last 2 years. This year he plays essentially every game for them, then rolls straight into his first professional season, catching no less, and you're gonna bitch and moan about his BA and SLG% over 150-200 AB's? He's a catcher fer chrissakes. Improving defensively and learning the pitchers is a much more important aspect of his early development than his batting average.A lot of excuse making here and who says it's much more important to develop defensively and learn pitchers early on? Sounds like scout BS. Lucy hit only .313 last year at Stanford, he's already 22 and he can't hit to save his life in high rookie ball. He was a bad pick on draft day and remains one today.

You're simply unfairly over-critical of the players in this draft because the Sox didn't take a couple of your favorites based on BA.com, or "Billy Beane's favorites of the week", whatever.

Move on. Suzuki is someone else's property. I liked him too. We've been over it before. However, that doesn't preclude Donald Lucy from succeeding in the long haul, does it? I'm sure some A's website has a minor league message board, go use it if they're the only players you're interested in.Despite your consistent praise the Sox aren't industry leaders in scouting and development. If they were I would cut them some slack for this questionable 2004 draft.

Randar68
09-02-2004, 03:21 PM
Despite your consistent praise the Sox aren't industry leaders in scouting and development. If they were I would cut them some slack for this questionable 2004 draft.
No you wouldn't. You'd be at the next list item in your bitch list. Lot's of bitching, zero production.

A lot of excuse making here and who says it's much more important to develop defensively and learn pitchers early on? Sounds like scout BS. Lucy hit only .313 last year at Stanford, he's already 22 and he can't hit to save his life in high rookie ball. He was a bad pick on draft day and remains one today.
Anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notion is "scout BS" or "excuse making." Discounting anything that isn't in line with your one consistent gripe is discounted out of hand. Good luck arguing with yourself on this...

A. Cavatica
09-02-2004, 04:41 PM
BTW, defending players from unwarranted attacks != excuse making.
!= ??? Randar must be a programmer...

Randar68
09-02-2004, 04:55 PM
!= ??? Randar must be a programmer...
LOL! I've done my share. Mostly, I'm lazy. '!=' is much easier than "does not equal"

Iguana775
09-02-2004, 05:58 PM
LOL! I've done my share. Mostly, I'm lazy. '!=' is much easier than "does not equal"
I say everyone starts using programming syntax to talk. lol

if Lucy>bad then
Lucy=good
else
Lucy=crap
end if

:dtroll: