 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 31, 2013 - 2:00 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
Okay, call me a sore loser all you like, I don't care but IMO I can't in good conscience hold my tongue when I have to see Ken Davidoff in the NY Post commit the crime of impersonating a writer with his nauseating love-letter to David Ortiz and his sneering diss at Yankee fans who I think have a right to be ticked off for the never-ending double standard that has existed for this one player. If ever you needed an exhibit for how the press has coddled Ortiz and protected him from being held to the same standard they've applied to *everyone* else whose name has ended up on a steroids list, this column shows it in spades right down to these points.
1-Davidoff asserts that the 2003 test that Ortiz failed isn't relevant because it was supposed to be private and then to cover himself he says that test wasn't relevant for A-Rod either. The only problem though is that he and his colleagues *prior* to Bosch were not treating Rodriguez the same way. They thundered with indignation over the fact the test was leaked in Ortiz's case, but they never held Selena Roberts feet to the fire for obtaining A-Rod's name illegally in the *same* fashion. Instead, it was all about how A-Rod was finished as a legit HOF candidate regardless of what he ever did. But Ortiz? Fuggedaboutit.
2-Davidoff yawns at the idea that maybe Ortiz's resurgence at his age is potentially a sign of steroids use again. Does anyone believe for a minute that ANYONE else Ortiz's age who suddenly turned around that late in his career in the post-Barry Bonds period would get a similar free pass? Not a chance. Evidently, journalistic skepticism of the kind that supposedly justifies keeping out of the HOF those who *never* failed a drug test from the earlier era (Clemens, Bonds and we'll also add Piazza) doesn't apply to Ortiz.
3-And we're supposed to take seriously the idea of Ortiz for the HOF? This from the same people who refuse to consider Andy Pettitte as a viable HOF candidate because of his one-time admission?
Sorry, Red Sox fans, but it's one thing to celebrate a championship which I wouldn't think of taking from you. When that becomes the occasion for journalistic malpractice of the kind Davidoff committed, that's another thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's hope we can now finally put this NON-soundtrack matter to bed!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Although there's STILL the matter of Tim McCarver's retirement and maybe Joe Buck's hair!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 31, 2013 - 6:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ANZALDIMAN
(Member)
|
Okay, call me a sore loser all you like, I don't care but IMO I can't in good conscience hold my tongue when I have to see Ken Davidoff in the NY Post commit the crime of impersonating a writer with his nauseating love-letter to David Ortiz and his sneering diss at Yankee fans who I think have a right to be ticked off for the never-ending double standard that has existed for this one player. If ever you needed an exhibit for how the press has coddled Ortiz and protected him from being held to the same standard they've applied to *everyone* else whose name has ended up on a steroids list, this column shows it in spades right down to these points.
1-Davidoff asserts that the 2003 test that Ortiz failed isn't relevant because it was supposed to be private and then to cover himself he says that test wasn't relevant for A-Rod either. The only problem though is that he and his colleagues *prior* to Bosch were not treating Rodriguez the same way. They thundered with indignation over the fact the test was leaked in Ortiz's case, but they never held Selena Roberts feet to the fire for obtaining A-Rod's name illegally in the *same* fashion. Instead, it was all about how A-Rod was finished as a legit HOF candidate regardless of what he ever did. But Ortiz? Fuggedaboutit.
2-Davidoff yawns at the idea that maybe Ortiz's resurgence at his age is potentially a sign of steroids use again. Does anyone believe for a minute that ANYONE else Ortiz's age who suddenly turned around that late in his career in the post-Barry Bonds period would get a similar free pass? Not a chance. Evidently, journalistic skepticism of the kind that supposedly justifies keeping out of the HOF those who *never* failed a drug test from the earlier era (Clemens, Bonds and we'll also add Piazza) doesn't apply to Ortiz.
3-And we're supposed to take seriously the idea of Ortiz for the HOF? This from the same people who refuse to consider Andy Pettitte as a viable HOF candidate because of his one-time admission?
Sorry, Red Sox fans, but it's one thing to celebrate a championship which I wouldn't think of taking from you. When that becomes the occasion for journalistic malpractice of the kind Davidoff committed, that's another thing.
I agree that Ortiz has skated past the steroid issue. I believe he's the last remaining member of that 2004 Red Sox team that reversed the curse, and for that alone like it or not Red Sox fans (and the press) look the other way. Plus (and this is a big one) he's actually managed up until now to maintain the likeable big bear family guy image, the charitable player image, traits that the bad boy skirt chasing A-Rod has never excelled at no matter how hard he tried throughout the years. Not making any excuses for Ortiz here, but these points are something to think about as they are not often brought up concerning the various reactions around baseball that revolve around these steroid tainted players. Ortiz' production fell off the map for a while big time not so long ago. The guy appears trimmer now and just as he was being written off as a slugger on the downside he had a career rebirth at an advanced age this year. Now pitchers can't get him out regularly in any sequence. Even when they continue the well worn routine of pitching him down and away to keep him from extending the arms he still frustrates them no end. Coincidence? At this point who knows, but it is indeed an eyebrow raiser that Ortiz never seemed to have a career setback or even a serious publicity issue stemming from the steroid issues.
That said, this still doesn't make A-Rod come out looking any cleaner in the wash either. I didn't read the Davidoff piece but I'll have to catch up and read it at some point before I comment on it further. I'm not a rooter for the Red Sox in the slightest as you and anyone else who has ever read this thread knows, but I do give them credit for retooling a team that was in shambles last year under a disasterous short term Bobby Valentine regime and turning things completely around the way they did in just one year.
They shipped a lot of expensive free agent busts out west to L A, quickly cleared a bloated payroll, and added some veterans with an upbeat attitude to a mix that eventually would lead them to a title. And their starting pitching and bullpen which had fallen apart under Valentine's watch was solidified. Their bullpen was outstanding. They went and got the manager they always wanted who knew the Red Sox organization, John Farrell, who was then in Toronto to replace the fired Valentine. Right off the chemistry improved dramatically. Night and day. Players who to a man despised Bobby Valentine welcomed Farrell back to their team with open arms. As I said previously some posts back, a lot of GM's around baseball are looking long and hard at how the Boston front office turned this franchise that was in decline back around in record time. Many of them are currently in the same leaky boat that Boston was in just last year. The 2013 Red Sox as a team are a case study that front offices around baseball will be analyzing for years to come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 31, 2013 - 10:19 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Eric Paddon
(Member)
|
Fair points made, Anz. I won't question the savvy of a new manager and the changes made last off-season though it has to be acknowledged that without their Powerball Lottery ticket in the form of that trade with the Dodgers which was a one in a zillion shot, they aren't in position to win and have to manage a series of bad contracts as the Mets have been forced to do.
And yes, there's no question Ortiz has cultivated this nicer image than A-Rod but so too did Andy Pettitte as an upright family man, and yet he too found himself assailed by these same writers who have all but taken him off the table as a HOF candidate notwithstanding that he deserves consideration. 256 wins may not seem like enough to some but its higher than other HOF pitchers, and also consider that he put in the equivalent of a full season in postseason competition and was in effect a 20 game winner. Also, since he was on all of the Yankee pennants from 96-09 and had an extra one in Houston, he is the only player in all of major league baseball since Mickey Mantle to have played on as many as eight pennant winning teams. Yet the image of being a "phony" has dodged Pettitte a lot more than it ever did Ortiz.
I agree A-Rod shouldn't be seen as cleaner beacuse of Bosch. But if say, there had been no Bosch scandal and A-Rod's career ended with *just* the 2003 list, then there is no way you could say Ortiz deserved the HOF and A-Rod didn't under that standard.
But where my anger with the media over their coddling of Ortiz really gets me is how these writers have spent so much time running down the history of the game from the 90s on as "{tainted", they have spilled so much ink about how these players from that era disgraced the game and it has even led writers like Mike Lupica (one of the most dishonorable men in the history of the profession) to engage in campaigns to try and get Roger Clemens jailed over steroids. I mean it was unbelievable to me how this encouragement of seeing the Federal government's money wasted on a criminal trial of Clemens over what he said to Congress about using steroids was somehow considered a more important matter than what many men who have not been prosecuted by this same Justice Department have done that by all rational standards was far worse. But here, all alone, we have David Ortiz the one guy who we can't hold to the same standards and ask tough questions about. It boggles the mind.
And yes, I do believe these guys are trying to protect the sacrosanct status of Red Sox Nation and 2004 on one level. This is why the Mitchell Report was the ultimate case of the fix being in by having a Red Sox part owner head the investigation who conveniently failed to uncover the fact that Manny Ramirez was a serial user of the first order, yet who managed to give Red Sox fans their pound of flesh by outing former Red Sox who had left Boston on bad terms like Clemens and Mo Vaughn and coming up with as many names as possible who had Yankee connections to let Red Sox fans cackle for the better part of a year or two about how "tainted" the Yankee dynasty had been until the matter of Ramirez forced them to shut up on that point and once Ortiz was named you basically had the entire offensive backbone of that team called into question (the only two Red Sox players from that team I consider genuine Hall Of Famers are Schilling and Pedro Martinez. Martinez is unlike Ortiz, a case of a rival I hated but respected completely on all levels). MLB has made too much money off Red Sox Nation and 2004 to risk seeing that stigmitized for all time like the McGwire-Sosa chase (though Sosa of course is another case of a guy who never failed a test yet is considered out of the HOF)
Ortiz may or may not ever be outed as a repeat user, but if he is put in the Hall of Fame based on where he is now, then those same writers better make sure that Clemens and Bonds who were better players, get in as well or otherwise they've tainted the HOF as an institution by showing that being a pet of the writers matters more than anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RIP Johnny Kucks, Yankee pitcher of the 1950s whose greatest moment was a complete game shutout of the Dodgers in Game 7 of the 1956 World Series, the last "Subway Series" game until 2000.
Fewer and fewer remain from the "Golden Age".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 8, 2013 - 12:20 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ANZALDIMAN
(Member)
|
The Mets are going to look to improving at shortstop, and will once again try to add an outfielder with some pop amongst other moves. Unless something major comes along (like bringing R. A. Dickey back from Toronto at a reduced rate  ) I think the Mets are going to go into next season with the starting rotation they already have. And it's a decent one. Minus of course, their star ace Matt Harvey who will not be available for the entire 2014 season due to Tommy John surgery. Harvey by his very presence would have elevated that staff tremendously. But they must work within the confines of what they have in 2014. The Mets will rely once again on a rotation of Jonathon Niese, Zack Wheeler, and Dillon Gee, with a competition in spring training for the fourth spot while they wait for the young flamethrower Noah Syndergaard to be ready to come up at some point. Torres may be in that mix, and possibly another journeyman veteran brought in from the outside.
I would not be surprised to see the Mets test the waters for Peralta's services. Shortstop is glaring need since Ruben Tejada nosedived last year. But I think even with the money that has been freed up with the contracts of Johan Santana and Jason Bay off the payroll Peralta's asking price will be too steep. Especially after his return showing in post season play this year. He increased his value dramatically in a short span of time. If I were GM Sandy Alderson, I'd steer clear of the obvious free agent outfield choices like Boston's Jacoby Ellsbury. One thing the Mets don't need is to overpay long term once again for another 31 year old outfielder who has had inflated power numbers in the past and that may be on the downside. Jason Bay's contract disaster after he departed Boston left such a bad taste behind after the Mets were forced to eat it that not even the best prescription mouthwash could remedy that situation. Alderson has just climbed out from under a lot of dead wood and he's too smart a businessman to not think things through long and hard. There will now be some money available, but he will be cautious as to how and where he spends it. Buyer beware. Many Mets fans (including myself) wanted him to pull the trigger on signing Gold Glove outfielder Michael Bourn last winter. That didn't happen for various reasons and Bourn for all the big money the Indians paid him after the Mets bowed out had a subpar year in Cleveland. As the old saying goes, sometimes the best trades (or free agent signings) are the ones you don't make at all.
Veteran Marlon Byrd who was traded by the Mets to the Pirates for their playoff stretch run is a free agent and would come much more cheaply and he has shown an interest in coming back to New York. He liked his stay with the Mets and has said so numerous times. He was down on his luck and Alderson gave him a chance and Byrd ran with it. But at 36, he's still not the answer long term even though he put up career numbers between the two teams in 2013. He's at best a fall back option provided he doesn't sign elsewhere quickly. But Byrd, as he showed this season has needed power from the right side and has an adequate glove in right field and he'll probably only be seeking (and will only be offered at most) a two year deal. Curtis Granderson will get a lot of interest from teams looking for a power bat in the outfield. But like Ellsbury, he's no spring chicken either and he'll also be looking for a long term commitment at A list big money. Given his recent 40 homer production with the Yankees, Granderson will certainly garner a lot of attention. The Yankees will probably still be in the running to keep him. A key left handed power bat perfectly suited to drive the ball into the short porch in that home run hitters ballpark. His loss due to various injuries was a major cause of the power outage that was sorely felt in their lineup last year.
First base is still a question mark. I think either Lucas Duda or Ike Davis will be shopped around in trades. Both underperformed big time last year and I think one or the other will go to free up the log jam at first. Duda is best suited (if he can somehow ever harness that elusive Adam Dunn like power stroke of his) to an American League team as a DH. Somebody with an inviting right field porch will take a chance on that lefty power potential. He still strikes out way too much, and sticks out as a liability defensively wherever you put him in the field. Of the two, I think Duda is the player the Mets will likely try to move for young prospects. Davis is a solid first baseman with still a world of potential offensively as he's shown in the past but the Mets patience is wearing thin waiting for him to start jacking balls out to right and right-center again the way he did when he first arrived. The lack of production in the heart of the lineup from those two alone recently has dropped the curtain on many a potential rally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
