« Phils Deal With JoBo Nixed | Main | Jays Sign Clayton »

J.D. Drew Deal Details

Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald reports that J.D. Drew will receive four guaranteed years from the Red Sox at $14MM annually.  The fifth year is expected to be an option.

That is a lot of money for a player with Drew's health history.  The contract will take him through his age 34 season.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference J.D. Drew Deal Details:


I know a lot of people are against this deal from the Red Sox's point of view. I, however, think that while $14MM may be a lot considering his injury history, his numbers are going to be steady enough to protect David Ortiz (or Manny Ramirez, depending on the trade possibilities.) Drew in Fenway Park would also be very beneficial for 81 games. 100 RBI to go with 20 HR last year with the Dodgers could translate very well in Boston. I think it's a very good signing, despite the high cost.

$4MM a year less then GMJ? And for one less season? Makes sense to me. It's high, but in this market I think it's a good signing. And DocCurveball is right...Drew could put up some great numbers in Fenway park.

I meant $4MM a year more then GMJ...my bad.

what the heck do you mean 4MM less than GMJ? 14 Million a year, while GMJ is getting 10MM. So 4MM more. In this market, not bad, but for a person with a huge injury history, its a bad deal.

Drew at Fenway could be lethal because he knows how to use the whole field, as opposed to a guy like Nixon who never really learned how to use the Monster. Drew could see his average climb significantly at Fenway.

im a sox fan i like drew in fenway his on base is good and the sox like guys that are on base machines think kevin youkilis. good deal on there part

Its about an average deal considering the market, Intresting considering the whole Dodgers situation

But I thought the other day, with Nomar, Derek Lowe with the Dodgers, Sure Theo and co. used some backroom channels to find out the inside view.

If healthy, IF - this is a great deal for Boston.

Given the insanity of this offseason, Drew at $14M seems like a sane investment to me.

One thing also to consider here is that Drew will play right field most likely, and he had to be the only free agent outfielder out there (besides Nixon of course) this year that can be relied upon to patrol Fenway's hellacious right field.

Of course, they are mostly paying him for his offense, and I expect him to do well in Fenway as Doctor said above. Anyone who watched the team last year knows how the Sox failed offensively down the stretch.

Yesterday Buster Olney said the Sox were "at the 5 yard line" in regards to signing Lugo. Should that happen, and Manny is traded, this is what the Sox everyday lineup could be:

SS Lugo
CF Crisp
DH Ortiz
RF Drew
LF Pena
1B Youkilis
3B Lowell
C Varitek
2B Pedroia

And that's assuming the Sox don't get a player of Kemp/LaRoche/Loney offensive-caliber in the Manny deal. If Coco can revert back to his 2005 form, and Youk continues to develop some powers, everyone in that lineup has the potential to hit at least 15-20 homers besides Lugo and Pedroia.

But those are all big ifs.

also seeing on ESPN that the Jays have signed Royce Clayton, which would take them out of the Lugo sweepstakes.


please trade manny to the dodgers and come callin for andruw with a couple of their prospects namely broxton either and crisp you can keep loney move youk back to 3rd and trade lowell for some bullpen help unless the dodgers are willing to give up penny either and broxton for andruw but with pierre signin doesn't look like that will happen unless pierre moves to left

damn that might take toronto out as an option for m. giles

Huge injury history? He hasn't had a regular injury since 2003. I don't count getting hit by a pitch and breaking a wrist as indicative of a chronic inability to stay healthy. And no, he won't play 162 games, but I'm perfectly fine with 145 after dealing with last year's RF all season.

And once again...GMJ got $10MM a year. A guy who's breakout season is worse then Drew's career averages. A guy who's been in the league just as long as Drew, but has still played 85 fewer games. A guy with a career .755 OPS compared to Drew's .904. Again, an extra $4MM a year seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If they deal Manny, they're more or less guaranteed a player of LaRoche, Loney, or Kemp's talent. Otherwise they either wouldn't make the trade, or are getting back nothing but fantastic young pitching instead of talented offensive players.

Hood, if Boston gets Broxton, he's not going to Atlanta. Sorry to break the news. Course, I'd be shocked if they got Broxton...

Desturbd beat me to it but if the sox get Broxton he would probaly be there closer not a brave

Wily Mo

That would be my top 4.

If Manny is there, drop Manny is the #3 slot and move Wily Mo down.

I know others want to bat Drew #5, but my personal preference is to put him in the 2 slot to leverage his OPS and speed.

The idea of that lineup with Matsuzaka on the mound facing the Yankees with Chien Ming Wang on the mound is pretty nuts.

2007 is going to be a fun year.

I don't like Drew hitting 5. Put him in the 2-hole where he belongs.

Of course, without Manny, Drew would likely HAVE to bat fifth. This is of course disregarding what hitters Boston would get for Manny.

SS Lugo
CF Crisp
DH Ortiz
RF Drew
LF Pena
1B Youkilis
3B Lowell
C Varitek
2B Pedroia

wow! that's good enough for third place!

And in this market I would like to add he is a bargain he is making just 1 million more then Damon per season and he is better.

Good deal by Boston

yeah i know but i could wish hey if they get broxton the braves could throw in giles and red sox can throw in lowell thats what makes the andruw to red sox hard they are dealin wit a teams bullpen who sucks worse than the braves

Not only did we agree, bsox21, but almost in unison.

I think it's more realistic under the circumstances that Drew would have to hit in the middle of the order. He would be a fantastic #2 hitter if the Sox offense was that deep, but it doesn't look like that's going to be an option if Manny goes elsewhere.

Coco had an awesome year hitting behind Sizemore in 2005, and that's where the Sox would like to see him start next year if Lugo is signed. If he relapses into his 2006 lousyness, then I think it would be Youkilis that goes to either leadoff or 2nd and still not Drew.

J.D Drew is a worthless piece of *(#&. If I have to see a great human being like Trot leave, and be replaced by that human catastrophe, the heckling that Gary Sheffield had to hear when at Fenway will pale in comparison.

i am a brave fan and drew is not a 2 hitter they tried him there and it wasn't workin thats when they moved him down to 3rd through 5th and he started producin his best season at that red sox got a good ball player i really like him the injury thing is a little overrated againts him he plays hard

Optimal mixed with practical (since I don't really think, as much as I'd like to see it, Drew will bat #2 with a lack of power in the middle) lineup for the Sox--


Really, Drew and Ortiz can be switched here, since I don't think many pitchers would fear Pena on deck while facing Ortiz, so the idea of protection is lost (Of course, Pena could hit 30 HRs). But the idea of Drew being on base for Ortiz, instead of vice versa, was too tempting to me.

I think it's somewhat moot, anyway. It's still an effective 3-4. The main thing to point out is that Youkilis has a better career OBP than Lugo, so I wouldn't have him leading off. Lowell and Lugo have near identical career OBPs, so I opted for Lowell's increased power in the 6 spot.

Again-- Depending on what hitters Boston gets for Manny, this could all be moot.

Here's my argument....

You have a guy who gets on base 40% of the time, and he has solid speed and is a smart abserunner as well.

If your lineup up is deep, bat him #2 regardless of how deep ur lineup is because:

1) Having people on base forces pitchers to pitch to your sluggers just as much as a strong hitter behind them.

2) If ur lineup isnt deep, then who is going to drive Drew in when he's getting on base at a 40% clip?


no way they bat 2 lefties back to back.

If they did that, Drew and Ortiz would never see a righty past the 6th inning for the whole season.

good argument but numbers aren't everything i just remember him not bein comfortable in the 2 hole especially when furcal was on base maybe the red sox aren't a threat to steal like furcal was but a 2 hitter is a situational hitter its not all about numbers with the 2 hole or the 6 hole for that matter i would bat him 3rd and let papi protect him he is that good of a hitter to me and in the 2 hole he will waste to many ab's


like i said, if u bt drew and papi back to back, they will never face a righty pitchr in the 7th inning or later for the whole season.

Bsox21, I did forget the disclaimer that my lineup didn't take into account righty/lefty. Which is of course a big thing to take into account.

Hood, I think it's worth it to see if Drew's comfort level has changed with A) a new team/new lineup, B) 3 years removed from Atlanta. And #2 isn't really what I'd call a "situational" hitter-- The only real situation they have to face is moving the leadoff runner over. The job of #2 is basically the same job of #1, which is to get on base for the guys behind you.

I would never tell Drew to take pitches for Lugo or bunt.

My instructions for Drew in the #2 slot would be:

1) If there's a rnuner on second and u fall behind in the count, try to hit a ground ball to the right side,

In EVERY other situation:

2) Just be JD Drew.

you are right about that lefty/righty thing bsox now nick let me give you a situation you give me an answer leadoff man gets a double bottom of the sixth the 2 hole comes up now what do you look for him to do first and foremost


u left out lots of variables.

1) What's the score?

2) Who is the other team's pitcher?

3) HOw good is the other team's offense/bullpen?

4) Where am I in the standings?

5) Who is pitching for me?

6) How good is my lineup/pen?

7) Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

All these things are important in deciding what to do in that situation.

You guys are right that Drew SHOULD be batting 2nd. I actually agree with your 1-4, though I'm not sure who I'd bat 5th. I guess it would depend on who from the Crisp, Lugo, (if he's here) Lowell group shows they can handle it. As for Drew's discomfort in the 2-hole, some guys don't like hitting with a SB threat on base. Kevin Youkilis is not a SB threat, so like Nick says, his job will be to get on base/move the runner...which plays to his strengths anyway.

But he won't be hitting 2nd. I was pleasantly surprised when Boston realized that Youk deserved to lead off...I'm just not particularly optimistic that they'll notice Drew should bat in the 2-hole. In an ideal, not semi-plausible world...Crisp gets back onto his 2004-2005 track, and leads off with Youk batting 2nd. Ortiz hits 3rd, WMP 4th, and then Drew 5th. Yes, I realize teams will be tempted to walk Ortiz to get to Pena...but I think Pena's going to have a breakout year.

Plus, don't forget that if Manny's gone...Boston's gonna get something. Something pretty good, even. Either they take in a bounty of pitching, or at least 1 ML ready bat and 1-2 who are close. So this lineup isn't really set yet...

the best 2 hole hitters were not superstars they have to do the little things you can protect a lineup with a sound 2 hitter take pitches sacrafice move runners over steal occasional base but most important hit a fast ball its a tough spot in a lineup if it is basically the same as leadoff why do 2 hole hitters struggle when asked to hit leadoff for extended periods of time

"In an ideal, not semi-plausible world..."

I meant in an ideal, semi-plausible world. Forget the "not."

The Red Sox should:

1) Deal Manny for Juan Rivera and any solid arm the Angels are willing to give up. (single A, AA, AAA, MLB, doesn't matter.)

2) Sign Schmidt.

3) Leave Papelbon in the pen.

4) Print playoff tickets.

whatever all the variables are his job is to get the runners over for the meat of the order plain and simple all this number crunchin baseball is a simple game i would go with him battin 5th that was where he was most successful but i'm not a red sox fan so it doesn't matter

J.D Drew is an excellent hitter...imagine how sick this lineup would be if the DIDN'T trade Manny...


if i'm down 3 or more runs, and my leadoff guy gets on in the 6th inning, i am not:

1) asking my #2 hitter to do anything but try to egt on base.

2) wasting outs to advance a runner.


That is NOT an option. Unless you're accusing the Red Sox, Papelbon himself, and the doctors who treated him of either lying or not knowing what they're talking about...

And Schmidt has said, numerous times, that he won't pitch for anybody on the east coast. So short of paying him $20MM a year to change his mind, I don't really think that's an option either.

Further, Rivera and some random arm aren't close to enough. I expect good things from him too...but I also think 2-3 of the Dodgers' top ML-ready prospects sounds like a better move.

1) Show me where Schmidt is quioted as saying he wont pitch on the East coast.

He hasn't said it in the pbulic at all. That would be the dumbest thing he could do to his market value.

There is speculation he feels that way. THATS IT.

2) Obivously this is all contingent on agreeing with Schmidt first.

3) Juan Rivera isgona break out HUGE in 2007.

If the Angels take Manny's full salary, Juan Rivera and an arm is FINE for Manny.

to long to explain i just know from watchin drew the 2 spot is wastin a good bat you make good points in a perfect world you snatch up a.jones from the braves and bat him 4th drew 5th or wherever they want him that would be a monster lineup either way

If they use some of what they get for manny to trade for a right handed hitter capable of batting 4th or keep manny I think the best lineup would put drew 3rd and ortiz 5th. I would bat youk second.


i understand where ur coming from. i like drew batting third too, problem is, they have papi.

I would deal Manny for Juan Rivera, and then use the following:

Wily Mo

That would be absolutely ferocious.

haven't seen enough of youk but i know coco was very successful in the 2 hole 1 lugo 2 coco 3 papi 4 pena 5 drew 6 youk 7 lowell 8 varitek 8 pedoria

My bad...he hasn't said it publicly himself, but those around him/ML officials have said all along that Schmidt won't be leaving the West. But there's still no real reason to expect him to come to the East Coast...

Make it Manny for Rivera and Scot Shields, with LAA taking Manny's full salary, and then we have something.

Being a Yankees fan I love the fact that Bosox are trying to deal Manny. That being said, Sox are making the biggest mistake in doing so! Reguardless of "Manny being Manny" he is by far the "best", "most dangerous" hitter in the game today.Definitly over the last 6- 7 yrs & Arguably in the top 10 to 20 of all time! The sox already have a top rotation with schill, matz (granted they sign him), papelbon, beckett and Wakefield! with plenty of young guys in system with an upside. By no means is a JD Drew going to pickup close to what the sox lose in trading Manny, let alone the fact it will let teams pitch around ortiz making him lesser of a threat. And the speculation of flipping guys for say an andrew jones is alot of hype. a jones will be demanding 20+ million a year after next yr as well. The sox focus should now be soley on a top closer and a middle inf. Sign Lugo and try to trade Willy mo and a pitcher for someone like Lidge! But enough suggestions for the Sox... LOL... Go Yankees & Good Riddance Manny!!!!

We are well aware of Manny's status as an elite hitter, etc. etc. But he'll be gone in 2 years...and now is the best opportunity to get something out of him.

As for a trade's short-term impact, the question is this: Will WMP + whatever Boston gets for Manny = his potential contribution? And keep in mind Manny's age and (supposed) knee problems last season. My feeling is that it's entirely possible that, with the right trade, Boston could be a better team without him.

And screw Brad Lidge...WMP for Lidge would be a hosing.


That would be fine.

There are prolly 10 playesr I'd take with Juan Rivera to do the deal.

The Angels system is stacked.


You're right, but I think if the Sox can get at least a Juan Rivera type, then the offense can be good enough to win.

Ur right about Drew vs Manny.

Drew couldnt even whipe Manny's ass.

"..with the right trade, Boston could be a better team without him."

i disagree; with no Manny, the offensive dynamic would change big time, and i think the Red Sox would be a third place team


3rd place is a bit harsh dont u think?

I agree, manny cannot be replaced and u lose something big.

I still think they can build an offense that's good enough tho....

"3rd place is a bit harsh dont u think?"

1) i think Manny's a tremendous hitter, and the Red Sox would lose a lot more than you would think

2) Ortiz's numbers ALSO would suffer, because without Manny as the next batter, Ortiz would be walked a lot more

3) ask yourself why Yankees' fans are so happy at the notion that Manny would be traded

4) at the start of the 2006 season i predicted the Red Sox to finish in third place (and i was right); the way it's looking so far, i'd have to say that also for 2007

I know all about manny.

I say its' harsh becuz if u look at:

1) Added Matsuzaka, who baseball america rates a top 10 pitcher in the world, which is justified by most MLB translations.

2) Will add JD Drew.

3) Get Coco Crisp back.

4) Will get at least one awesome player back for MAnny.

Not as good as Manny, but should be a good player.

The addition of Matsuzaka alone, arguably makes up for most of the loss of Manny.

"i disagree; with no Manny, the offensive dynamic would change big time, and i think the Red Sox would be a third place team"

Yeah, Ortiz gets walked a lot more often. Big deal. That sort of worked when teams did it to Bonds because the rest of his team sucked. If the 4 guys surrounding Ortiz are good, then let them walk him, I really don't care. Assuming Pena and Drew perform, and I expect them to, giving Ortiz a .500-.600 OBP will not be a wise move. And if the guys ahead of him do their job, they won't always be able to just put Ortiz on base.

And yes, they need to address the bullpen. Which is, ideally, what a Manny-trade would help fix. Oh, and that Japanese lefty Boston's supposedly pretty close to signing, Hideki Okajima...he could be a nice, cheap addition, too.

And like I give a shit about what Yankee fans think about my team. The typical Yankee fan looks at every move Boston makes and tries to shit on it...Boston fans do the same with New York. It's tough to look objectively at a team you really hate.

...is this website posting backwards again?

Boston fans are going to hate JD Drew. Manny may be lazy in the field, but at least he gets the job done with his bat. JD Drew has no passion, no personality, just potential. Good luck to him, I hope for his and Boston's sake he stays healthy, I'd love to see them succeed. Just be warned Sox fans, this guy will drive you nuts.

"Boston fans are going to hate JD Drew. Manny may be lazy in the field, but at least he gets the job done with his bat. JD Drew has no passion, no personality, just potential."

Umm...Drew gets the job done with his bat, too...a .900 OPS and great defense isn't exactly something to sneeze at. Assuming he stays healthy, of course. And no, I'm not saying he's close to Manny's level...but I'd point out that Boston has absolutely no tolerance for failure, regardless of personality. See: Mark Bellhorn and Kevin Millar. At the end of the day, all they care about is performance.

"whatever all the variables are his [the #2 hitter's] job is to get the runners over for the meat of the order plain and simple"

Not true. It's to get on base for the meat of the order. I'd like to point out the obvious here: If the leadoff hitter is on base, and the #2 hitter gets on base, he has still most likely moved the leadoff hitter over.

Losing Manny = Losing one of the game's most dangerous hitters. I agree.
Losing Manny = A worse BoSox team. I disagree.

Keep in mind trading Manny gives you at least 2 things -- 1) a ML-ready batter who is projected to be well above league average in the years to come. Not only does this solidify the lineup (coupled with upgrading Drew over Nixon), it solidifies the lineup for LONGER YEARS than Manny could.

2) Almost definitely bullpen help. A better bullpen by far makes Boston a better team.

So I'm of the opinion that trading Manny is better for Boston.

Its Amazing if u look at stats of just the last 5 seasons since 2002 in what you lose in manny in taking drew!
Drew: g-598 r-371 h-560 hr-99 rbi-327 Avg-283

Manny: g-708 r-500 hr-818 hr-193 rbi-587 avg-319

I don't care what prospects you get or free agents you sign, Sox lose BIG TIME in dealing Manny!

Drew does have a way of being annoying.

He has a right to act however he wants. It's jus annoying taht a guy could be taht good and still look like he isnt trying and absolutely loving life.

And yes the posting is backwards somewhat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Big Star for 2/3 Youngsters usually work out for the team that gave away the Big Star? Colon for Sizemore/Lee/Phillips comes to mind.

Manny and Pedroia


Kendrick, J Rivera, Adenhart

Kendrick is going to win many batting titles.

This deal will look awesome for boston down the road.

"I don't care what prospects you get or free agents you sign, Sox lose BIG TIME in dealing Manny!"

Atta boy, ignore all logic! Piss on stats! Refuse to use facts to support an argument! Make a comparison that doesn't make any sense! (Drew isn't the only thing replacing Manny)

Keep up the good work!

If the Red Sox don't trade Manny, then Drew will improve their offense. The Red Sox lineup will be much tougher for any pitcher to deal with if both Manny and Drew are in it. If Manny is traded, then I think it becomes a net downgrade for Boston. Drew is not as scary to pitch to as Manny...plus history tells us he will be out of the lineup a lot. And if he is out, and Ramirez is no longer on the team, then the lineup will be fairly soft.
I have some questions about Drew's attitude, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in Boston. He seems sensitive to criticism, and he could face more than he has seen before, playing in Boston.

"Kendrick is going to win many batting titles."
Which is why--And I'm serious here--Scioscia would chew off his left nut to keep Kendrick on his team. He played him at 1B a little bit last year just to get him in the lineup.

"And if he [Drew] is out, and Ramirez is no longer on the team, then the lineup will be fairly soft"
Softer, yes. But the rotation will be giving up less runs. And if Manny is no longer on the team, we can assume the Sox have a good closer. So, if (IF) the lineup takes a hit (and it's still an if), the pitching will counter that.

People look at the loss of Manny as if the Red Sox will drop him. Trades usually see a return.

take it from me the red sox better adress the bullpen if the braves had a half way decent bullpen last year (wickman the whole year) we win the world series with that pathetic card team that won it


Here's the conversation:

Me: Mike, we traded Kendrick.

Scoscia: Are u crazy? For what?!?! We better have gotten BABE RUTH!!

Me: Close, we got Manny Ramirez.

Scoscia: ummm....ok.

by the way, scoscia would haev his cock in his hand as soon as he heard thathe just got manny.

Most coaches would love that news, yes (especially since coaches are not the FO, and don't care about the contract). But Scioscia loves Hendrick. And so do the rest of the Angels. It's just my opinion, but I don't see it happening. I'd liken it to the Yankees trading Cano for Manny.

And Mike Scioscia masturbating...thanks so much for trying to conjure up that image.

I don't like the idea of giving up on 2007, which is what trading Manny for Rivera, Kendrick, and Adenhart would be doing. I mean yeah, in a few years it could well look fantastic...but Adenhart's still a long, long ways off, and Boston needs bullpen help now. Plus I can't help but wonder why the 20-year-old Adenhart still hasn't conquered A+ ball...

Make it Shields instead of Adenhart, and maybe kick the Angels $5MM if they complain. Nice combination of saving for the future while trying to win today.


Juan Rivera is going to explode in 2007.

Not as good as Manny, but we're talking .310 avg, 35 HRs, .900 OPS.

Mark my words.

If you say so...

Unless you know more then the Angels, if that's at all likely, then why even bother trading him...

Bsox, any deal where the any team ends up with Kendrick is a win for that team. He's going to win batting titles from now until he stops playing. That's why the Angels would never trade him. Nick, I don't think its the same as Cano for Manny but its pretty close.

What people need to understand about the Sox point of view on this: there's probably a lot of crap brought up by Manny that has not become public, and that's most of what's preempting this move. Terry Francona isn't the type to call someone out publicly, but he was afraid that if he did say something about his antics that they would "lose him." It's the same reason why some of his more outspoken teammates (Schilling) haven't said anything either.

Once he is gone, we'll know alot more about what has happened and I think most Sox fans will be happy he's outta here. But it's not like theyre trading him just for the shit of it.


Adenhart is coming off surgery. Slowed his progress a bit.

He'll be solid down the road.

A future #3 or #4 starter.

People are forgetting that baseball is a long-term game. Yeah, of course Boston's lineup will be weaker without Manny, but he's gone in two years anyways and at least we get something back for him. We need to think of the franchise, not just 2007.

Please, for the love of God, stop the Manny for Juan Rivera discussions. The Angels aren't trading for Manny, but even if they did, it would involve Ervin Santana and/or Scot Shields. Brandon Wood would be nice as well. If Manny goes, I see him going to LAD or SD, or in a 3-way deal with SF and someone else. Personally, I'd prefer a Peavy/Linebrink deal, but I don't see the Pads biting on that one, and rightfully so.

Sox are building a pitching and defense oriented team. And since pitching and defense win championships, they are willing to take a short-term hit to the offense.

There's other stuff I meant to comment on, but I can't remember at this point. I'll post later if I do.


Because Manny sells tickets like few others in baseball can.

TV rights would go through the roof with a combo of Vlad and Manny.

They have plenty of youth, so age isn't an issue.

Even tho Juan Rivera will go berzerk, Manny is still better.

"Adenhart is coming off surgery. Slowed his progress a bit.

He'll be solid down the road.

A future #3 or #4 starter."

OK, good for him. But Boston also already has Buchholz, Bowden, and Danny Bard...who is particularly exciting. I know, can never have too much young pitching...but I'd still rather have a reliever then another possible starter who's still 2-3 years off.

Anyway I still think papi is right...if Manny's going anywhere, it's the other LA.

I'm still not convinced that Manny gets traded this year. I could see the Sox signing Drew and Lugo, which would give them a killer offense if Manny is still there.

I think they hang on to Manny because this could be a "go for it" year for the Sox. Schilling is gone after next year, and Wakefield might be gone as well. I think they might go for the WS this year, then trade Manny to free up cash to sign a player like Andruw Jones, Carlos Zambrano, or Vernon Wells. I'm just not convinced they want to deal him yet, unless they get absolutely blown away.

well said, papi. Theo would not have come back to the Sox unless the team adopted his philosophy of making good longterm decisions as opposed to quick fixes.

I think the Sox have a chance to put together a great team for many years to come without having to spend lots of money on free agents, especially on their pitching staff (Buchholz, Bowden, Bard, Cox, etc).

As for all the Rivera stuff, I think he's a fine player and his 2nd half numbers bode well for a great 2007, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense for the Sox to trade for him.

I think in terms of position players coming back in a Manny deal they'll go for infielders. If they get an outfielder (Kemp perhaps) they would probably flip him for a closer or other bullpen help. They'll be set next year with Drew, Coco, WMP and probably Murphy as the 4th guy.

Why would you trade Manny a Drew manny Ortiz would be better than anything you can trade manny for Schil Mat and Beckett and Paps should be enough to get to the playoffs trade Willy mo to stupid Bowden for something.


They are as likely to acquire Rivera as they are Santana.

desturbd1, Its hard to argue with an ignorant asswipe who thinks what he's posting is the gospel. I was merely trying to show the TREMENDOUS DROP OFF you get in production in dealing Manny and signing Drew! Yes I understand they are getting players back, but now a days the sox have turned into a team like the Yanks in wanting to win "Now" at any cost and to me dealing Manny isn't in my opinion a smart deal. Sox will most likley get prospects and or a good pitcher back. All signs say it will be Dodgers or Padres so even with prospects and a peavy or a penny in a deal doesnt help as much as losing Manny hurts! Sox all ready have arguably one of the best rotations on paper for the 2007 season. So to me at the moment starters is not the priority. and no matter who you get back as far as a bat whether in the trade or signing another free agent isn't going to add up to what Manny gives! I'd rather have Manny in my line up then an of of crisp drew pena/ or kemp/repko- 1b loney/gonzalez etc...( by the way I agree Manny is not getting dealt to the Angels so all should drop the speculation). But since you know it all my opinion must be wrong! Cya Chud!

Wily mo isn't a bad pick up for anyone.

He would fit on MANY teams in MLB right now.

I don't necessarily agree with the sox moving towards a more defensive program, if they had wanted to maintain an amazing defense, they would have undoubtedly kept Gonzo going. And by losing him and replacing him with a Lugo, we sacrifice those amazing defensive plays for more power out put. J.D. Drews signing would support your argument towards the defensive, but he seems like a perfectly balanced player (minus the apparent attitude) that would fit in any orginization. I think there is more of a focus on offensive players so far, simply to replace Manny (who wasn't that terrible of a fielder, he knew every knook and cranny of the Monster). I, however, do not agree with trading many for a pitcher, because we already have a sound rotation, and by the time schil retires, Lester or some other inexpensive cat will replace him. As previously mentioned in another post the Sox farm is going to harvest an amazing group of guys who know how to pitch, though Clay Buchholz is in his second year of just pitching (converted outfielder i believe).


You don't say anything that the most casual fan doesnt know.

Manny is better than young undeveloped players.

Great job. Thanks for the insight.

"I'd point out that Boston has absolutely no tolerance for failure, regardless of personality. See: Mark Bellhorn and Kevin Millar. At the end of the day, all they care about is performance."

Fine, but what Boston fans will see are the times when Drew could have performed but didn't because he doesn't try. Sure Drew will put up pretty good numbers if he stays healthy, but regardless of what his numbers are he could be doing so much better, and that is what has plagued him his entire career. As a Dodger fan, I'm very aware of this. There were few JD Drew fans in LA when he was at his best. You're missing my point completely.


Manny has expressed PUBLICLY a desire to stay in the AL.

Your blabbering about what you THINK is the case doesn't present a stronger case than Manny stating EXPLICITLY that he wants to stay in the AL.

Given that, Anaheim SCREAMS out as a trade partner.

"I was merely trying to show the TREMENDOUS DROP OFF you get in production in dealing Manny and signing Drew!"

And you did that...if Boston wasn't getting anything back for Ramirez...and that's all your earlier post, which I made fun of, did.

Once again...it comes down to whether or not the Manny-Return + WMP = Manny's production. You're ignoring the possibility of using Ramirez to improve the offense in other places, and to improve the pen.

All I said was it was stupid to say, "Drew's worse then Manny so the Red Sox are WAAAAY worse if they trade Ramirez." Which is what you seemed to say.

exactaly bosox 21 so why trade him for prospects when you want to win in 2007!

"Fine, but what Boston fans will see are the times when Drew could have performed but didn't because he doesn't try. Sure Drew will put up pretty good numbers if he stays healthy, but regardless of what his numbers are he could be doing so much better, and that is what has plagued him his entire career. As a Dodger fan, I'm very aware of this. There were few JD Drew fans in LA when he was at his best. You're missing my point completely."

I'm not missing your point...I just don't really get the logistics. How do you know when he isn't trying? Is it when he doesn't run out a grounder? (Manny does that ALL the time) Or is it when someone comes out with a story bashing him? I'm not trying to be a dick now, I'm just wondering.

desturbd1 dont get me wrong if your a dodgers fan I'm glad for you its great if you get Manny! In fact I want him gone so yankees dont have to face him, I just think its a bad move for the Sox!

A few reasons:

1) The clubhouse: I don't buy the whole bit about Manny being a problem. I'm sure he has good reason for asking to be traded.

Pedro hated the media there too, and he has been nothing but the King of New York since he's come to Shea.

Anyways, they have made enough moves to win without Manny.

2) Matsuzaka: With the addition of Drew, it lightens the blow.

The addition of Matsuzaka ensures they are a contender already even without Manny.

Matsuzaka turns a weak Beckett as a #2 into a solid Beckett as a #3.

That's HUGE.

3) They finished 3rd without Crisp. They get Crisp back too.

4) Wily Mo: Wily Mo is ready to contribute as a full time player.

Leaving him on the bench is wasted value.

By transfering Manny's value to address another weakness or to prepare for a better future, leverages your resources better because now Wily Mo is banging HRs instead of keeping the bench warm.

Why are you so eager to see Manny leave? You're talking about splitting up the most dynamic duo in all of baseball.

The whole JD Drew replacing Manny is whacked. Drew had a .393 OBP. Whoopdy frickin doo.

Manny had a .321 AVG in 2006 with a .432 OBP, 35 hrs, 102 RBIs, and a .619 slugging percentage.

Drew had a .283 avg in 2006 with a .393 OBP, 20 HRs, 100 RBIs and a .498 slugging percentage. granted, he scored 12 more runs, but that probably had something to do with the 45 extra at-bats. And he's considered a better baserunner.

Here's the matchup
Hitting skils: amazing, makes you drool
patience at plate: he had 100BB, so...
defensive skills: less than negligible
defense playing the wall: I don't know. he led the league in outfield assists in 05.
Against Yankees:
IN 15 Games against the Bronx bombers Manny
hit .556, hit 7 hrs- one fifth of all of his hrs, had an .667 OBP, had an 1.111 SLG %...

In other words, he beat the shit out of them.

JD Drew
Hitting skills: above average
Patience at plate: outstanding
Defense skills: very good, so I'm told

Both Manny and Drew are iffy in terms of work ethic... so... I don't know. Manny's a liability on defense, but hits like dream. Drew is great defensively, but can't hold a candle to Manny's hitting. In addition, Manny increases the value of Papi. When you trade Manny, you lessen the value of Ortiz.

Oh, and about the whole "Manny's knee was fine, he just gave up on us blah blah blah"- He hit .211 in September. When he played. Something was obviously bothering him. And no, it was not his "guilty" conscience. Probably an older knee. And some annoying fans.

And bsox, Manny's expressed a desire to stay in the AL...but who knows how serious he is? Also at one point, didn't he say he'd play for the Mets? Or was that just Pedro talking? I forget...anyway, he supposedly wants to go to an AL team in the West. That leaves 4 possible trading partners; Really, it only leaves 2 since Oakland and Seattle would never try for him. Wholly unreasonable. And who knows what his priorities are.

And Taylor, I'm a diehard Boston fan. I just really like Pena, and I think that with the right move, Boston could be a better team this year. That being said...I'd much rather hang onto him then trade him for peanuts just to get rid of him and his baggage.

The Angels aren't a trading partner because they wont part with who we want in the Manny deal. And wow! Manny said he wanted to stay in the AL! Big fucking shit. The Sox will make the trade that benefits the franchise most, not Manny Ramirez, and if he vetoes it, then whatever, we tried. I'm not catering to a player leaving our organization.

Manny is probably the best right handed hitter of his generation...when he decides to play. I hate to question an injury, but facts are facts: when guys like Mark Loretta were playing with their quads swollen twice their normal size, Manny essentially sat out the last five weeks of the season.

And because of his stature as a hitter, the Sox and their fans gave him a pass. But now, the team has decided to look to the future.

This perception that Sox only have a "win now" attitude is just plain wrong. They are balancing a need to win now with planning a team that can win without that urgency.

Drew isn't Manny, but here's a quote from Peter Gammons about Drew that no one would ever say about Manny:

"When he plays, he plays hard and does everything a right fielder is asked to do."



1) The Red Sox don't give a shit what you want.

2) The Angels don't give a shit what you want.

3) Manny doesn't give a shit what you want.

4) The Dodgers don't give a shit what you want.

My argument is based on Manny's publicly expressed wishes and the make up of the rosters of all the teams involved.

I've mentioned that the Sox's additions have addressed their need to compete for 2007 without Manny. I've mentioned that the Angels are loaded with the prospects to get a Manny Ramirez without mortgaging their future.

I've mentioned that the Anaheim market is primed for a guy like Manny.

Your argument is based on what you want.

I win bitch.

It's just that JD seems to do just enough to get by, which is OK I guess if you have that much talent, but people can see that he has what it takes to be much much better. I agree he's superior defensively to Manny, but like Manny he's highly unlikely to make a big play in the field. But because the ability to make the play is there, he doesn't get the same pass as Manny often does. JD will let a catchable ball drop rather than slide for it or sprint towards it. Maybe that is his way of protecting himself but I doubt it. Yes, Manny does the same thing, but what he does with his bat is beyond what Drew does. I don't know how to further describe it to you, but I can assure you it will be evident when you consistently see him play. There are two sides to Drew: one who flashes excellence, and one who looks like he is mentally somewhere else.

Can we stop quoting Peter Gammons?

The man is a blabbering fool.

His prospects NEVER pan out. It's worse than the Madden curse in football.

If Peter Gammons says good things about a prospect, one of these things will happen:

1) He will be injured 80% of his career.

2) He will never make the majors.

3) He will platoon with David Dellucci.

4) He will be driving a truck within 3 years.

The guy talks more shit than any baseball analysts on ESPN, and that is VERY difficult to do with morons like Jason Stark and John Kruk on the crew.

Not to change the subject but would like to hear what you guys think. I posted on another thread and didnt get too many responses. with speculation of Dontrelle going to yanks for melky h sanchez and possibly someone else. (which i know isn't happening cause marlins said not trading willis). I would like to see yanks go after a Top 1b they could have for years to come! Why not "try" to trade for Texaira??? i mean there were early rumors of him to pirates for gonzalez and duke or malhom. texas needs alot of help and have stated a willingness to del Texaira. Why not ship Melky, Humberto Sanchez and say a proctor or some other prospect or two to Rangers for him!

"Why are you so eager to see Manny leave? You're talking about splitting up the most dynamic duo in all of baseball."

As opposed to waiting for it to split itself up in 2 years, and get nothing in return. It's a business. You can't screw yourself for the future at the cost of (maybe) winning now. Instead, try to win now AND prepare for the future. That's why getting ML-ready young talent for Manny now is the best idea.

Who really knows what Manny wants?

After all his stuff about wanting to leave Boston it's entirely possible the team could put together a mega deal just to have Manny say "JUST KIDDING!! HA HA GOTCHA!" and it wouldn't surprise anyone.

Debating what Manny is going to do is useless.

Man if you're gonna ask a completely off-topic question, at least try to segway. Like, "Boy, I bet the Yanks would love to see Manny go. You know what else they'd love? To get a young first baseman..."

the dodgers fan on here that says he doesn't like drew i admit i haven't really watched the dodgers livin on the east coast but i am a braves fan and where he is injury prone you can get that but to say drew is lazy thats crazy he does alot of stuff nonchalant but so does a.jones i just think he is laid back and not intense as say a paul o'neill but red sox fans you are gettin a helluva ball player i'd take him over say abreu anyday

I won't say anymore on Drew never living up to his potential and not caring about baseball aside from this. In the book "3 Nights in August" there is a whole chapter dedicated to JD Drew which discusses this very issue.

One thing on defense.....

This board loves to jump on players like Manny and Sori for their defense....

Based on statistical analysis, you are lucky if going from Manny to Drew defensively wins you ONE MORE game over the course of a full season.

I hope you guys realize this.

So many of you spit out stats like VORP, OBP and my favorite, "Range Factor", but have no fucking clue how they are calculated or what they mean.

You will take a hitter that hits 20 less HRs for a player you PERCEIVE to have better defense.

I bet at least half of you have nevr watched a full game played by these players whom u say has "better defense".

Drew doesn't hold a candle to Manny, but he's not a bad fall back.

Adding MATSUZAKA isthe key to filling in for MAnny.

AS we all know, pitching wins baseball.

Simply dumping Manny's salary and handing it to Matsuzaka evens it out.

Couple that with getting Crisp back, Moving Wily Mo into the starting lineup and adding Drew makes the Sox a contender even if they get NOTHING for Manny.

bsox21, you don't win. Find me one person on this site who doesn't think you're a fucking idiot, then maybe I'll consider your rambling nonsense. I'm going to bed, so you have all night to search. Good luck.


why do u bother coming to a message board to tell us to stop analyzing these things.

Seriuosly...unless ur going to debate the topic, arent there 1000 better things to do?

Didn't I send u off to be a tennis fan already?


Great comeback.

Go to bed bitch.

"I bet at least half of you have nevr watched a full game played by these players whom u say has 'better defense'".

Well, I have, and I'll gladly point out defense is not one of the reasons I've been triumphing the sign-Drew-and-trade-Manny idea.

Before I head off, in response to the Dontrelle rumors, I don't see the Yanks getting him. And even if they did, I see him getting lit up in the AL East.

bsox21, my argument is not about what I want. Learn some comprehension and get back to me. Until you do, I will no longer acknowledge you.

drew over abreu? hardly!!! Abreu gives you an average of at least 150 games a year to drews 120 for one.

just heard from a friend in atl said on the radio saltamaccia is a center piece of a blockbuster trade bein talked about between braves and tigers they see him as a heir apperant to pudge first was talked about at the end of the last gm meetings looks like they are gonna be revisited

Bsox, I essentially agree with you, for once. The only thing is that Drew and Manny play different positions, and it's not about one replacing the other in that aspect. The difference has to do with Drew playing right field in Fenway as opposed to Pena, not Manny.

Pena didn't play over a full season in Boston in right field but at the moment he is not suited to play there. Drew profiles much better for what it's going to take. The nuances and terrain in right field at Fenway make it one of the most difficult positions to play in baseball.

I saw Juan Gonzalez botch what should have been a Pokey Reese double into a inside-the-park homer a few years ago, he had no idea what he was doing. It's more important than a non-Sox fan would think.

If the Sox are stuck with Pena in right as opposed to Drew it could very well cost them games.


u dont have to acknowledge me.

It only take one post to crush ur monkey little mind.

No way Drew is better than Abreu.

They are similar players, but if Abreu plays like he cares, like he did with the Yankees, he is one of the best players in the game.

well I thought things would be more civil tonight bsox but I guess not. I'm saying that trying to figure out what Manny is going to do would take the work of a psychoanalyst with a lot of time on his hand. It's better to talk about trade scenarios and stuff like that. People can talk about what they want to talk about, like making childish idiotic statements and insults, which is a marker you have cornered.

abreu is nowhere near the player he was when he was gettin 30/30 and there is a reason why the phillies started doin good when they let him go and at one point in time last year it looked like noone could beat the dodgers i would gladly take drew back to the braves maybe its the bobby cox factor with him bobby does seem to get the most outta players


i think the phillies started doing well becuz they moved howard in the lineup sohe could see pitches.

Those fucking morons in Philly had Howard batting 6th.

Howard also needed to go through the league once or twice to make adjustments before the Phillies decided to wait 2 years too long to promote him.

hood, come on you cant honestly believe drew is as good as abreu! There is only 1 yr age difference, abreu has bin as durable as they come playing in over 150 games for 10 straight yrs, has over 350 more rbis then drew in only 1 more full season played then drew has a 302 career average to drews 286 has 271 sb's to drews 74....... its not even close!

If the Sox traded Manny for Oswalt and signed Drew there would be 40 people on this board saying the Sox are going to the World Series.

Instead, if they dump Manny's salary and sign Matsuzaka, the Sox are giving up on 2007.

It's the same shit.

Matsuzaka is the same as Oswalt.

You think we could land Loney+Broxton?

I really have no idea what Manny is worth

Check this site out....... it's kind of funny...
I especially love the Dan Shaughnessy dig they got in there


i love how people say twice around the league pitchers will make adjustments to a young hitter howard did it all year and i watched (unlike alotta people on here) alotta baseball and howard moved up in the lineup LONG before abreu was traded there is a reason why with all that talent he has done nothing not like drew has done much more but i seen him first hand and if he plays (big if) 145-155 games he will put up great numbers and the team will be winners abreu just something about him he just never seemed to show up in a big game againts the braves but drew always seemed to come through for the braves and cards for that matter even when he made outs they seemed productive it just always seemed like abreu did work to the 4th and 5th spot in the rotation but like i said might be the bobby cox factor seems like guys succeed around him more than any manager in baseball

what you think about m.giles& h.ramirez to the rockies for j.jennings


howard was learning the pitchers and making adjustments to THEM not vice versa.

Also, Howard was always good. If you just discovered it last year, u were late to the game.

Me and many astute fantasy owners out there have been drooloing over howard for over TWO YEARS now. 3 in some cases.

Fact is, hitters get better the more they see the pitchers.

Howard was good the first half, great the second.

It was due to seeing better pitches and knowing the pitchers better.


the rockies have about 3 viable middle infield prospects, clint barmes, kaz matsui, and a 3rd major leaguer who have all played well there.

wtf would giles do there?

Horacio Ramirez would make sense, if he didn't suck.

You guys are rather hostile.

Marcus Giles and Horacio Ramirez for Jennings? I don't think so. After this year Jennings is eligible for free agency. Why not give your players away instead?

What are the Red Sox going to do about their closer? Eric Gagne, perhaps? He's apparently in the best shape of his life and isn't experiencing pain.

Ok, I'll be nice.

I'm sorry.

No, I don't think Giles and Ramirez would be a good fit for the Rockies.

If the Braves want Jennings, they'd have a better chance with Ramirez and Salty and Escobar.

The Rocks have been trying to build a hitting catcher for years now.

Problem here is, it wouldnt take much for another team to beat that offer.

Salty's stock is way down right now.

Red Sox closer situation depends on what they get for Manny. Until the deal happens, I'll hold out hope for Broxton :). But not much hope...

Anyway Gagne would be of interest, and depending on whether his last season was a fluke, Hideki Okijima may be a candidate, though you clearly can't count on him. If they sign him. Other then that...I'm worried. Really hoping they get some bullpen help via trade.

Also hoping against hope that Hansen remembers how to throw a slider, and that Delcarmen regains his control. Neither should be ready to close, but both should be ready to contribute. Especially Delcarmen.

matsui a prospect don't make me laugh i am only tryin to free up salary to get glavine and a leadoff lf i'll take affeldt straight up i think giles would light it up in colorado though

& i have known bout howard along time i was actually glad that the phillies signed thome cause i thought they would trade howard out the division i just think maybe all those years of losin abreu grew to accept it and it seemed like the young core (rollins,utley,howard etc.) just had alot more fun after he left i think maddux would be a great addition to the phillies teach the young (hamels & myers) but padilla i would stay away from him i am glad delucci is gone every team needs those gritty players that lead by example (o'neill,brosius,polanco,i'll even go back to the old A's wit tony phillips or chili davis etc you get the point oh wait otis nixon j.blauser and my fav of all time lemke) now the phillies dont have one instead chasin manny and carlos lee before him

you notice with the yankees they aren't winning many championships cause the gritty all heart role players are few and far between anymore i hate the yankees but damn did that 90's dynasty have real ballplayers o'neill brosius c.davis chad curtis tim raines c. knoblauch l.sojo girardi big game pitchers too d.wells d.cone pettite stanton mariano not all these primadonna superstars

Bit premature to say Matsuzaka is Oswalt.


um, no.....

Arod would be better than Brosius if he played with one arm.

The Yankees won back then because they had a top 3 rotation.

The Yankee are losing now becuz they don't have even a top 10 rotation.

THat's the SINGLE reason. Any other argument is about as real as Santa Clause.

AS for Giles giong crazy in Colorado, it depends.

If you can get Giles to start doing steroids again, then yes, it's a good deal.

Unfortunately, Giles was only doing steroids to get a big contract, which he has already.

Brosius was a pretty damn good 3b, but ARod's better.

It's kind of funny that BP lists Jeter as a below average shortsop until ARod came in to play 3b and Jeter turns it around to league average d and wins a gold glove...hysterical shit.


Premature to who?

You have the right to think so.

For me, he's Oswalt or he isn't far behind.

He may have an adjustment period where he does much better or much worse, but he'll settle in around there.

Baseball America agrees with me.

Obviously, we could be wrong.

His stuff/makeup/background are just too good to expect anything less.

The guy is a bull dog and commands 6 different pitches, including mid to high 90's heat.

The guy has dominated everything put in front of him since high school.

Not saying he's not 'going to be a great pitcher.' I'm just saying as of yet, he still has to pitch in the mlb, that's all.

Unless David Ortiz went to high school in Japan, it's not a shoe in for DMat. I think he's going to wind up being worth evey penny.

Oswalt is worth every penny, RIGHT NOW. I'd have used itlaics if I knew how right there...

Let's not make Brosius into more than he was.

You could remove Brosius and drop any league avg 3B on those teams and they win just as many games.

It's understandable...

I am confident enough to think he will be Oswalt-ish.

I don't know if I agree that Oswalt is worth it.

Contracts like that for pitchers have been terrible statistically speaking.

Oswalt has defied logic a bit regarding health.

We'll see if he holds up.

He was the best fielding 3b the Yanks have had in the last 15 years...but yeah...comparatively speaking his defense was probably helped out quite a bit by the quality pitching.

He rates out better than Boggs, Hayes, Ventura, Boone and Rodriguez. Got to give him SOME props...


Little guys who are power pitchers should probably command lower term contracts...but Oswalt is a *smart* power pitcher. He works people pretty good and I think he'll develop his style/craftiness. Atleast I hope for Houston's sake he does otherwise I'm going to laugh my ass off.

Brosius was avg on an amazing team.

His defense was ok. He was as good as a major leaguer should be.


He has shown the ability to leverage his stuff to get through lots of innings.

You're right in that he's become a masterful craftsmen.

We'll see if his body can hold up.

Was there any truth to that rumor about the Japanese baseball being lighter than the mlb one?

I don't know, but I think it's slightly smaller.

It seems Matsu put any concern of that being an issue to rest in the WBC.

Would've been nice for Matsu to get a start againt the USA team huh?

Think of how many reports would have been made on that game.

It would be the most analyzed start in history.

He had nothing to gain by pitching in it though.

He does well, his market stays up.

He sucks and the market tanks.

That was definitely Boras all the way. However, I am surprised at the Igawa bid after wright's comments...but it's all the media shit is a bunch of crap:)

Mats Vs. Igawa will probably be up there as far as coverage goes. How many million tvs in Japan will be tuned in to that one?

The ball is slightly smaller? I can't find any info about their equipment...I thought they standardized most of their stuff a few years back. Like I think they changed the mound specs...I was assuming they'd adopted most of MLB's equipment rules, too.

their outfield walls are also 500ft to left and right, as well as the mound was raised to 3ft.

no way japanese parks are that big.

500 ft ??

That was a joke. It would be like trying to play in a turn of the wrong century stadium.

Pretty sure they use a smaller/lighter ball though. By how much, I do not know.

Igawa is intriguing...

I'm more looking forward to Wang vs Matsu tho.

The battle of Asian powers.

That'll be a good one. I'll catch hell for it, but, I'm not 100% sold on Wang, yet. The low strikeout numbers scare me from a statistical sample size point of view.

The GB/FB ratio are fantastic tho.

In our era of valuing innings and low pitch counts over Ks, more pitchers like this will pop up.

If he wanted to K more people, he probably could.

He sits at 94 mph and can hit 96.

He's a big strong body too.

Classic power pitcher build who has been groomed by the Yankees to rack up innings.

He's for real man.

Good comparison for Wang is Roy Halladay.

Halladay has the palm/curve ball, Wang has his sider.

Both sit at 94 and go low 90s with the ability to cut, sink and run the ball.

Both are big dudes.

With that many balls in play, some of that could be flukey, as pitchers and batters have very limited control of where in the field the ball falls. Just saying his numbers might not be as good next year. Damn good show for the 1st 1.5years.

He allowed so few runs based on balls put in play...if he really is that smart of a pitcher with runners on he's going to be good for a really long time.

"That'll be a good one. I'll catch hell for it, but, I'm not 100% sold on Wang, yet. The low strikeout numbers scare me from a statistical sample size point of view."

Rob Neyer did a pretty good analysis of Wang a little while ago. http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=2566017

You have to have insider, so I'll just outline a little bit. Neyer found a small list of guys with absurd GB rates their first 2 seasons, who put up ERA's as exceptional as Wang's. The short story is...none of them stayed very good for very long. Guys like Randy Jones, Ricky Bones, Jim Barr, etc. burst onto the scene with astonishingly low ERA's (compared to their contemporaries) then...sort of settled down. Some of them had solid careers, but none of them stayed anything resembling a staff ace.

Basically the point is this: If Wang builds a long and successful career with a K/9 of 3.13 and an astonishingly terrible K/BB of 1.46...he'll basically be the first of his kind. More likely he'll be a horse of a No. 3. It's possible he remains an ace...but the odds are heavily stacked against him.

I certainly hope he stays healthier than Hallady though.

Actually I misread it...it was a list of under-30 guys who "posted exceptional low strikeout-rates and exceptionally good ERA's relative to their league." Whether they were rooks or not had nothing to do with it. And those guys I listed were among the top 10 in terms of career success.

first of all genius giles only been thru arbitration so he never got a big contract yet but that is here nor there and nobody said brosius was a better all around player than arod but any yankee fan out there tell me if i'm wrong if brosius is up with somethin on the line he got it done it seemed like he didn't know how to fail and arod you never expect him to succeed he goes 4-5 2hr 6rbi in a 14-5 win but goes 0-4 with an error in a 3-1 loss that is what i'm sayin jeter is the last remainin throwback yankee half the people on here are probably to young to remember those yankee teams damn tino i forgot tino that whole team was clutch top to bottom it all started goin bad when george had to get clemens yeah he got a ring but i dont care what career he had i'd pick cone over him in a big game anyday like i'd take smoltz over maddux they played with heart and emotion not flash and lyritz he went from bein a catcher to the of to pettite's personal catcher and clutch pinch hitter he damn near ended mark wholers career he was never the same after that

it's hard to use anything other than equalized stats when compared players from different leagues/eras...

Hallady is a strikeout pitcher, though. Last year was kind of down year for him (like 132 so or something?)based on actually starting 32 games...perhaps he's settled down a bit and learned to really pitch. I remember him whiffing a ton of guys a few years back...

Heh, and since I know bsox hates Gammons...I'd point out that before 2006 started, Gammons picked Wang to be one of the top-10 pitchers in the AL. He also loves Howie Kendrick.


That could be the longest run-on thought I've ever heard/read.

"it's hard to use anything other than equalized stats when compared players from different leagues/eras..."

The article took league averages into consideration when compiling the list; Neyer didn't do it himself, a "well-known sabermetrician using tools beyond (his) reach" did it for him. It doesn't look like K/9 was equalized (Is that even possible?) but the ERA's were definately rated after being compared to their respective eras/leagues.

And since Damon was bought out from under the Red Sox I'd have to say he's the only true throwback Yankee player on the team.

OK missed it...the list was of players with "extremely low strikeout rates and ERA's relative to their league."

Sorry about all the posts...I'm exhausted.

Hardball times did the same analysis.

I don't give those studies too much credence as we play a different game now.

In the past, a 6-3 pitcher that could pitch 97 mph with command would've been striking out tons of people cuz he'd be groomed to do that.

they would've lasted longer becuz they wouldn't have to strain their arms as much throwing tons of sharp sliders and such.

in this day and age, when u use a guy like Mark Prior or francisco liriano to throw what it takes to strike out hitters of our era, u blowout ur shoulder or elbow.

It takes more to K these hitters.

back then, the #3 hitter of the best teams finished with 20 HRs. Today, the hitters are simply better prepared.

Better scouting, conditioning, etc..

This is my take on it. haven't done much analysis i will admit. just an educated guess.

bottom line: i doubt those pitchers that had comparable K/BB ratios with low ERAs in the past had stuff as good as wang.

It doesn't seem like k/9 should be too terribly difficult to equalize. It's all regressions of the same stats over a given number of years with weighted averages given to certain factors (park, level of competition, day vs. night, etc). Just depends on how many different variables you want to average and include in the equation.

"bottom line: i doubt those pitchers that had comparable K/BB ratios with low ERAs in the past had stuff as good as wang."

Entirely possible. But, and I'm way too young to remember any of this...they said the same about Kevin Brown's sinker, (and he struck people out) and about Randy Jones, the best pitcher with numbers comparable to Wang's.

And then there's Brandon Webb. Filthy sinker...but a K/9 of around 7. And I'd also call him a horse. (NL, I know...just bear with me a little)

Again...not impossible that Wang stays an ace...but statistically speaking, the chances aren't great.

And Dave, you probably didn't see my post before...but I was wrong, they did equalize K/9.

Halladay was never big K pitcher.

He has the occasional big K game, but Wang has shown that too with the occasional 7 Ks or whatever.

Wang is still learning.

Not only do I think he's going to keep it up, I think he's going to get better.

equalized statitistics take into account the level of competition from different eras. They do this by measuring the gaps between the levels of skill sets. It's the only logical way to answer the question of who is a better hitter, Pujols or Ruth?

Pitchers and hitters are both better now than they were previously. The entire bar has been raised, so the real challenge is to figure which side has improved more from year to year. It's like adjusting monetary dollars for inflation.

Halladay struck out over 200 in his 22 win season. and 160 the year before or after that. Hasn't been healthy but 3 seasons...

Sorry, 4 seasons.

don't know about the other guys but i remember ricky bones he got traded for gary shefield straight up his thing was he had more bb than k's i believe he kept the ball around the plate and made batters put it in play but he played for the brewers who had terrible defenses with no range i think molitor was still playin the field at this point knida like wang throw strikes and trust your d i like wang saw him pitch in dc this year zimmerman hit a 2 run homer off him in the bottom of the 9th with 1 out they lost 2-1 mariano was out pitched both days prior shoulda been 1 more win 1 less loss


2nd longest run-on thought...

Now that I look at it, Halladay has to be high on the list of pitcher abuse p[oints...sheesh...

So is Peter Gammons the only respectable sports reporter then?

yo dave what are you an english teacher nobody cares bout that run -on bull

gammons is an idiot if he could judge talent so great he would be a scout somewhere or better yet gm

"So is Peter Gammons the only respectable sports reporter then?"

What? No, see earlier Bsox said something about how he's always wrong, a complete hack, and all the prospects he likes turn to shit. Bsox also loves Kendrick and Wang...so does Gammons. Was just making fun of him a little.

And hood-it is really, really hard to read your posts. Just spend an extra like 2 minutes adding periods or something...not trying to be a dick, but it's tough to read.

I realize that Dave,

but those stats don't reflect that power arms were groomed to strike people uot back then and that only soft tossers tried to get by primarily on generating weak contact.

Now, hitters are so good that even power pitchers are being groomed to pitch to contact because it puts too much stress on ur arm to throw what it takes to K these hitters becuz they're so good.

Wang is not the only one.

Felix is being gromed this way now as well. granted wang doesnt have the curve or amr strength taht felix has, but then again, nobody does.

Johan is an exception. Then again, Johan is the best in the world by a WIDE margin.

Just giving you shit.

Hard to follow without spaces between thoughts.

I agree on one thing though,

and that's that we will see lots of fluctuation in Wang's ERA.

That's unvoidable for guys who don't K 200 people per inning.

Halladay only reached 200 Ks by throwing 270 innings or something.

He's still paying for that season to this day.

Clemens' ERA fluctuates wildly too though, so it happens.


equalized stats DO take into account differences in stylistic play.

In both eras batters were groomed to attack a pitcher a certain way, and vice versa. BY weighting different types of statistics...like, for instance, homeruns from an era when parks were incredibly spacious...it is possible to get an accurate representation of a players ability relative to their contemporaries and those from other eras.

Check out:

Why Everything You Know About the Game is Wrong/Baseball Between the Numbers, by Baseball Prospectus. They do a better job explaining it.


Hallady is about .75K/inning or so.

Wang definitely benefits from being a Yankee. I'm interested to see what happens in 07 with him now.

This one better be a doozy, bcause I can't imagine how you take a guy who throws a 88 mph sinker in 1970 and adjust his stats so taht they accurately project the performance of a guy who throws a 91 mph sinker with 93-97 mph heat.

Back then, if u reached 97 and could command it, people thought u were bound for the hall of fame.

nowadays, it doesnt mean shit unless u can locate 2 other pitches.

I'll put it this way,

Adam Eaton would be an All Star if you sent hmi back to 1970.

Gil Meche would be on his way to the HOF.

Additinoally, gyus back then threw 300-500 innings because they were throwing 89 mph fastballs, mixing in 81 mph change ups and the occasional looping curve.

Nowadays, u couldnt even last in single A with that.

There's no comparison, but I'm curious of what they think is important in making these adjustments.

It's all horse shit to me as you can see, but still provides interesting perspective of the game.

you mean to tell me you don't think ron guidry or jim palmer would be as successful today as in their era

That's exactly what I'm telling you hood.

i am old school i think if some of these pitchers put one up high once in a while the batters wouldn't be so comfortable and ban all that armor they get to where

The process of neutralizing the biasing effects of environmental factors is called 'normalization.'

I'll do my best to recite this:

Suppose a player in the offense-happy 1930 National League hits for a .320 batting average, after adjusting for park effects. This figure is good enough to rate as better than 3/4 of his counterparts. What would a player need to hit in a neutral environment such as the 1985 AL to be better than 3/4 of his counterparts? Something much lower than .320, since the offensive environment was much less favorable-.280 would do the trick.

So this 1930 player's .320, translated to 1985 AL, becomes .280.

Run some more regression and you can equalize careers and eras.

They would still be good, just not as good.

i hear what your sayin i don't agree though i think seaver or charlton or doc gooden for that matter would still do what they did

It's not a matter of todays hitters getting to bop the shit out of some lobmaster, it's about translating what the stats meant...and relating them to the current (or other environment).

damn yall gettin real brainy in here but that is the beautiful thing bout baseball you get judged with your peers that you played with not yesterdays stars or tommorrow's phenoms

in the 1920's they didn't play night games alot more double headers no overnight plane rides alot of different variables try judgin players to their own eras



I'm saying it DOESNT WORK.

Back then, righties threw in the high 80's and were #2 starters for their teams.

Pitchers went 400+ innings pitched.

#3 hitters were hitting 15 HRs.

If a guy could reach 95 mph, they were immediately made starting pithers.

Now u have SPECIALISTS that have better stuff than starters did back then.

Theoretically, it makes sense.

based on performance and the changing nature of statistics, it's obvious that stats can't be normalized that way to accurately project performance.

There are too many variables being ignored.

Advanced scouting. Advanced conditioning.

Different parks.

The advanced scouting alone makes a huge difference because it serves hitters much more so than pitchers.

You could build a career around deception back then.

Nowadays ur lucky if u last one year without making adjustments becuz every hitter has watched a DVD breaking down all of ur tendencies and picknig up tells.

There's no comparison.

HItters keep getting better.

Pitchers to keep up, have made adjustments by maximizing the human body's leverage, and it's causing arm problems, but hitter's are still getting better.

It's a completely different sport now.

If someone cuold run fast back then, they were top prospects becuz it was much more important when HRs weren't flying out of the park. Now nobody cares about speed becuz u dont need to be fast jogging arond the bases.

We want walks now becuz we can jus wait for a double or HR.

That's much easier than comparing players to a different era.

Nobody is saying it wasn't any more difficult/easy to play in 1920. It's just that the stats aren't a direct relationship...they mean different things. Perhaps because there were so many day game doubleheaders in 1920 hitters were tired more than normal through the second game while the pitcher could have been fresh. Batting averages as a whole would reflect lower across the board because of that environmental factor that was equal for everyone who played the game at that time.

So, figuring out who excelled in that style of play and ranking them...translates to how well somebody performs by their respective era ranking.

I undestand that.this method makes more sense than anything we've come up with, but it still ain't accurate.

I'm telling you that too many things have changed for it to be applicable.

I don't think the 4th best pitcher back then would be the 4th best pitcher today.

I don't think if someone lead the league in HRs with 12 back then, that the same guy would hit 60 today.

Catch my drift?


I agree with you that it is a different game.

Both hitters and pitchers are much better than they were 50 years ago. That fact is not in question. Players now are judged against their peers, and are paid based on how much better they are than their competition (that's debatable too, but you get the point).

It is most definitely statistically possible to compare these players. Translating is a much better word, though.

And by the way, equalizing statistics isn't a specific method of projetion, it's a method of analysis. Only history.

Pitchers have to get smarter in order to get hitters out. Individual stats will have a different emphasis from year to year. But it does translate.

No it doesn't translate.

And by the way, this started becuz u are making infreneces about Wang's FUTURE based on that analysis.

My point is, that analysis is useless in projecting Wang's potential for success.

Pitchers who relied on contact back then were the bottom of the barrell prospects.

Now premium prospects are being asked to pitch to contact.

Big difference there in terms of projectability.

I am saying that the failure of those pitchers are as much a function of the class of players that were groomed to become those types of players.


Maybe its about time to even the playin field for pitchers. Raise the mound & take away the body armor.

I catch your drift. But that's not the point. In order to grasp this you have to get away from the idea that it's the same person hopping from era to era to perform.

How does Babe Ruth hit 59 homeruns in 1921 when no one else in the league hits more than 24?

This didn't start when I used an equalized stat to project wang because I didn't. I basically said his contact rate was off compared to his era. The equivalent stuff came out of desturbd's article from espn and wether or not is possible to equzlize k/9. Then compare playerrs from leagues/eras, not project them.

Can't type anymore. Going to bed. Argue later.

Jesus christ....

Read VERY carefully....

I'll explain this another way.

I'll try to make this very simple for you.....

Lets say in the past, the best athlete's were used in the 100m race and the 2nd tier athletes were used in the 200m race.

And let's say when the two groups faced each other, the best 200m runner never finished higher than 4th out of 8 runners. 4 from each class.

Now lets say the best athletes are split between the 100m race and the 200m race.

Your method would say, that regardless of how good the 200m runners are, they should never finish higher than 4th when both class of runners race each other.

This conclusion would be incorrect though, because BETTER ATHLETES are being used in the 200m race too.

Is that simple enough?

Do you follow me now???

I have alotta conspiracy theories on that one. I wont get started. I just don't believe you can compare athletes of yesterday to athletes of today in any sport. Technology is advancing everyday and diffrent variables need to be put in. Its not fair to the athlete back in the day that had to work a full time job to make ends meet where athletes nowadays train all year round. The last ten years have been an offensive era and you can say steroids all you want but take a look at a ball from the 80's and take one now. They seem totally diffrent. Steroids can't make the ball go farther that is provin but a juiced ball can. Do you think its accident that the greatest offensive era came started to come around when people were leavin the ballpark after the strike. The same reason why after the depression era Babe Ruth was made into this larger than life object to put butts in the seats.

Bottom line:

When you take that group of pitchers fom the past, you are already narrowing down the class to the worst arms in the league.

NOwadays, the best arms are being groomed to be pitchers that generate these types of results too.

So the comparison cannot be made.

Umm... Wang might just be anomaly. How many pitchers do you know that throw 95+ mph sinking fastballs? Webb, who has the best sinker in NL, can only hit 90-92 with it I believe. Wang just needs to command all his pitches better, thats it.

As much as the Yanks offense helps him, the defense also hurts him. Lets face it... GG for Jeter or not, their defense isn't very good.

levelboss just reading some shit from before if u really picked the redsox to finish in 3rd in 06 your an idiot. They would have ran away with that division if not for Derek Jeter. You also could not have foreseen the redsox absolutely falling apart, and manny refusing to play for a week cuz the official scorer took away a hit. You also couldnt foresee the yankees trading for abreu (that won them the division officially), and otriz and his heart problems

Bsox i agree Juan Rivera is going to blow up this season. I actually thought he would have a huge season last year, and he did show some signs. What wit the OF look like though? Drew in CF Rivera in right coco in left WMP DH?

anybody find it funny that abreu all the sudden cant hit a HR anymore?

hood i have to say i honestly think you are insane if u think the braves would have won a world series with wickman all year. But the one thing i couldnt possibly agree anymore with, is that howard utley and rollins, took over that team after abreu left. It was as if they all had a meeting, said okay, Bobby is gone, we have to lead this team, and they did. It really did look like they were just relaxing, playing baseball, and having fun. I couldnt agree more, i think thaty was a huge reason why they went on a tear to end the season

Steroids or not... Abreu's value is in his patience, his ability to make the pitcher work and to stay cool in most situations.

I'm guessing he's now a 20HR, 20 doubles, 15-20 SB guy. Which is fine since he has a .430 OBP.

nrmax88 i couldn't imagine that outfield because WMP is in lf CoCo is in cf Drew in rf and Ortiz will be the dh Rivera is an ok 4th of he is not a main ingredient to a Manny package

Yeah no doubt henry, plus something clickwed when he got to the yankees, and he just performed better. Maybe its the fact that he isnt the "man" in Ny like he was in Philly. He just get to sort of fly along under the radar and just play his game. I mean, he isnt having every move he makes watched under a microscope. Thats what A Rod is for. You cannot compare a pitcher to today from a pitcher 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70 years ago. You simply cannot. There is was to much stuff that is different, and cannot be accounted for. Maybe we should get the scientists who say that curveballs dont curve to tell us if u can compare barry bonds to babe ruth, or johan santana to sandy koufax

Yea hood i didnt even think about that your right. I wouldnt ever say Rivera is only a 4th OF. This guy can rake, he showed signs last year, and should be more consistent this year. I would much rather have Drew in CF and Rivera in RF then Crisp in CF and Drew in RF. Plus Juan Rivera has a cannon

No the Braves might not have won a World Series but the way everything fell into place they had a damn good shot. I mean come on the Cards had Suppan and Weaver make unbelievable contributions. The Braves offense was rediculous last season it was a shame the bullpen was the worst I think I ever seen on a team.

And Abreau did his thing when he got to the Yankees but can the guy carry a team like say a Ortiz or Pujols or like Howard did after he left. I mean he has been around a long time and I just have no memorable Bobby Abreau moments etched in my brain.

Excellent role player but horrible leadership numbers aren't everything somewhere along the line if your team is a failure for so long you need to look at the top.Not to compare baseball to basketball but the Chicago Bulls never had the best talent top to bottom on their roster. Michael Jordan's refusal of failure is what made them the best. There are alot of other players I'd take whose numbers are less than Abreau's.You would never see a Kirk Gibson moment come out of Abreau is all I'm sayin.

As a Brave fan I don't mind seein A.Jones leave.Even though he did carry the Braves 2 yrs ago and should have won the MVP.Brave fans all no even though his production fell off Chipper Jones is the leader of this offense and Smoltz is the leader of the pitchin staff. There is a reason they let Maddux and Glavine go but kept Smoltz at all costs.

Nrmax, I just want to point out that you suggested WMP to be the DH for the Red Sox.

And funny you should mention comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds. That book Dave suggested (even though he did switch the title around-- It's "Baseball Between the Numbers") does that in the very first chapter. I never followed much on translated stats until then. I suggest before continuing this argument we all go to the library/book store, spend 10-15 minutes reading that chapter, and pick up this discussion on whether or not players from different eras can be compared.

Even if no one agrees, it's still an interesting chapter and makes for good discussion.

... Oh, and I don't think Crisp is a natural CF.

nicksjs i realized right away that i said WMP for DH. Wasnt suggesting at all, just asking questions, i realized it was retarded. Anyway, i really dont care what anybody says you cant compare players from different generations. There is so much unaccounted for shit that where would u even begin

See, that's my only problem, nrmax. You won't even bother reading up on it before you disagree. What if they've taken all that into account? Find out before you bash it.

"... Oh, and I don't think Crisp is a natural CF."

According to most fielding metrics, Crisp was among the best AL CF last season. I'm in class right now...don't have time to find some proof. :)

And by the way...I don't think scientists say "curveballs don't curve." They say "fastballs don't rise" when thrown overhand. Which is true...it's physically impossible for them to rise.

I can name at least 10 cf i would rather have playin defense

Im not bashing it, but how can u say that a guy from 30 years ago would be at the same talent level now, against different players, new parks,like bsox said 100s of advanced scouting reports, its a new game

No desturb there have been guys that said the curveball in an illusion and doesnt actually curve. Screw these scientists anyway, let them try to hit a curveball and then say it doesnt curve

Nrmax: You still don't know whether or not the book addresses advanced scouting reports and the like. So... find out.

And what's with the screw the scientists with the curveball talk stuff? Who on here is defending this notion? You brought up a theory that no one here has defended (or brought up themselves) and continue to bash it. "Curveballs don't curve" has nothing to do with this conversation.

"i really dont care what anybody says" -- See now how then should any of us care what you say. Why defend a stance when you're not willing to hear the arguments for BOTH sides, and THEN form an opinion. Stephen Colbert launched himself a career by pointing out how silly that is.

The sabermetric method of equalizing statistics does not say that someone who outperforms his class 30 years ago would be able to outperform the players in this era given his access to all the increases in technology.

And I don't particularly like being insulted on the topic when I atleast have a staff of professional statisticians as a credible source.

And your analysis of the race is wrong. The statistics could definietly should the expanded exposure of better athletes to the shorter race. The times that those races would be run in would get more competitive. You could use fluctations in the times that the races were run in and the marginal differences and rates of improvement to show how much better one athlete was as opposed to the other.

should = show

And nrmax, let me just jump in here and reiterate that I'm not trying to sound insulting to you. I'm just saying, it's hard for me to accept your criticism of a particular theory when you know neither what the theory really says, or with what means a theory is developed.


by bringing in these 'mythological' scientists (because we don't even know to whom you are referring) to refute a statistical claim you are doing no one any good.

The argument that Scientist A says something false, so all scientists must be false, is a bad argument. Especially when you cannot pinpoint the credibility or identity of the scientist you are claiming intiates the principal argument.

So Okajima is a Red Sock now, eh?

And now I'm going to take one more stab at translating statistics.


you mentioned that earlier in baseball the worst arms were groomed for pitching and that the best arms are now groomed for pitching.

So, from that we should be able to infer that earlier batting averages should be higher against these pitchers because the pitchers abilities are not good and the batters should have the advantage, right?

So by comparing all the batting averages for that year you would be able to see the mean batting average against pitching was very high compared to the batting averages that we would see now...

So the comparison first starts among ALL the players of that time...to see how much better individuals were relative to other individual at that time. Once you are able to determine the marginal differences, for instance, someone who hit .375 might have been in the top 25% of his class, whereas now, if someone were to .375 they would be considered in top .1% of their class.

I dont care if u care what i say. I really dont. Some1 brought up the curveball thing after i did so i responded to it. Do i need your approval before i post what i want, or my own opinion?

yeh dave, wut r u talking about. All i said was we should ask those scientists who say curveballs dont curve if u can compare bond to ruth. Its not like i was actually being serious, and i also never said anything about scientists as a whole. Thanks for the tip though
jerk off

I guess I must have taken your scientist comment out of context, however, I'm having a hard time finding who brought it up before you.

Also, I forgot the last part of the analogy I made before. Since the guys who hit .375 were determined to have been hitting in a much friendlier hitter's environment, their equivalent averages would most likely be much lower, probably closer to .300, for the sake of demonstration.

"I dont care if u care what i say. I really dont. Some1 brought up the curveball thing after i did so i responded to it. Do i need your approval before i post what i want, or my own opinion?"

I'm not asking you to seek approval. I'm asking how you can have an opinion if you didn't form it on anything more valid than a coin flip. You can't even tell me what you don't like about statistical analysis, because you have no idea what goes into computing them. All I'm saying is do some research before pretending to defend a point. I said go out and read the book, and THEN tell me what you don't like about what's stated in it. That's like saying "I hate that cookbook, I'm allergic to those recipes."
"Which ones?"
"Oh I don't know, I'm just assuming I'm allergic to whatever recipes are in there."

Dave that was a very simplified example.

In the case of a runner, you have a very simple measure by which to compare the diff athletes, which is their times as u pointed out.

However, it's not nearly as simple in baseball.

The nature of the hitters are different now.

The way the game is played is different now.

By taking a sample of pitchers that pitch to contact back then and now doesnt hold because there is no way to translate better athletes uaing the same approach.

You and your statisticians are talking out of ur ass to try to explain something that cant be explained.

Logically, certain principles make sense. But in the end, everyone involved knows its meaningless.

Post a comment

This weblog only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please Sign In.