Recent comments from Red Sox GM Dave Dombrowski hint that the front office would feel confident going into the 2017 season with the pieces they have in the fold right now. But Evan Drellich of NBC Sports Boston isn’t convinced at all. In a candid editorial, Drellich blasts Dombrowski for his supposed comfort with the current roster. “Who really believes this?” Drellich writes. “Who really believes the Red Sox could proceed into the season comfortably without some external improvement? You’re in a market competing with the Patriots, a division with the Yankees, and a league with the Astros, and this is what you’re bringing to the table?” He seems particularly miffed by a comment that the team “could stay with anybody”; Drellich rejects such logic by stating that the team’s goal should not be to “stay” with other teams, but rather to be outright better.
Tim Britton of the Providence Journal agrees with Drellich’s stance in his own piece, pointing out the lack of a middle-of-the-order slugger in Boston’s lineup. Britton also exposes Dombrowski’s supposed level of comfort by pulling a quote of his from the day after the club’s ALDS loss to Houston. “I didn’t supply the players that would give us enough runs. We do need that,” Dombrowski said at that time. Indeed, it doesn’t seem as though he’s done anything to follow through on that so far this winter. The club is, of course, still engaged in discussions with free agent slugger J.D. Martinez, and for his part, Drellich believes a deal will get done. But while Dombrowski seems comfortable taking his time in negotiations with Martinez (waiting for “the ice to melt,” in his own words), one has to wonder what kind of backlash he’ll face in the harsh Boston media if another team swoops in and inks the righty-hitter to a deal first.
A few other items out of Boston…
- It’s evident that Blake Swihart has thus far been unable to live up to his top prospect billing; he’s been unable to stick at catcher due to poor defense, and his lifetime .270/.330/.380 batting line at the MLB level leaves plenty to be desired. But he’ll enter spring training without any minor league options remaining, and the Sox are intent on finding a spot for him on the roster, according to a tweet from Pete Abraham of the Boston Globe. Drellich adds in his own tweet that Swihart “finally feels healthy,” and is confident in his ability to play all nine positions on the diamond (though there’s obvious reason for skepticism about the latter point). Swihart was ranked as Boston’s consensus number one prospect following a 2014 season during which he hit .300/.353/.487 at the Double-A level, though it should be noted that he struggled to get on base following a promotion to Triple-A.
- Drellich also tweets that although left-hander Drew Pomeranz is open to a long-term extension with the Red Sox, the two sides have not discussed one to date. The 29-year-old southpaw made 32 starts for Boston in 2017, pitching 173 2/3 innings of 3.32 ERA baseball. He’s set to become a free agent at the end of the season.
- The Red Sox have announced that they’ll be expanding their protective netting in 2018. The press release describes the expansion as follows: “The new netting system will extend from Field Box Section 79 to Field Box Section 9, expanded from an area previously covering Field Box Section 61 to Field Box Section 29. It will be positioned with the same consistent height as the existing system, which stands at 12 feet, 8 inches above the playing field.” As Bob Nightengale of USA Today Sports notes, Boston will join the Yankees and Blue Jays as teams who have recently expanded their netting in order to improve fan safety.
Fans that play on their phones instead of watching the game are now costing people the opportunity to catch foul balls.
That and fans that think it’s a good idea to get seats right behind the dugouts and bring their 3-year olds when they knew ahead of time that there was no protective netting there to begin with.
Was the little girl that got beaned last year at Yankee stadium playing with her phone? Please get informed and not make insensitive and shallow posts!!!
LITTLE, she shouldn’t of been sitting there if they weren’t ready for the ball
There are a whole lot of people not ready for a ball coming that fast. The majority of people in the stands. That’s not even accounting for a person that can be intently watching every pitch, who would be physically able to catch a line drive foul, but if there is some obstruction to their view, can lose sight of the ball and get hit in their face. Think of a few sets of hands and arms waving in front of you trying to catch/block a ball coming that fast. It’s flat out dangerous. Quit victim blaming and grow up. I think you’ll get by without the chance of catching a baseball at a game. Go in the stands for BP if getting a baseball is so important to you.
I don’t give a crap about a fly ball, but a lot of fans do especially kids.
If you aren’t paying attention it’s your fault. If you’re a child, your parents are idiots for getting seats in that location.
A freak deal shouldn’t change everything for all. It just shouldn’t.
Dear Lord you are cold hearted. No one can pay attention to every pitch. What are you, rainman?
No, I’m not. I’m tired of everyone being a victim.
Sometimes bad things happen and a lot of times it’s your own fault. Things shouldn’t always change as a result of a bad thing happening. You can’t enjoy a game nearly as well with a net in front of you. You can’t stop all accidents.
“Freak deal” happens a lot more than you think.
I really don’t get the outcry over the nets by “purists”, as I don’t think it takes away from the ability to enjoy a game at all. Take the seats directly behind home for example – they have netting and I’ve never heard someone complain that the view is terrible. I don’t see why extending that same net up the lines suddenly ruins it for fans.
You can’t stop all accidents but we can eliminate the risk here but putting up a simple net that in my opinion doesn’t change my ability to enjoy a game at all. I’ve never been in a car accident, but I still wear my seatbelt. Amazingly I get through the effort and inconvenience of having to buckle and unbuckle my seatbelt everyday.
But in a lot of people’s opinion the net does distract from the game. Sitting right behind the plate you’re view is straight ahead, you see very little of the net. Sitting up the baseline your view is at an angle to the net. You see a lot of the net. It is different.
If they’re going to do it, fine. If the teams say hey, additional safety is more important than a better view, fine. But to those acting like I’m cold hearted and ignorant etc y’all are wrong. It’s not a weak argument to say people in a baseball stadium sitting close to the plate should either pay attention or hope for the best without then blaming someone else if something bad happens. Getting hit by a baseball doesn’t make you a victim. It’s your choice. That’s all I’m saying.
I am tired of you acting like a victim of protective netting. Peoples’ lives are more important than your opportunity to catch a ball.
Not everything in life should be wrapped in bubble wrap. I’ve already said I don’t give a crap about me catching a foul ball, I’ve caught several including line drives over the dugout. That being said, it’s part of the game that makes people like it. Kids want to go to the game for the opportunity of catching those foul balls. You’re taking away fun from those people because a few people weren’t paying attention or shouldn’t have been in those seats in the first place.
Hes not saying lives arent important. Hes saying if you go to the game, watch the game. Balls have been hit into the stands for over a hundred years, but NOW more netting is suddenly needed. Please explain to me why?
Why can’t you watch every pitch? I don’t see how you can’t.
Well we could start quite the list if we went over changes made for safety over the last century if you want, but it would take a while…
Maybe getting up to go to the restroom for one example…
He does make a point about the netting obstructing the view from first and third base lines. The problem is it used to be guys sitting in those seats and now it’s money. Money means more pink hats and kids. Money doesn’t like their kids, girlfriends and/or wives getting hit and hurt by line drives. Ownership has no choice in our litigious times- ticket disclaimer not withstanding. I understand the frustration of modified types even if it sounds harsh.
Modified_6…..””I don’t give a crap about a fly ball, but a lot of fans do especially kids.” and then….”If you’re a child, your parents are idiots for getting seats in that location.”
So which is it….kids want to catch the balls and nets stop that but if you are a kid you shouldn’t be sitting there so there is no reason for a net”
One other point…….show me any person who says that they have always been 100%, without a doubt, completely and utterly focused on every pitch thrown at every game they have ever been too…never ever once taking their eyes off the ball …..EVER…and I will show you someone spewing the stuff that comes out of the south end of a north bound bull.
A kid that can catch a foul and pays attention to the game is different from a small child with little to interest in the game. I should have been more clear, but there is a clear difference.
Or at the very least a kid that is smart enough to cover his head.. not everyone can catch it, but everyone should be able to move there heads down if they’re paying any attention at all to the live ball game directly in front of them.
I’m kinda with you. I’ve been going to games for over 40 years and did just fine w/o nets. They have added the nets to hockey arenas too and I hate them there as well. Besides wanting a souvenir I don’t want my expensive view blocked in any way. I wouldn’t say that most people are on cell phones but there are far too many that do. I also think the park should ask the age of the people going, if you are under let’s say 12 years old you should NOT be allowed to sit in the high danger areas. That, instead of nets, would keep the kids safe. I do not like the nets at all but I have seen some parks that use nets that are much harder to tell they are there, these are the nets they should be using in every major league park if you’re going to use them at all.
Baseball has been around 150 years. People have been able to catch or get out of the way of line drives far more than people getting hit by them. If it’s so dangerous then don’t sit there or don’t attend a game.
Don’t go if it’s so dangerous! Watch it at home from the “safety” of your couch.
They can’t watch every pitch cuz they have to be playing on their phones, taking selfies, and posting on Facebook so all their friends know they are at the game and they feel special about themselves. As for the kids, they aren’t going to pay attention because their idiotic parents think it’s hurtful to tell their kids what to do on top of the fact they aren’t paying attention to what their kids are doing anyways cuz again, they are posting on Facebook.
Great point…If you ever cause a car accident or your kid does, make sure you use the whole “no person pays attention 100% of the time” argument. How bout taking responsibility for your actions? Is that possible? You don’t pay attention and something bad comes of it, it’s YOUR fault.
The ‘Netting Solution’ isn’t a response to a single incident.
Please get informed and make more well-considered posts! Kinda like suggesting ‘gun control’ is about one ‘gun cleaning mishap.’
The fact that you used gun control is awesome… you know stats are easy to find. Strong gun control ends in tons of burglaries, robberies, and murders.
Is that really the best comparison you could come up with? A comparison that your solution causes more problems than the initial problem??
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Plus strong gun control does not end in tons of crimes. Look at Europe. We have significantly more gun crime than they do.
Look at their standings… knives, almost silent killings, are the preferred method.
If you don’t see causation in the fact that bad guys who are armed with guns they possess illegally knowing their potential victim probably will not have a gun to point back at them I don’t think you’re being very honest with yourself.
Stabbings**
Not to mention most of our gun crimes are in states where the gun control is strongest…
Yeah the war on drugs really stopped drugs didn’t it? Most gun crimes are done by people who don’t have FOID cards and are using guns that have serial numbers scratched off and are obtained illegally. Go ahead and have your gun control. Those crimes won’t stop
No one said I don’t care about the poor girl. It’s really sad, I agree. That doesn’t change the fact that the parent shouldn’t have a little girl in the seats they chose.
When someone drives 120 mph and crashes and gets hurt we don’t change the rules for everyone else. We admit it was there own fault and move on.
Close seats are a risk. If you’re not able to catch a line drive don’t buy tickets in that area. It’s really simple.
No but when someone isn’t using their seatbelt they tend to get hurt worse. By the way a good portion of stadiums already have extended netting. Here’s a question,do you know who pays the medical bills for the person struck by the line drive? Take in a game in Japan all stadiums have way more protective netting then even the US parks that already have it.
I don’t know, I would assume it is on them since it is there injury. I would guess the small print tells you that on the back of the ticket. I don’t know though, am I wrong? Does the team pay for it?
Someone else having extended netting doesn’t mean extended netting is the answer.
To whoever said I am “victim shaming,” sometimes, I’m fact most of the time, a sad or bad result isn’t from being a victim, it’s usually a freak deal or the result of your own poor decision. If you can’t catch a line drive, don’t sit in those areas. You’re not a victim, you chose to sit there. I drive oval track race cars, when I get in a spot that could hurt me I don’t ask to change the rules. I signed up for danger. Sitting in those seats is signing up for danger like it or not. Will anything bad happen, probably not, could it? Definitely.
The percentage of the general population that can’t catch a line drive is probably 95% or more. Just because you can doesn’t mean you can’t have some perspective.
But that isn’t the argument. If you are willing to sit in a seat that you know damn well a foul ball hit on a rope could be right at you then you can’t be shocked when something bad happens. Don’t sit there if you aren’t willing to pay attention to the game. It’s simple. I don’t know how to dance, so I stay off the dance floor. Person B can’t catch a line drive so he doesn’t buy a ticket in section 5 row 6.
Where your anti-net argument completely falls apart is the mere idea that attending a baseball game could result in serious bodily injury. Who deserves that? If every stadium went to extended netting from pole to pole, fans will still come and watch the games, and line drive fouls would no longer pose such a huge injury risk.
Huge injury risk?? Are you kidding me? You should all know it could happen. You buy a ticket knowing that, but it’s not happening every 4th game. It’s not a huge risk, it’s a risk. Nets hurt vision. Nets take the opportunity away from kids to catch fouls.
In a time that baseball needs younger people to fall in love with the game more than ever, this is a move that is not needed.
Yeah and the percentage of the people who get hit in the face by them is what? Less that 1%?
Driving a car can result in serious bodily injury yet you assume that risk every day and you do t demand safer cars!
Shallow?? Insensitive??
I am lifelong fan who incidentally is living in the Bay area, never get to see a live game unless we go to Oakland when they in town.
Funny how fans should be responsible to pay attention to the action on the field 100% of the time or risk getting hit with a foul ball but MLB teams have put up fences or netting in front of the dugouts to protect their players. So if they feel professional athletes sometimes can’t get out of the way fast enough then what makes you think average people can.
Yeah it sucks for kids to lose out on a chance to get a foul ball but the positive is I know at least Yankee stadium’s netting will roll up for fans to get autographs during batting practice.
Those players are watching iPad videos of scouting reports, talking with coaches etc to go out and play that game. And if say a SP that isn’t playing that day is day dreaming and gets hit with a foul that doesn’t make him any less at fault than a fan with a phone in there face or eyes in the sky.
For the most part more than 75% of the players if you ever watch a game when they show a shot of the dugout are paying attention to the actual game so the reason the teams put up the fences was to protect their investment because even when at full attention it is hard to react in a split second.
Not that it happens all that much but flying bats especially when they have been broken in half are also a concern for MLB.
Just makes sense to protect the paying customers as well.
Tons of those paying customers don’t want it though. It’s not apples to apples here.
Tons? Or are you just making a blanket statement. Generalizations don’t really work all, especially here. Even one ballpark isn’t equivalent to tons.
Here’s the issue at hand,sure it has the writing on the back of the ticket, but at the end of the day it is the responsibility of the team to ensure their venue is as safe as possible. Teams don’t skate, they can legitimately be held liable if the situation could have possibly been prevented.
Beyond that, (you can physically see athletes today are the clichè bigger, faster, stronger) so saying all you have to do is pay attention is kind of a crock of crap. Imagine a hitter has .4 sec to make up their minds on a 90 mph fb. Now imagine a regular fan having decide how to react on a 100+mph screamer. If it’s really that big of an issue don’t go to the game. I don’t know about you, but if it can possibly save a persons life or save someone from serious bodily injury then it’s not even a question. It’s a darn net we’re not talking about 70’s style netting here.
You pushing for full face masks on hitter too?
How about a helmet and mask for all infielders?
Maybe we should use a rubber ball from now on, I bet a racquetball wouldn’t hurt people, it’d just sting.
Let’s start throwing under-handed too, less velo.
The bases should be 3 times bigger so no ones ankles ever touch.
They should stop selling alcohol at games too, someone could become intoxicated and trip.
Where does it stop?
It’s an overreaction.
By the way… a ton is 2000… technically 2000 pounds…
So yes, there are ‘tons’ of people who do not want more netting.
So about 10-15 people don’t want nets? That I would believe. At least that many completely stupid people at every baseball game.
Call me harsh, but don’t call me stupid. That I am not.
Not wanting netting that far up the lines doesn’t make anyone stupid. Not paying attention to a live game does make you stupid. It’s not a hard concept to grasp.
Modified_6 4 hours ago
“You pushing for full face masks on hitter too?”
“How about a helmet and mask for all infielders?”
“Maybe we should use a rubber ball from now on, I bet a racquetball wouldn’t hurt people, it’d just sting.” eyc., etc., etc.,
Reductio ad absurdum….look it up.
I don’t need to look it up, you’re not the only guy that’s taken a few philosophy classes.
“If it can possibly save a life or save someone from serious bodily injury, it’s not even a question.”
Those things could do just that. Call it absurd, I don’t care. It fits his argument. The point is you’ve got to draw a line somewhere. The extended netting is an over reaction.
Someone mentioned money is in the seats now instead of guys. That guy is the only person who has brought an actual argument rather than just saying I’m cold hearted and ignoring any actual facts.
If you already knew it than why use it? It’s the weakest form of argument..
Much of your argument is based on the assertion that a spectator should never ever take his/her eye of the ball in play. To that I will reiterate….. “show me any person who says that they have always been 100%, without a doubt, completely and utterly focused on every pitch thrown at every game they have ever been too…never ever once taking their eyes off the ball …..EVER…and I will show you someone spewing the stuff that comes out of the south end of a north bound bull.”
Everyone does it at one time or another, whether it be to lean in closer to hear someone or to look down to grab their hot dog or nachos.
Going to a game is a social event and insisting “Don’t sit there if you aren’t willing to pay attention to the game” is at best short sighted and ignorant of human nature and at worse arrogant.
A batted ball in not the only danger. Shattering bats are much more common with players using maple. I would rather see teams err on the side of caution that see someone get skewered.
When a ball his hit hard off the bat you look up. It’s human nature. When something is coming at you, if you’re not physically capable of catching it, you move or cover your head.
If plan on playing on your phone for 3 hours don’t sit so close to the plate.
My argument is not weak, he is the one that said anything that’ll keep from getting someone hurt blah blah blah just like all the other people that disagreed acting as if anything that goes wrong must have a problem and must have a solution that may not even be necessary.
You constantly see people directly behind the plate that move fast enough that they’d dodge the ball if there weren’t a net. Someone around the dugout has plenty of time to dodge it.
Liability is the Key word. You can generalize all you want, and disagree fine. Everyone can have their own opinions. At the end of the day, the mlb is pushing protective netting, because of liability. Just as the key idea as to why the White Sox’s will lose to the Fowler v progressive rate field
Case or at least have to settle, because of foreseeable/preventable occurrences. Items or areas that should have or could have been covered. Protective measures that should have and could have been taken to prevent such injury and in some cases death. And no c’mon your bringing you argument to the lowest point. You don’t like it we get it, but it doesn’t change the fact that teams will be held accountable should they not extend netting and a foul ball causes serious bodily injury or death. The mlb had already sent numerous memos and it’s clear they know such.
The reason why your argument is weak is because it’s based upon anecdotal experience/opinion not upon legal expectations.
Modified 6….
The very use and definition of reductio ad absurdum makes that particular argument weak.
“When a ball his hit hard off the bat you look up.” So you know for a fact that every one of those struck by a ball or bat heard it?
“If plan on playing on your phone for 3 hours don’t sit so close to the plate.” Please, give details regarding how many of the 1750 +/- injured each year ( ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/1750-fans-per-year-are-hu… ) where on their phones.
“You constantly see people directly behind the plate that move fast enough that they’d dodge the ball if there weren’t a net.” You also constantly see people who freeze or move but would still get hit. If you haven’t you are not paying attention.
Aug. 21 2015 a fan was struck by a foul ball hit by Anthony Gose. Gose’s reaction “Oh, God.”…..”she was talking at first, and then she went out. … The knot on that lady’s head was bigger than a baseball. … If that hit her flush on the face, she might have died. Pitchers can’t react fast enough on the mound. How’s a fan going to react? … They can’t. They physically can’t.” ( chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-base… )
Ask Todd Frazier how he felt after that girl got hit this past Sept. Never mind, I’ll tell you. Frazier knelt and bowed his head. He later said ( sports.yahoo.com/girl-hit-foul-ball-yankees-game-o… ) “Yeah, I think the netting should be up. I think every stadium should have it. But we’re not at that point yet. Hopefully they’ll take a look at all this and figure something out.”
Personally I’ll take the opinion of the players over yours any day.
Never mind the fact that the person argues fans should pay attention and players aren’t (watching iPads etc. in the dug outs like what fans do). Or some kids want foul balls but some are to small. Or kids who sit close to the field because of their parents choice somehow become a single entity and deserve their misfortune because their parents are dumb even though they have no choice on where they sit. Hey Modified, I can win an argument if I change the rules and issues every individual time I post too. Especially if I post more than anyone else about it.
I’ve never said they deserve misfortune, especially the kids. I said it’s not a netting problem, it’s a bad decision problem on the people who put those kids there or the people who won’t pay enough attention to dodge a foul.
There is a point where a solution is overkill.
There is a device called a HANS device in racing. We wear them to prevent neck injuries. Putting them on when you’re racing cars that go 100+ on short tracks is smart. Making a kid that drives a low level quarter midget or kart that doesn’t break 20 and is overkill.
Netting behind the plate, perfect. It makes sense. Netting way up the line? Overkill. There is a point where things are not necessary.
And the only reason I’ve changed the issues at times replying to people is because people responding have gone off on a tangent and went straight to acting like they themselves saved a life with there reply. Most aren’t being honest, they’re just saying things that sound nice.
Then some of them changed their issue to legalities after all that.
I do think there’s some argument that fans are assuming a risk when they sit close to the field of play, and I also agree with you that the risk is overstated somewhat. On any given day, your odds of actually being injured by a foul ball are extremely low.
It’s just that, the consequences of that, if it does happen, are extremely dire and potentially fatal, and there really isn’t a significant cost to remedying that problem., so every team should do it. Netting really doesn’t interfere much with one’s viewing experience, and the same argument that you’re extremely unlikely to be injured by a foul ball also applies to your likelihood of catching one. If you go to a baseball with the sole goal of catching a foul ball, you were going to leave disappointed, netting or not, so I really disagree with your claim that extended netting will somehow affect youth interest in the sport.
As for your claim that fans would be fine if they just paid attention, that’s both untrue and impractical. As others have noted, nobody actually does that, and the ball moves at such extreme speeds that you may be SOL even if you are paying attention. I actually think the bigger thing to threaten the sport than netting would be callously telling its fans, “if you come to the ballpark, watch the damn game or you might get hurt. Don’t come to enjoy yourself however you would like”
My first reply has been “awaiting moderation” for over 6 hours so I will try this one…..The very use and definition of reductio ad absurdum makes that particular argument weak.”When a ball his hit hard off the bat you look up.” So you know for a fact that every one of those struck by a ball or bat heard it?
“If plan on playing on your phone for 3 hours don’t sit so close to the plate.” Please, give details regarding how many of the 1750 +/- injured each year ( ballparkdigest.com/201409117699/major-league-baseb… ) were on their phones.
“You constantly see people directly behind the plate that move fast enough that they’d dodge the ball if there weren’t a net.” You also constantly see people who freeze or move but would still get hit. If you haven’t you are not paying attention.
Aug. 21 2015 a fan was struck by a foul ball hit by Anthony Gose. Gose’s reaction “Oh, G.”…..”she was talking at first, and then she went out. … The knot on that lady’s head was bigger than a baseball. … If that hit her flush on the face, she might have died. Pitchers can’t react fast enough on the mound. How’s a fan going to react? … They can’t. They physically can’t.” ( chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-base… )
Ask Todd Frazier how he felt after that girl got hit this past Sept. Never mind, I’ll tell you. Frazier knelt and bowed his head. He later said ( sports.yahoo.com/girl-hit-foul-ball-yankees-game-o… ) “Yeah, I think the netting should be up. I think every stadium should have it. But we’re not at that point yet. Hopefully they’ll take a look at all this and figure something out.” Personally I’ll take the opinion of the players over yours any day.
One last link (and watch the real sports video) cbssports.com/mlb/news/putting-an-end-to-every-arg…
My initial reply has been “awaiting moderation” for 6+ hours so I will try this without links……
The very use and definition of reductio ad absurdum makes that particular argument weak.
“When a ball his hit hard off the bat you look up.” So you know for a fact that every one of those struck by a ball or bat heard the crack of the bat?
“If plan on playing on your phone for 3 hours don’t sit so close to the plate.” Please, give details regarding how many of the 1750 +/- injured (Google it) each year were on their phones.
“You constantly see people directly behind the plate that move fast enough that they’d dodge the ball if there weren’t a net.” You also constantly see people who freeze or move but would still get hit. If you haven’t you are not paying attention.
Aug. 21 2015 a fan was struck by a foul ball hit by Anthony Gose. Gose’s reaction…”she was talking at first, and then she went out. … The knot on that lady’s head was bigger than a baseball. … If that hit her flush on the face, she might have died. Pitchers can’t react fast enough on the mound. How’s a fan going to react? … They can’t. They physically can’t.”
Ask Todd Frazier how he felt after that girl got hit this past Sept. Never mind, I’ll tell you. Frazier knelt and bowed his head. He later said “Yeah, I think the netting should be up. I think every stadium should have it. But we’re not at that point yet. Hopefully they’ll take a look at all this and figure something out.”
Personally I’ll take the opinion of the palyers over yours any day.
Most people that go to games don’t want the netting, stop fooling yourself. If you have a Twitter account why don’t you go on there and start a poll, Nets or no nets? I bet you the vast majority will say No nets.
Willy……I’ll bet the majority don’t own a team either. I am not fooling myself or anyone else. I am just realistically facing the inevitable. If the owners want it for safety/pr/litigious reasons and the MLBTR also backs it…it will happen.
Like it or not we live in an increasingly news-saturated and litigious age. “the baseball rule” has held up in courts for many years but so did many other “rules/laws” only to be reversed as society changes. That is reality. We now have things like Statcast and other tech that shows the ball off the bat of Frazier was traveling at 106 mph and reached the girl hit in less than one half a second. Those factors weigh in.
Owners would rather get out ahead of it than be caught looking.
I understand all of those things you said but none of them really answer the question of what has changed in over 100 years of baseball play to warrant such an overreaction? And should fans who pay a pretty penny suffer because the owners want to protect their own butts?
Maybe it doesn’t affect some fans but I won’t be going to any games anymore unless they are free.
The mound is way closer than the stands. That is a terrible comparison.
Correction….. MLBPA….not MLBTR
Willy…..Yes I did answer….”Like it or not we live in an increasingly news-saturated and litigious age. “the baseball rule” has held up in courts for many years but so did many other “rules/laws” only to be reversed as society changes.”
Modified_6 26 mins ago
The mound is way closer than the stands. That is a terrible comparison.
Many of the seats are 75-90 feet away. In terms of a baseball traveling 95-105 mph how much time do you think that is? I’ll start you off…100 mph is 146.667fps…do the math.
A lot has changed in 100 years. To start off the physicality of these players has changed and there’s no denying that. The arsenal of pitchers has also changed. You can clearly see guys raring back 95+ more consistently(something that a 100 years ago you don’t see) and bat speed oh boy that has changed tremendously. The protective gear for hitters and catchers has changed for a reason. Lastly even the ball has changed. Not really sure anyone can dispute that the ball hasn’t changed. And you can also say it’s solely for litigious reason sure, but it’s just the evolution of stadium management. Might your viewing experience be a little different sure, but at the end of the day to act like it’s completely impaired is disingenuous.
Here’s the simple fact, reaction speed of a regular fan is no where close to that of a professional athletes. So you can look and pay attention and do all the correct things, but chances are a frozen rope is likely to cause damage.
Oh no, a rubber ball still might leave a bruise on little Johnny’s face if it hits them. They should use marshmallows…
The stupidest people at a baseball game are the ones who cannot catch or pay attention and sit in the area that foul balls are shot in the stand.
You aren’t supposed to go to the game to enjoy it anyway you like! You are going for the game! To WATCH the game. What is this talk that people can’t move out of the way fast enough? The pitcher is 60 feet away from the batter and they can get out of the way of a line drive on many occasions. The fans who are closest to the field already have netting which is fine. If you are saying that people who are hundreds of feet away can’t get out of the way then they shouldn’t be sitting there. Bottom line. Take responsibility for your actions and don’t put yourself in a situation you are not capable of handling.
Idiotic. Prevent anyone under 18 from sitting in hazardous seats and offer anyone else helmets with face masks and gloves which must be returned on exit. If they refuse as most will they are on their own. You know teams will eventually net the entire stadium so cheap seats have the same obstacle saying its to prevent stuff being thrown on field or going on the field, so even HR will be out
In the immortal words of Stephen A. YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!!
I agree with you regarding the “hazardous seats”.
Well of course they would rather spend money on the park when the backlash comes to a mediocre team. That’s what DD did in Detroit n now in Boston. The fact is the owners allowed Theo to leave, Firing Tito, n low balling Lester n all the other good players who left. The team has had ZERO personality, that you get from winning. DD has done ZERO the last 2 winters addressing the batting situation, n for that sitter freaking sign Pom, Boston needs more pitching too. Please DO SOMETHIING!!!!!!!!!
I think it’s easy to say “Do Something!!”, but how would you feel if Dombrowski just threw $200M at JDM as Boras and JD were asking for when the offseason began?
Only asking because I hear that comment by many… yet many are the same people that criticized Dombrowski when he “did something” by signing Price for whatever it took, and when he “did something” by trading away many prospects last offseason.
Boston fans are never happy
With you 100%. If a smart move isn’t there, no move is the right thing to do.
Not with Trader Dave who loves moving his chess pieces around. He’s set some records for the most players moved. With an insatiable appetite for older veteran players, Dave typically empties the farm system so that it takes a long time to restock
You’re overreacting. As for DD not addressing the power issue, try reading more. Last season the OWNERS decided they wanted to get beneath the Luxury tax threshold, not DD. Right now, as we speak, DD has a contract offer out to JD. The ball is in his court now. What more do you want? They will sign JD!
Remember the “good” old days of MLBTradeRumors when every single Boston story mentioned Swihart? Ah, memories. Someday he’ll be a Hall of Famer, just you wait and see.
or the Mets stories involving Lastings Milledge and Mets fans swore he was better than Barry Bonds
sacball, remember FMart?
I never understood the fascination with FMart
I didn’t either, but the NY media hyped him like he was going to be a perennial All Star. He was untouchable – the next great Met. Unfortunately, it was a lot of hype.
Look, I’m a Phillies fan, and a lot of Phils prospects got hyped to death in the local and national media and eventually busted.
Remember that Dom Brown guy?
It happens with prospects on every team.
Oh man Lastings Milledge, that’s a name I’ve not heard in a long time
I remember over at one of the Phillies blogs a bunch of Bosox fans showing up and arguing that Swihart was to much to give up for Cole Hamels because Hamels had a big contract and Swihart was going to be a stud and had so much “surplus value”.
Swihart is one of the many, many examples of prospects being overvalued by their own teams’ fanbase..
Nope, I remember the Phillies asking for Swihart along with Betts. Probably good that didn’t happen
It wasn’t a Swihart-for-Hamels deal, sunshine. The Phillies wanted Betts and a couple of other players also.
No need to be antagonistic and rude gomer.
I did not write anything about what the Phillies wanted.
My post was concerning Bosox fans on a Phillies blog stating that they thought Swihart was too much for Hamels. That’s all.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Citation requested.
Go take a look at The Good Phight archives and read through the threads at the time. There were a lot of Bosox fans taking the position that Swihart was too much.
You and all the rest of the chicken littles with their mindless speculation about prospects: if you haven’t become an all-star with a few hundred at-bats, it’s time to put you out to pasture. While a minority of ML players who haven’t lived up to the hype likely never put up more than single-digits in WAR, I appreciate those who keep plugging away,working on their game, and making fools of whining, judgmental fans. Tell me, what are your “prospects” in life? Stop being such a whiny Eeyore.
LOL!
Ever think that bad ankle injury Swihart had may have stunted his development? Nevermind the fact they kept moving him all over the place vs keeping him at Catcher. Blame the injury, blame the Red Sox but I wouldn’t blame Blake for not reaching his potential yet or people for hyping him up. If he’s healthy now and they keep him at 1 position he still has time to become the player everyone hyped him up to be.
And Lars Anderson
Why not just give everyone a helmet? Or better yet get rid of the lower bowl completely.
Because nets are the most logical thing to do and it keeps all normal people happy
God, they have nets behind home plate and nobody cares. They have nets in hockey too I believe, and I don’t think people care about that either. You barely notice them. I didn’t realize trying to prevent people (often little kids) from getting injured or killed at a baseball game would be such a controversial issue, but it shouldn’t be that surprising I guess
You really think fans pay attention to where the netting is? I never have I know it’s behind home plate but no clue anywhere else
It’s absurd that anyone should have to be concerned about potential injury when a rock hard projectile is hurtling at them at blazing speed because teams don’t provide netting to protect them. It’s not just children, seniors and the handicapped who are sitting ducks, it could be anyone. Netting should run from foul pole to foul pole in every stadium.
People have been going to games for over a hundred years w/o netting or only having netting behind the plate. WHY all of a sudden should every team put nets from foul pole to foul pole? WHAT has changed so much in a hundred or more years that would require such an overreaction? WHY is the solution always something that most people don’t like or want? Shouldn’t the MAJORITY of fans, like season ticket holders, be asked what they’d like to see? It would be one thing if you couldn’t see the net at all but you can. I’m not spending $500. for my wife and I to go to a game that my vision is blocked in any way. Now that the Red Sox have decided to extend the nets, we won’t be going to any games anymore unless they are free.
“Now that the Red Sox have decided to extend the nets, we won’t be going to any games anymore unless they are free.” and the reality is there will be someone waiting inline to take your place for those season tickets as they won’t mind the 97% invisible netting being utilized by most teams.
All 9 positions? That’ll be interesting to watch.
I don’t know why the Red Sox don’t make Swihart their starting catcher. He had a .429 OBP last year (although in a small sample). That is the OBP an MVP candidate would have.
He can’t catch and injuries keep piling up.
Same reason the Cubs don’t make Schwarber their starting catcher…
I think that he should be the starting catcher and hit in the 4 hole. They should stick to their guns and play him there all year. Lol
He had 7 plate appearances lol. Erik Kratz went 2-2 last year, so he should probably start over Gary Sanchez
Swihart hit (in AAA) .190/.246/.292/.539 and you want him as the starting Catcher? I don’t think so.
Recent comments from Red Sox GM Dave Dombrowski hint that the front office would feel confident( going into the 2017 season )with the pieces they have in the fold right now
*2018
Well whats DD to say. He is in negotiations with JDM/Boras, he has to say that so they think he is willing to walk away.
Its actually true if they are willing to give Brentz a shot at DH. If it doesnt work then get Donaldson at he trade deadline once the Jays fall out. If guys like Boegarts, pedroia, Moreland and Hanley can avoid injuries they might bounce back and hit better or with more power. If Benintendi and Devers develop as intended and Betts returns to 2016 form. Lot of ifs though
It’s only postering. He also said this weekend that they know they need a middle of the order bat.
When he says “all 9 positions”, is he including DH in there? Because everyone knows he cannot play catcher.
Lmaoo
Or pitch.
I really don’t understand why people are so down on Swihart. He hasn’t even hit that badly. And he had one bad defensive game while catching a knuckleballer. And all of a sudden he’s a failure.
When prospects don’t live up to the hype fans turn on them. It happens in every town.
Eric, don’t confuse the nattering nabobs of negativism with facts or compassion or patience. Sharks are more restrained when there’s blood in the water. If Swihart got hurt or struggled with the knuckler, he’s already a massive failure, along with being the cause of the next world war. String him up!
Agree 100%. He actually was a good catcher filling in as a young, still developing rookie, especially for the C position and as a switch hitter. Both C and switch hitting generally require more time in the minors to master Circumstances didn’t allow the developmental time. So he came up young for C, did a decent job behind the plate and hit pretty well. He also showed speed. Very promising. Then it hit the fan … injuries. He is still young and still promising.
He knows he can play the IF because he played several positions coming up, and was learning LF at Fenway pretty well before fracturing his ankle on the wall. He’s a kid who deserves his chance, not rude comments.
The fact is, pay attention Drellich, that in 2017 all of Moreland, Hanley, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Bradley, Betts, Hernandez, Swihart, Nunez, Holt, Rutledge, Young were hampered by some bad injuries that cost the team hits, xbh, runs. Pom, Price, ERod, Wright, Johnson, Elias, Smith, Thornburg also dealt with injuries. Yet they won the ALE. DDo is correct that this is a winning team as is. He is also trying to improve it.
DDo has a 5 year $120M contract in front of Boras for JDM, and the Sox have been auditioning Nunez. Do we really want to pay a 30 year old DH 7/210? Really? Do we really want to sign Nunez before he gets medically cleared and showcases his skills? Meanwhile guys like Duda, LoMo, Hosmer, and Bour are still waiting out there. The off-season is far from over.
Why though? They don’t hit home runs.
Sox should just rebuild they aren’t competing in the east for at least 10 years. I mean I guess there’s a lithe wild card
Always
Hey, Nostradamus, can I call you with some stock market questions?
Don’t be ridiculous!
Since Pomeranz made 32 starts last year, can people officially stop crying wolf in sheep’s clothing toward Prellar? Clearly Pomeranz was not amazed goods like many try to make him out to be…
Swihart > Holt
The Sox should have sold high on Holt when they had the chance to. Now, he has very little value.
Holt doesn’t have little value, he has NO value.
It’s too late for the Red Sox to be better than the Yankees or Astros. A few short years ago, the Red Sox organtizational outlook was lightyears ahead of those 2 teams. Now, it’s reversed, due to HORRIBLE HORRIBLE player asset management by both Cherington and Dombo. It’s depressing. So Dombo is actually doing exactly what he can and should be doing, finally. The team will be competitive in 2018 and might hit a lucky hot streak. But any further all-in push for this year will just make things even worse down the road. The “what could have been” is a staggering nightmare, and it will take many many years to get back there again. As of right now, we don’t need another Pablo Sandoval or David Price signing, or another Tyler Thornburg trade, which will only make things even worse.
Please-Please-Please Sox sign JD Martinez so the ship sinks faster…
bigcubsfan
47 mins ago
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Huh why?
I don’t understand why people act like they’re going to be awful any moment.
Betts, JBJ (still don’t understand why you guys bag on him), Benni in the outfield.
Devers, Boe (if they sign him long term) make for several young positional players.
Bo Sox have deep pockets, they’ll always buy pitching or an additional bag or two when the time comes.
Is there farm just that awful??
If they’ve got that many relatively young guys I don’t see any reason in having a top farm. Could use a 1B and eventually a 2B, but it seems like they are in decent shape overall.
Exactly, they have homegrown, young talent at C, SS, 3B, LF, CF, RF that gives them a competitive core. They traded for an ace, one of the top closers and signed another ace who hasn’t lived up yet. They will lose some high contracts in the next few years and always spend in the top 5. Chavis may be the next big piece, Swihart and Travis still could prove value. No doom and gloom in Boston.
You’re correct, Chebert is just being negative and blind.
You’re being completely ridiculous.
I love it when the fans and media run the franchise.
I’m glad the Red Sox are confident going into the 2017 season lol. I can tell them how it’ll work out.
So can I, 2017 being history and all.
The Brewers finished the extended netting in October.
Well whats DD to say. He is in negotiations with JDM/Boras, he has to say that so they think he is willing to walk away.
Its actually true if they are willing to give Brentz a shot at DH. If it doesnt work then get Donaldson at he trade deadline once the Jays fall out. If guys like Boegarts, pedroia, Moreland and Hanley can avoid injuries they might bounce back and hit better or with more power. If Benintendi and Devers develop as intended and Betts returns to 2016 form.
Swihart has been the most overrated prospect in generations. How many millions of words have been puked on us by the Boston media about this scrub over the years? He’s the perfect example of media bias on prospect lists, too. He never did anything to warrant his high rankings and was given way too long a leash on the lists too, no one would have cared about him if he wasnt on the Red Sox.
Do you really think Boston or Boston fans create the top prospect list? A consensus of evaluators rated him highly. He hasn’t lived up. You could create an amazing card collection of all teams once highly rated prospects that don’t pan out. It isn’t a Boston issue, it happens all of the time. At least Swihart made it to the bigs, some top prospects never even do that.
Over-hyping and over-rating of players is universal and has been going on for decades (Google Clint Hartung…the next Babe Ruth) . To assert that it is anything other than that shows you are either being intentionally obtuse or not paying attention
Ever think that bad ankle injury Swihart had may have stunted his development? Nevermind the fact they kept moving him all over the place vs keeping him at Catcher. Blame the injury, blame the Red Sox but I wouldn’t blame Blake for not reaching his potential yet or people for hyping him up. If he’s healthy now and they keep him at 1 position he still has time to become the player everyone hyped him up to be.
One has to wonder about the following comment in the article above:
“The club is, of course, still engaged in discussions with free agent slugger J.D. Martinez, and for his part, Drellich believes a deal will get done. But while Dombrowski seems comfortable taking his time in negotiations with Martinez (waiting for “the ice to melt,” in his own words), one has to wonder what kind of backlash he’ll face in the harsh Boston media if another team swoops in and inks the righty-hitter to a deal first.”
It’s my understanding DD is the GM and that GM’s are smarter than sports writers by virtue of their paycheck. So it strikes me as extremely odd that a sportswriter would think he knows more about running a MLB team than a GM and that a backlash from Monday morning quarterbacks would be of concern. LOL
DD, just do what you think is right and what JH allows you to do and let the chips fall where they may. You don’t strike me as a crowd follower.
I must confess I am getting a real good laugh out of all this impatience.
So by virtue of the fact that DD is a GM, he’s automatically correct. 10-4
Of course. The only one that knows more than DD is God ..I thought everyone knew that?.
Completely Agree!
Stop believing everything you read or hear as 100% absolute truth Evan. Ever hear of Postering? Good grief! The other day Dombrowski said they know they need a big bat for the middle of their lineup. See how this is different from what he said before?