Bad news for David Ortiz and the Red Sox.
Flo has a partially torn ECU [extensor carpi ulnaris] tendon sheath in his left wrist. He'll be put on the disabled list today and will miss at least a month -- which would put a return after the All-Star break as the best scenario.
The Globe reports: "His wrist will be immobilized in a cast for two weeks, and if it is healed by then, it should take about two weeks for Ortiz to get back into playing shape." Terry Francona said surgery is "very unlikely", though the Herald says it's a possibility.
As SoSH debates possible internal replacements, Projo reports that Chris Carter (.310/.366/.526 in Pawtucket after a slow start) will be called up. Carter may work as a stop-gap, but if Tiz is out for the rest of the season (which is impossible to know right now), Theo may need to grab a bigger gun. As Fratboy puts it: "If Papi's done for the year, order the barcalounger."
21 comments:
After Sunday's game, it looks like Coco forgot it was a four-game series.
Fratboy's full of it.
Obviously the team is better with Papi than without him, but many, many teams have weathered the loss of their best or one of their best sluggers for extended periods and still won---and those teams often didn't have the quality of the Sox pitching, which has yet to fulfill its potential.
The most famous Red Sox example was the '67 Sox losing Tony Conigliaro for the season; the team lost Jim Rice the latter part of '75, and Carlton Fisk (who was at least as critical to that team as Varitek is now, and far more involved offensively) missed the whole first half.
Of course, Francona has to avoid pissing away wins like he did last night.
How about signing one Barry Lamar Bonds?
Season-ending...uh-oh. I don't like the sounds of that at all...
Although, there is still a certain free agent who hits left and has hit a few dongs in his day.....
The most famous Red Sox example was the '67 Sox losing Tony Conigliaro for the season; the team lost Jim Rice the latter part of '75, and Carlton Fisk (who was at least as critical to that team as Varitek is now, and far more involved offensively) missed the whole first half.
Remember also when the Red Sox lost Nomar for the first part of the 2004 season, and they had to use Pokey Reese at shortstop. Of course, they also had Tiz and MBM.
PLEASE!
Bonds will NEVER play for the Sox (or anyone else.) If that unimaginable event occurred, I would turn in my life-time Red Sox fanatic pass and cancel my Direct TV. He's old, with bad knees, can't play the field, expensive, and carries a media circus with him---plus he's a felon, a cheat, and a liar.
Other than that, he's a perfect solution...
Name me the last baseball player who was signed to a contract while under federal indictment. Do we really have to even discuss this??
How about the last 40+ player signed to a contract after not playing for 8 moonths?
Talk about Elvis sightings, talk about UFOs, but please, pretty please, not this. It's not just a fantasy, it's a disgusting fantasy.
Jack, we get it. You don't like Bonds.
But
He's old, with bad knees, can't play the field, expensive,
In 477 PAs last year, he had an OPS of 1.045 and a .480 OBP. I don't care if a player is 22 or 52, if he can produce like that, he's an asset. He hasn't had an OPS below .999 since he was 26.
And if Tiz was out until 2009, Bonds would be the second-half DH -- therefore, no fielding required.
The only problem would be for the fans who would be forced to turn some of their Drew hate towards Bonds.
Longshot? Sure. But why not discuss it? If you think it's disgusting, then don't participate.
Barry Bonds should never be a Red Sox. My love for that team is blind but that would be pushing it
I agree wholeheartedly with Jack. I am sure we are not alone.
i wouldnt care if we signed satan, as long as we won/win.
In 477 PAs last year, he had an OPS of 1.045 and a .480 OBP. I don't care if a player is 22 or 52, if he can produce like that, he's an asset. He hasn't had an OPS below .999 since he was 26.
Thank you, he's basically the only player not locked-up that can put up numbers comparable to Ortiz's.
Yes, I realize that everyone hates him and yes, he is the posterboy for steroids and has a shitty personality, blah blah blah, but just looking purely at the numbers the bottom line is that he will help us win unlike any other option. And since he would be DH'ing, his fielding ability would not matter (as previously pointed out).
And as for him having a media circus - so did Dice-K last year, and everyone gobbled it up. Yes, I realize the two are very different media circuses, but a circus is a circus.
Oh, and Bonds in Boston is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge fucking long shot, and I will be shocked to shit if it ever actually happened.
I can't see them bringing in Bonds... What is stronger Jack's hate for Bonds , Redsock's hate for Clemens or Nixon's love of satan?........
tim said...
Oh, and Bonds in Boston is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge fucking long shot, and I will be shocked to shit if it ever actually happened.
Bonds also said this:
Bonds was asked a cream puff question about whether he would consider finishing his career in Beantown. Bonds shook his head and said, "Boston is too racist for me. I couldn't play there. That's been going on ever since my dad (Bobby) was playing baseball. I can't play like that. That's not for me, brother." When the reporter countered that the racial climate has changed in Boston, Bonds responded, "It ain't changing. It ain't changing nowhere."
Amen.....
He would do well here
"I wouldnt care if we signed satan, as long as we won/win."
You really ARE Nixon, aren't you?
I cannot comprehend the attitude of discussing OPS when we're talking about organizational poison, values surrender and ethical rot. Sign OJ to play running back; Michael Vick to play quarterback. That Jeffrey Fastow is a really talented excutive. Hey, Roger Clemens can still get a few outs! Robert Blake---now THERE's an actor! Hey, that Michael Richards is a funny guy!!
For once, maybe the only time, baseball executives get it while an astounding number of fans and writers don't.
"...but just looking purely at the numbers"...but you NEVER "just look at the numbers!" There is more to hiring somebody than just the narrowest view of their abilities ; every day, brilliant lawyers get fired because they are crooks; talented executives get sacked because they beat their spouses or commit vehicular homicide. An organization that voluntarily hires a high-profile figure who has a bad reputation becomes an organzaition with a bad reputation. The Red Sox may be the LAST sports organization that would do that.
"The only problem would be for the fans who would be forced to turn some of their Drew hate towards Bonds." You're kidding, right? You don't think sending the organizational message to a group of talented young players that cheating WORKS as long as you're good enough, have good enough chemists and can bribe your trainer to sit in jail rather than testify is a problem? You don't think an organzation embracing steroid use by paying big bucks to its #1 beneficiary and abdicating any legal or ethical standards by doing so is a problem? You don't think acquiring a player who throws down the race card any time he comes under fire---in a city with Boston's checkered race record---is a problem? Really?
Unbelievable.
OJ?
Really, Jack?
When thinking of something similar to use as a comparison to show how wrongheaded it would be to bring Bonds to Boston, you come up with O fuckin' J?
... sending the organizational message to a group of talented young players that cheating WORKS as long as you're good enough
You act like these "young players" are 6 years old when in fact they are grown men and have not been living under a rock.
I'm sure acquiring Ken Griffey Jr. would take too many prospects, but he'd be just the right kind of guy to fill the void, wouldn't he?
Murdering your wife and fighting dogs is not the same thing as taking steroids--something many others in the league have done.
Barry Bonds happened to become the poster boy of steroid use, but if he didn't do it McGwire would have been it, or Sosa. How much do you hate those guys? He gets a bad rap because he broke both HR records. He's a clubhouse cancer sure, but he's also awesome at baseball. As pointed out it's not going to happen because he doesn't want to play here, but it is the best baseball option.
Do you hate Mo Vaughn because he won an MVP w/ steroids??
I think there's a big difference between the Dice-K media circus and Barry Bonds'. DK media circus is about excitment, while BB is all negativity.
Why bring the most negative baseball player to your team? We often look back on great teams and remember the players. I wouldn't want to look back and think that we could only win in 08 with the help of Bonds.
Murdering your wife and fighting dogs is not the same thing as taking steroids--something many others in the league have done.
Thanks for this!
Apparently not to Jack. Murdering two people and forcing dogs to murder each other (and then murdering them if they don't) is the equivalent of cheating in sports.
Thank you, Mr. Ethics.
Jack, you have just lost all credibility you ever had on this issue.
Amy's right, you are certainly not alone in not wanting Bonds on your team. You are probably in the majority.
But when you compare what Bonds has done to murder and sadism, you blow it.
For some reason, Barry Bonds is the sole target of Jack's venom. I cannot recall him ever directing such anger and disgust at Jason Giambi or Ivan Rodriguez or Sammy Sosa or Nomar Garciaparra or Paxton Crawford.
Bonds will NEVER play for the Sox ... If that unimaginable event occurred, I would turn in my life-time Red Sox fanatic pass and cancel my Direct TV.
According to emails described in the Mitchell Report, the Red Sox front office strongly suspecting Eric Gagne of steroid use and traded for him anyway.
Theo Epstein, November 1, 2006:
"Have you done any digging on Gagne? I know the Dodgers think he was a steroid guy. Maybe so. What do you hear on his medical?"
Mark Delpiano, a scout:
"Some digging on Gagne and steroids IS the issue. ... Mentality without the plus weapons and without steroid help probably creates a large risk ..."
To one concerned with ethics, are not all cheaters the same, no matter what records they may or may not break? If someone cheats by taking XYZ and hits 20 home runs, is he not as bad as the cheater who takes XYZ and happens to hit 73 because he is a better player to begin with?
Has 73 HR Guy committed a graver crime because he may also at times be rude?
If you are true to your word, Jack -- and what is an ethicist if not true to his word? -- it's time for you to turn your back on the Boston Red Sox.
Post a Comment