Some semi-contrary thoughts about the Red Sox

In case you’re wondering why I’m not ripping Scott Brown for his unconscionable stand on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — no equality for gays and lesbians until the millionaires have their tax cut — well, I’ve been doing it on Twitter. What I’ve got to say about him can definitely be accomplished in 140-character bursts.

Which brings me to this unbelievable week for the Red Sox. The Adrian Gonzalez trade and the Carl Crawford signing are Manny-Schilling-Beckett-level moves, and it looks like the Sox are in a great position to move past the Yankees once again. So may I express a few contrary thoughts? OK, thank you. I will.

  • Adrian Beltre and Victor Martinez had stellar seasons in 2010. Gonzalez and Crawford will be better, but how much better?
  • Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz more or less have to repeat what they did last year, and either Josh Beckett or John Lackey have to return to form. Can it happen? Sure. But it’s by no means certain.
  • Everyone acts as though Kevin Youkilis and Dustin Pedroia will pick up right where they left off before they got hurt. It’s not that easy. They both had surgery, and Youkilis’ injury, in particular, sounds exotic and worrisome.

I’m not even mentioning Jacoby Ellsbury (he’ll be fine, and if he isn’t, Mike Cameron and Ryan Kalish can take over), Jonathan Papelbon (he’ll probably have a monster year) and our tendency to overrate local talent (Nick Cafardo would have you believe that the post-surgery Pedroia will be better than Robinson Cano).

Finally, is the money race between the Red Sox and the Yankees bad for baseball? You bet. I would love to see strict revenue-sharing. It’s lousy that teams like the Royals and the Pirates never have a chance, and that the Padres and the Rays have to give up their best talent.

I’m glad John Henry and company have decided to compete under the system as it is, but things really need to change.

Photo (cc) by Bullion Vault and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

51 thoughts on “Some semi-contrary thoughts about the Red Sox

  1. BP Myers

    The Royals are owned by one of the richest men in the world. If they wanted to be competitive, they would be.

    The Pirates are one of the most lucrative franchises in baseball, having figured out (like Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom) that they can make more with a flop than a hit.

    The Rays are owned by a former Goldman Sachs golden boy who retired at forty a billionaire. He decries that fans don’t come to games yet doesn’t come himself (he lives in New York.)

    My theory is that he doesn’t want to own the Rays, and like John Henry with the Yankees and Marlins, he’s simply biding his time until a more premium franchise becomes available. Preferably, one in New York.

    Agree with your overall point, yet still wonder if baseball would be better served with a payroll floor rather than a payroll ceiling. If these owners cannot afford to put competitive teams on the field, they cannot afford a baseball franchise.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @BP: What you are saying, with the Royals and the Rays, is that wealthy people who own baseball teams are obligated to run them at a considerable loss with their own personal wealth. That is not a sustaining way to run anything. The Red Sox and the Yankees not only spend a fortune, they make a fortune.

  2. Personally, I’d love to see a salary cap, similar to the NBA, instituted in baseball. I don’t see a better way to ensure good league-wide competition. I think the future interests of baseball are ill-served by having a handful of teams continually raiding the rosters of the less-affluent.

  3. Steve Stein

    How can we have this discussion and not say the word “catcher”?

    ‘Tek is returning, but he won’t be close to every-day, and won’t even be every-other-day. The “starter” is supposed to be Jarrod Saltalamacchia, who hasn’t shown himself to be a major-league caliber catcher yet. I hope Varitek shows himself to be a great coach and gets Salty up to speed. But this has to be the major looming question mark for the Sox right now.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Steve: Martinez was a crappy catcher. The Red Sox may lose some offense at catcher, but that’s the extent of it.

  4. BP Myers

    @Dan: Whatever their success or failure on the field, both the Royals and the Rays franchises have increased in value by hundreds of millions of dollars since their owners purchased them. When the time comes for them to sell, they’ll make out just fine. They won’t lose a dime.

    Now, I don’t know about the Yankees, but given baseball’s revenue-sharing formula, I’m skeptical that the Red Sox make a “fortune.” Much of the money they make gets taken from them to give to teams like the Pirates and the Royals. That’s how the Pirates make their money.

    I also know in the case of the Rays, their television ratings are astronomical, yet they signed a contract with Fox a few years ago that pays them a pittance. Compare that to the Rangers recent television contract, something in the neighborhood of fifty-million (or something equally astronomical.)

    Not my fault some of these guys (unlike John Henry) are simply bad businessmen, and in the case of the Rays, abysmal marketers.

  5. charles pierce

    No, Dan, what BP is saying is that both the Royals and Pirates are owned by very wealthy people who don’t give a damn, who get new stadiums built for them — the new Pittsburgh ballpark is the nicest one in the majors — and see them only as cash cows, and who put what revenue sharing there is right into their pockets and not into the product on the field. (Although the Pirates seem to be investing in their minor-league system more heavily under new management. We’ll see.)

    Without getting into Allen Barra’s extensive research into why the “competitive balance” issue is the reddest of herrings, I would point out that salary caps are not economic devices, but mechanisms of control over the hired help. (How has the salary cap helped the “competitive balance” in the NBA? When are the Pacers next going to contend, or the Bucks?) You can compete as a small-market baseball team — viz. the Twins. That you can’t compete for, say, a decade, and the Red Sox and Yankees CAN is an accident of business that has been the case for over a century. The least competitive era in baseball was under the reserve clause.

  6. Steve Stein

    @Dan – Martinez is a below average defensive catcher. You ain’t seen “crappy” yet. Of course, this year’s catcher will have an advantage – not having to try to throw out Carl Crawford!

  7. Steve Stein

    Ack, I take it back (those “lyin’ eyes” again, I guess).

    According to Beyond the Boxscore, Martinez ranked 114 of 120 in catcher defense. Varitek was 20th, Salti was 45th(!).

    Dan, I bow to your superior crap detection skills.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Steve: In Martinez’s defense (heh, heh), he was just godawful early in the season, got better and then got hurt. So his numbers may be skewed by how brutal he was in April and May. He did work hard to improve.

  8. BP Myers

    Speaking of being brutal in April and May, recall the Sox inexplicable 12-14 start (or whatever the hell it was.) Not sure it was so many new faces learning to gel, Ortiz’ ongoing woes, or scrambling to find a role for square-peg Mike Lowell . . .

    But the fact is, even despite their pile of injuries later on in the season, winning even three or four more games early on might . . . just might . . . have placed them in a position to play into October.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @BP: The way the Yankees and Rays stumbled down the stretch last year, you wonder if the Red Sox might have made it into the postseason in 2010 if they had shored up their bullpen. I think ownership gave up after Youkilis got hurt.

  9. BP Myers

    @Dan: Agreed. Frankly, had the Sox gotten just what Kerry Wood gave the Yanks, it might have made all the difference. But what’s done is done.

    Pitchers and catchers right around the corner . . .

  10. Pingback: Tweets that mention Media Nation » Some semi-contrary thoughts about the Red Sox -- Topsy.com

  11. Steve Stein

    And then what? OK, getting a ticket to the playoffs is better than not, but how far do you think they would have gone? Frankly, I’m spoiled by 2004 and 2007 – losing in the first round of the playoffs (or even the ALCS) would be the same as not making it for me.

    Save the money, save the prospects, blow people away in 2011. I’d rather that.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Steve: As I understand it, you make a ton of money just by getting into the postseason. Would have been well worth it, even if they got eliminated in the first round.

  12. Mike Benedict

    Dan wrote: “The Red Sox and the Yankees not only spend a fortune, they make a fortune.”

    The Yankees might, but the Red Sox don’t, at least per these Forbes data:
    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_Boston-Red-Sox_330700.html

    Per these data, the Red Sox are barely net positive in terms of operating income for the 2000s.

    Now, keep in mind two things. One, this is operating income, not net, which would be lower (unless there were tax breaks or other windfalls). I suspect any revenue from MLB apparel, etc., and network related royalties are included here. But most NESN income would not be, as that is a separate operating group.

    What’s interesting is how much attention the Red Sox command despite their relatively small revenues compared to many other local companies.

  13. Jack Sullivan

    Sorry, Dan, no tears here for the “small market” teams. I side with @charlie on this one. Forbes annual list (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Income.html) shows the top team in operating income (read: profit) was the Marlins, Sox second, Nationals third, Padres fifth. Rays, Reds and Pirates were all in the top half of operating income. Say what you want about the Yankees and Sox, but they reinvest in their teams (which is different from spending into the red.) It’s a sound business model. If you’re gonna talk salary cap and revenue sharing, you have to talk salary floor. No rules say those small teams have to put their revenue shares into the teams, so they don’t. Until baseball owners actually use their anti-trust exemption in the way it was envisioned by Congress, it’s going to remain this way. And, as a fan and season ticketholder, I’m okay with that.
    By the way, as a catcher, Martinez is an outstanding offensive player. As a 1B/DH, he’s a little above average. He’s a 3.8 WAR offensively but minus .8 defensively. That’s a net 3.0 WAR. Detroit had 81 wins. Don’t think 84 wins moves them up much. I liked him but I’m okay with him wearing a Tigers road jersey at Fenway.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Marc: If Papelbon can’t get the job done, the Sox aren’t going to let him ruin their season. Bard will get the nod.

  14. Mike Benedict

    @Marc:

    This is one area where I’d agree with Dan. Why give up on Papelbon?

    2009
    K Rate 26.7%
    BB Rate 8.1%
    OBP Against .289
    AVG (RISP).128
    OBP (RISP).238
    SLG (RISP).233
    ERA 1.85
    Blown Saves 3

    2010
    K Rate 26.5%
    BB Rate 7.7%
    OBP Against .296
    AVG (RISP).293
    OBP (RISP).384
    AVG (RISP).467
    ERA 3.86
    Blown Saves 7

    For whatever reason, Papelbon’s OPS Against when runners were in scoring position jumped to .851 from .471. I’d chalk that up to the random nature of a small sample size.

    Other possibilities: He was hiding an injury, he was tipping pitches, blowing a few games affected his confidence and snowballed, or the efforts to keep him healthy by limiting his non-game pitching have affected his feel for his pitches.

    There is little reason to think he won’t rebound.

  15. Leanne Gra

    A decision was made, presumably with full support of MLB and the other owners, to forego immediate Broadcast revenues to build a fan-base (For both the Rays AND Marlins, actually) throughout Florida. Before the new agreement with FOX signed after the ’08 season, only select games were carried. Now all but 3 or 4 games are carried. At the time of the signing of the new contract, the Rays likely could have gotten $30+ Million above the $15Million they now receive. If that deal was signed today, the comparable market value to deals for teams with similar ratings would be at least $65Million/Year. By example, the Rangers and Rays had similar ratings this year and the Rangers signed a $1.6-1.8Billion deal that pays between $75-80Million/Year and has an $80Million signing bonus, also with FOX. The signing bonus alone is almost as large as the entire Rays contract which runs through 2016.

    This obviously means that the Rays will be at a significant revenue disadvantage, even if they weren’t in the AL East, until 2017.

  16. Steve Stein

    It looks like there is a face-saving story line for Pap and the Red Sox in the Mariano Rivera flirtation. Even so, it will be interesting to see how Pap responds on the field.

    Confidence, even arrogance, is essential for a lights-out closer, and Pap seemed to have lost it. If there is a reason to think he *won’t* return to pre-2010 form, that would be it. And for those pining for Daniel Bard to take the ball in the 9th, he hasn’t been through the fire yet, and we don’t know how he’ll respond.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Steve: Interesting. As for Bard, I don’t see why he wouldn’t be fine if that’s the direction the Sox need to take. The Sox, like most teams, try to bring in their closer to start the ninth, with no one on base. By contrast, Bard has often come in to clean up messes left by Okajima, Delcarmen, et al. and has excelled. There can be as much (or more) “fire” in the eighth as in the ninth.

      I don’t think Papelbon has lost his confidence. But that fastball no longer is enough, and he’s been inconsistent with the splitter. I’ll bet he comes back. We’ve all seen too much of Rivera over the years, who’s been freakishly consistent. Most closers, even great ones, have had bad years here and there.

  17. Mike Benedict

    @Steve: If there is evidence that says closers need to be groomed, I have not seen it. I have, however, seen plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    @Dan: Exactly right about the “fire.” There is plenty of data that empirically prove that closers who pitch only the ninth are “wasted” on lesser hitters and lower-leverage situations.

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4457

    “This information makes the case a bit more forcefully. The eighth inning opens most frequently with the #3 batter, followed closely by the #1 batter, then the #9. In any of those circumstances, the set-up man is facing the top or the middle of the order, a dangerous spot to be in. The ninth inning, on the other hand, is most likely to open with the #6 spot, followed by the #7 and #8 spots. That’s an easier row to hoe. Here’s the complete list:

    Eighth inning Ninth inning

    1 12.49% 1 10.47%
    2 11.61% 2 9.78%
    3 12.71% 3 11.43%
    4 10.52% 4 10.52%
    5 9.73% 5 11.15%
    6 10.33% 6 12.42%
    7 10.17% 7 11.94%
    8 10.28% 8 11.91%
    9 12.16% 9 10.38%”

    Moreover, per pitchFx, Papelbon threw his best pitch — his fastball — a career low 69% of the time in 2010. That’s the only time in his career he threw it less than 83%. Meanwhile, he threw the splitter 17% of the time, up from 0% the year before. Per the data, the fastball didn’t move as much in 2010 and 2009, though the velocity actually marginally climbed. http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfx.aspx?playerid=5975&position=P

    All that said, there is no doubt Bard is the better pitcher at this juncture. And there is also no doubt the Red Sox benefit from Bard pitching in the higher leverage situations and Papelbon pitching in the lower leverage situations. Boston actually lucks out here: They get to use the better pitcher when it is more meaningful, and yet they avoid the controversy they would incur if they were to move that better pitcher to the (less valuable) “closer” role.

  18. Aaron Read

    Papelbon is known to be prone to migraine headaches, which…as my wife will readily attest…are incredibly debilitating. I don’t think Paps has forced himself to pitch through a migraine very often, mostly because it’s probably physically impossible to do so. A true migraine is not something you can “play through the pain” with; it blows your eyesight and equilibrium to hell.

    But I do suspect that Paps has had to deal with the aftereffects of migraines more frequently than he (or the team) has let on, and that’s why we’re seeing more “random implosions” from him. If he has a migraine on Tuesday, and has to pitch on Wednesday, his pitching almost certainly will be “off” somewhat from the physical aftereffects.

    I don’t exactly blame either Paps or the Sox from downplaying the migraines. It’s frustrating for the fans, but there’s no benefit for the player or the team to make public that your closer is feeling like fried dog turds because of a migraine.

    The good news is that depending on the type of migraines he gets, they could be so random that he ends up having a season with barely any flareups at all. The bad news is that, for the same reasons, he could have a season laden with flareups. But going back to good news, the Sox DO have Bard to fall back on. Unfortunately, there’s really no-one to take Bard’s place in such a situation…hence why, despite Crawford and Gonzalez, if Theo doesn’t find a solid relief pitcher then the Sox are probably toast.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Aaron: IMHO, the problem with the bullpen last year had at least as much to do with Beckett, Dice-K and Lackey not pitching seven as much as it did the quality of the relievers. You are simply not going to sign pitchers who are lights-out to pitch the sixth and seventh inning, and our guys were called upon to do that way too many times.

  19. Steve Stein

    @Mike: “If there is evidence that says closers need to be groomed, I have not seen it. I have, however, seen plenty of evidence to the contrary.”

    I think I agree with this – but my point is that you never know until someone gets into the role. No, I don’t have examples of “good” pitchers who suddenly became “not so good” when closing, which is the problem of recollection vs data. I also have recollections about closers that “fell of a cliff” – Heathcliff Slocumb in his 2nd Boston season, for instance – but he was getting “old”.

    Data is better than recollection.

  20. Mike Benedict

    @Steve: I think the problem with thinking that a player may or may not perform in the role is that sample size usually messes you up. Typically, a relief pitcher isn’t as good as a starting pitcher, which is why he is asked to get three outs instead of 27. So that’s one factor. Then there’s the statistical noise. Many persons would have you believe some players just can’t stomach being out there with the game on the line. There are pitchers like Kyle Farnsworth for whom the perception is that they have great stuff, but since they have failed as closers, they must lack something inside.

    But is getting out no. 27 with no one on and a 3-run lead higher pressure than getting, say, out no. 24 with a 1-run lead and the bases juiced? I say no. And that’s where the noise comes in. We simply forget that if a baseball player can’t perform under pressure, he wouldn’t be in the majors in the first place.

    Reliever performance is notoriously volatile, probably owing in large part to the sample size. Heathcliff Slocumb bombed his second season (1997) with the Sox, but went on to pitch well for San Diego in 1999. As for Farnsworth, his performance in non-closing situations has been as bad as in closing situations (actually, that’s not entirely true. In 2005 for Atlanta, he was used as a closer and had the second best season of his career though he pitched just 27 innings after coming over in a trade.) He’s just not a good pitcher. Mike Jackson is another guy who for years considered an 8th inning pitcher who lacked the cojones to close. Given the opportunity at age 33, he racked up 40 saves with a 1.55 ERA and K/9 ratio of 9.0.

    Again, I worry about using any individual as a proxy for an entire subset of player.

  21. Aaron Read

    @Dan: I took it as a given that if Beckett, Dice-K**** and Lackey fail to have anything but dramatic improvement over last season, then the Sox are already toast. Lackey in particular needs someone to smack the s**t out of him every time he says he though he “pitched well” after lasting five innings and giving up five runs. News flash John: you pitched like crap. This ain’t the AL West anymore.

    **** I sort-of give a pass to Dice-K, he’s just not that good a pitcher and really was a massive misjudgment by many American GM’s about just how different the Japan leagues are. I argue for the Sox he’s a decent #5 starter at best in the AL East, and I’ll settle for that if Lester, Lackey, Beckett and Buchholz all pitch as well as they should be pitching.

    That said, if someone pounds into Dice-K’s head that he’s not in Japan anymore and this “nibble around the edges” approach isn’t for crap in the AL East (where the women are strong, the men are good looking and all the hitters are way the f**k above-average) then he could be even a solid #4 starter (again, in the AL East) and maybe even a decent #3. But it’ll be his fifth season in the States…if they haven’t driven that spike through his brain yet, I seriously doubt they ever will. Especially after his infuriating resistance to honesty with his manager and team when it comes to his physical condition.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Aaron: We’ve already seen the best of Dice-K. Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s also possible that the Red Sox signed Lackey just as he began his decline, and that Beckett will never again be healthy enough to do what he did in 2007. But who knows?

      I do know that I’d like to see Youkilis walk to the mound and smack Lackey in the mouth the next time he grimaces over a play he thinks should have been made.

  22. Steve Stein

    @Dan – perhaps you forget, but the “best of Dice-K” was very very good. I’d be ecstatic if he put together a season that was just the average of 2008 and 2010. It might not be likely, but I think it’s a large enough possibility not to give up on him.

    My reason for optimism is that he wasn’t getting shelled every time out. There were some very good starts in the 2nd half of last year where he looked like the 2008 Dice-K. It’s possible he can get some consistency there.

    I admit it’s a thin reed. I concede it’s more likely that he’s damaged and he’ll never get back to even 50% of 2008.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Steve: Even in ’08 he put way too much pressure on the bullpen. Five- and six-inning starts just don’t cut it.

  23. Mike Benedict

    @Dan: Dice-K averaged 6.14 innings per start last season.

    Binky Buchholz? 6.2. Given 0.33 = one out, that’s statistically the same.

    I don’t know who the last Boston pitcher to average 7 or more innings per start would be, but my guess is you’d have to go back to Pedro in 2000. (Even Pedro averaged 7 or more IP per start only twice in his seven seasons in Boston.)

    Those lyin’ eyes!

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Mike: Dice-K averaged 5.75 innings per start in 2008, his only good season. Last year he just sucked, although not quite as much as ’09.

  24. Steve Stein

    @Dan – “Last year he just sucked” – yes, sometimes. Other times he was a lights-out 7-8 innings starter. If he “just sucked” every time out, then I’d be with you. There are flashes of un-suckitude. If he just sucked a bit less, say, increasing the ratio of good starts to bad from 1:3 to 2:3, he would be better than a serviceable 5th starter.

  25. Steve Stein

    BTW, I have this friend in my simulation league from Kansas (a Yankee fan as happens), to whom I referred this discussion. He was amazed that in the wake of the Gonzalez and Crawford signings we were still rehashing Arroyo-Peña. He just doesn’t get the essential nature of Red Sox fans. 🙂

  26. Mike Benedict

    Pitcher 1
    Innings/start: 6.14
    Percentage of strikes thrown: 63%
    Pitches per inning: 17.0
    K/9: 7.76
    K percentage: 20.0%
    HR/9: 0.76
    K/BB ratio: 1.80
    Fielder independent ERA: 4.05

    Pitcher 2
    Innings/start: 6.2
    Percentage of strikes thrown: 62%
    Pitches per inning: 16.2
    K/9: 6.22
    K percentage: 16.9%
    HR/9: 0.47
    K/BB ratio: 1.79
    Fielder independent ERA: 3.61

    Pitcher 3
    Innings/start: 6.1
    Percentage of strikes thrown: 63%
    Pitches per inning: 15.56
    K/9: 6.80
    K percentage: 17.8%
    HR/9: 1.0
    K/BB ratio: 2.11
    Fielder independent ERA: 4.50

    Is one pitcher substantially different than the other?

  27. Steve Stein

    @Mike is this a trick question? All other things being equal I’ll take Pitcher 2 – he’ll win about 2 more games than #1 and 3 more than #3 over 30 starts.

    I don’t know how bad a fielding team I’d need to prefer #1, but I imagine there might be a circumstance where I want fewer balls in play.

    BTW, I know who 1 and 2 are – who’s 3? League Average Starter?

  28. Mike Benedict

    @Steve: Answer the question. Is one pitcher substantially different than the other?

    (Btw, how are you determining your 2 wins figure?)

  29. Steve Stein

    Mike – all other things being equal (age, defense, bullpen, salary among other things), I’d prefer #2.

    2 wins is more or less what a difference 0.40 of ERA makes over 30 starts, assuming the opposition scores about 4 to 4.5 (earned) runs, using Pythagorus.

  30. Mike Benedict

    @Dan: I’m curious whether you think if there is a significant difference between Pitcher 1, 2 and 3 (above)?

    Again, I think there is a large discrepancy between what you “see” and what is actually happening on the field.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Mike: As I said, I’ve moved on. Other than giving that comment a very cursory read, I haven’t given it any thought. Seemed we’d reached a point where it was basically you and @Steve going at it.

  31. Mike Benedict

    @Dan: What a copout. You make all these wild statements about Dice-K when in fact the data don’t support a thing you’ve said. In fact, throwing out 2009, when he was hurt, he’s actually been well above average as a pitcher.

    The point here is that you make the same mistake as most of the sportswriters, and hence, the fans, in that you *assume* you are mentally processing everything that’s going on, when in fact the data do not support what you think you’ve seen.

    It’s called observational bias, and — important journalism tip coming! — it directly contradicts the notion that seeing is believing. In fact, what it reinforces is that you, even as a first-hand observer of an event, are probably inaccurately reporting what actually happened.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Mike: How is it a copout to say I lost interest in the discussion? My main complaint about Dice-K in 2010 isn’t that he sucked (although he did at times), but that he spent so much of the year hurt after supposedly getting into the best shape of his career. I don’t blame him for that (unlike his slovenly lack of conditioning in ’09), but this guy’s peak came before the Red Sox ever signed him.

  32. Mike Benedict

    Even there, you make this incredible assumption. Another way to look at it is the Red Sox paid $100 million for a guy and then tried to change him. Nolan Ryan’s conditioning was to throw, throw, throw, and no one complained about him. BNot everyone fits neatly into the round hole. Perhaps Dice-K was right; throwing less is the wrong way for him to prepare.

    And perhaps we in Boston didn’t like being told what to do by a Japanese guy?

  33. Marc Larocque

    Anyone read the news today?

    People were criticizing me for questioning whether we should keep Papelbon. Criticize the Red Sox, suckaz!

    If Papelbum blows it for this year, with a bunch of idiots thinking he is so great cuz he can do an Irish jig, I’ll just be there crying.

Comments are closed.