OnlyBucs

Polanco is back --- Ugghh



Owens DFA



Crick to IL



Shreve brought in.

Here are batting averages of some recent Cherington acquisitions:



Tom - .143

Fowler - .171

Owen - .000

Alford - ,083

Stokes - .000

Gamel - 063



I never ever thought I would say it, but I think Huntington was a better judge of talent than Cherington. Polanco is starting to look pretty good to me.

475C515059555A340 wrote: Here are batting averages of some recent Cherington acquisitions:



Tom - .143

Fowler - .171

Owen - .000

Alford - ,083

Stokes - .000

Gamel - 063



I never ever thought I would say it, but I think Huntington was a better judge of talent than Cherington.  Polanco is starting to look pretty good to me.


Three of those guys have less than ten at bats.

0C2B20034E0 wrote: Here are batting averages of some recent Cherington acquisitions:



Tom - .143

Fowler - .171

Owen - .000

Alford - ,083

Stokes - .000

Gamel - 063



I never ever thought I would say it, but I think Huntington was a better judge of talent than Cherington.  Polanco is starting to look pretty good to me.


Three of those guys have less than ten at bats.


Most of Shedman's posts are about his dislike for Cherington (as if he still needs to reinforce that). He can't afford to wait until those players get more ABs and possibly get a few hits because it wouldn't fit his agenda.

607B76777E727D130 wrote: Here are batting averages of some recent Cherington acquisitions:



Tom - .143

Fowler - .171

Owen - .000

Alford - ,083

Stokes - .000

Gamel - 063



I never ever thought I would say it, but I think Huntington was a better judge of talent than Cherington.  Polanco is starting to look pretty good to me.


" . . . but I think Huntington was a better judge of talent than Cherington."



That's like someone saying, "I sure wish I could live in my cave again instead of this fully-equiped house."

5F7873501D0 wrote: Here are batting averages of some recent Cherington acquisitions:



Tom - .143

Fowler - .171

Owen - .000

Alford - ,083

Stokes - .000

Gamel - 063



I never ever thought I would say it, but I think Huntington was a better judge of talent than Cherington.  Polanco is starting to look pretty good to me.


Three of those guys have less than ten at bats.






________

If you can't talk about Cherington's failures at the beginning because the sample size is too small and if you can't talk about Cherington's failures after they have been sent packing (Fowler and Alford) then I guess you never talk about Cherington's failures.

677C717079757A140 wrote: Here are batting averages of some recent Cherington acquisitions:



Tom - .143

Fowler - .171

Owen - .000

Alford - ,083

Stokes - .000

Gamel - 063



I never ever thought I would say it, but I think Huntington was a better judge of talent than Cherington.  Polanco is starting to look pretty good to me.


Three of those guys have less than ten at bats.






________

If you can't talk about Cherington's failures at the beginning because the sample size is too small and if you can't talk about Cherington's failures after they have been sent packing (Fowler and Alford) then I guess you never talk about Cherington's failures.


You can certainly talk about those things. But if you don't do it intelligently, it's going to be noticed.

5A414C4D444847290 wrote: Here are batting averages of some recent Cherington acquisitions:



Tom - .143

Fowler - .171

Owen - .000

Alford - ,083

Stokes - .000

Gamel - 063



I never ever thought I would say it, but I think Huntington was a better judge of talent than Cherington.  Polanco is starting to look pretty good to me.


Three of those guys have less than ten at bats.






________

If you can't talk about Cherington's failures at the beginning because the sample size is too small and if you can't talk about Cherington's failures after they have been sent packing (Fowler and Alford) then I guess you never talk about Cherington's failures.




So you would have called Willie Mays a failure because he went 1-24 in his first at bats?



I didn't talk about Fowler and Alford. Who both had more than ten at bats. I'm not saying the other guys are good. They are probably mediocre at best, but it is too early to tell.



For example, Stokes increased his batting average by 182 points since you posted this. In one game.



ETA, does he get any credit for Tyler Anderson?

76515A79340 wrote: Here are batting averages of some recent Cherington acquisitions:



Tom - .143

Fowler - .171

Owen - .000

Alford - ,083

Stokes - .000

Gamel - 063



I never ever thought I would say it, but I think Huntington was a better judge of talent than Cherington.  Polanco is starting to look pretty good to me.


Three of those guys have less than ten at bats.






________

If you can't talk about Cherington's failures at the beginning because the sample size is too small and if you can't talk about Cherington's failures after they have been sent packing (Fowler and Alford) then I guess you never talk about Cherington's failures.




So you would have called Willie Mays a failure because he went 1-24 in his first at bats?



I didn't talk about Fowler and Alford. Who both had more than ten at bats. I'm not saying the other guys are good. They are probably mediocre at best, but it is too early to tell.



For example, Stokes increased his batting average by 182 points since you posted this. In one game.



ETA, does he get any credit for Tyler Anderson?
Anyone who wants NH over Cherington is delusional. In the first place he doesn't have enough of a Pirate body of work to have a reasonable idea what kind of GM he is. NH had a long track record with us and instead of improving as a GM his results were steadily becoming worse. His minor league development system was awful. Watching what a guy like Brubaker is doing now just shows they couldn't evaluate pitchers at all.

You really need to come up with a new schtick Shed.