Will Stone return to the booth in '13?

[SOXSINCE'70]

Originally Posted by Brian26

Great exchange between Hawk and Stone in the 3rd inning:


"Ask any GM, it's all about money now."


"I'll ask the Tampa Bay Rays."


"Well, that's only because they have the best manager in baseball today."


"I think it has something to do with all of that homegrown starting pitching."


"Well, how many years did they have to finish in last place to get that?"

Good points made by both.Where the hell was this all season??

[KingXerxes]

Originally Posted by SOXSINCE'70

Good points made by both.Where the hell was this all season??

I don't want to pick fly crap out of a pile of pepper, but would like to weigh in on this conversation.

Allow me to sum it up this way:
1. Harrelson contended money is the key to success in baseball.
2. Stone countered about Tampa Bay doing it without money.
3. Harrelson then explained this away by giving credit to Madden.
4. Stone said much of the credit belonged to their player development.
5. Harrelson contended the reason they got the players in the first place was due to all the high draft picks Tampa received for finishing last all the time (which - by implication - costs money).

OK - It would appear to me that Harrelson's initial point of money being the sole factor keeps changing as he's challenged. If the manager is to be credited (as he says in #3) then it isn't "all about money". His own response to Stone undermines his initial assertion. Then he further switches away from the "all about money" statement to contend that high draft choices come at a cost - and that cost is finishing last (I'm guessing here this was Harrelson's point).

Stone stayed on point by twice pointing out that "it isn't all about money", but Harrelson wavers off that point considerably, even intrducing elements into his argument which contradict his initial blanket generalization.

For the record - The Tampa Bay Rays finished last from 1998 through 2007 with the exception of 2004 when they finished fourth. The only starting pitcher, however, which Tampa Bay gained from the last place finishes was David Price who was the first overall pick in the 2007 draft. Shields was a 16th round amateur draft pick, Moore was an 8th round amateur draft pick, Cobb was a 4th round amateur draft pick and Hellickson was a 4th round amateur draft pick. The point being that, other than David Price, all of these other pitchers were available to all teams before Tampa Bay drafted them, and were not the result of Tampa Bay finishing in the cellar.

Stone wins.

[shingo10]

Originally Posted by KingXerxes

I don't want to pick fly crap out of a pile of pepper, but would like to weigh in on this conversation.

Allow me to sum it up this way:
1. Harrelson contended money is the key to success in baseball.
2. Stone countered about Tampa Bay doing it without money.
3. Harrelson then explained this away by giving credit to Madden.
4. Stone said much of the credit belonged to their player development.
5. Harrelson contended the reason they got the players in the first place was due to all the high draft picks Tampa received for finishing last all the time (which - by implication - costs money).

OK - It would appear to me that Harrelson's initial point of money being the sole factor keeps changing as he's challenged. If the manager is to be credited (as he says in #3) then it isn't "all about money". His own response to Stone undermines his initial assertion. Then he further switches away from the "all about money" statement to contend that high draft choices come at a cost - and that cost is finishing last (I'm guessing here this was Harrelson's point).

Stone stayed on point by twice pointing out that "it isn't all about money", but Harrelson wavers off that point considerably, even intrducing elements into his argument which contradict his initial blanket generalization.

For the record - The Tampa Bay Rays finished last from 1998 through 2007 with the exception of 2004 when they finished fourth. The only starting pitcher, however, which Tampa Bay gained from the last place finishes was David Price who was the first overall pick in the 2007 draft. Shields was a 16th round amateur draft pick, Moore was an 8th round amateur draft pick, Cobb was a 4th round amateur draft pick and Hellickson was a 4th round amateur draft pick. The point being that, other than David Price, all of these other pitchers were available to all teams before Tampa Bay drafted them, and were not the result of Tampa Bay finishing in the cellar.

Stone wins.

Hawk is saying that its all about money and if you do it without money you either have a great manager or have spent many years being terrible acquiring top picks.

Stone is being his smug arrogant self. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out buddy...

[TaylorStSox]

Originally Posted by shingo10

Hawk is saying that its all about money and if you do it without money you either have a great manager or have spent many years being terrible acquiring top picks.

Stone is being his smug arrogant self. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out buddy...

So basically Hawk's argument is wrong and inconsistent?

[KingXerxes]

"Hawk is saying that it's all about money and if you do it without money you either have a great manager or have spent many years being terrible acquiring top picks."

Hawk's initial proclamation was "It's all about money." and he only started lengthening the point of his statement when he was challenged on it.

If Stone had simply said, "Yep!", I sincerely doubt Harrelson would have continued with other ways in which to be successful in baseball.

Also - If Harrelson had made a statement like the one you attribute to him in the quote above, it would be a great statement of the obvious and still wouldn't account for making good draft picks and/or developing those draft picks.

[Chez]

Originally Posted by BainesHOF

Bingo, especially the part about the negativity.

And yet the two most negative, critical broadcasters I've ever heard (and it's not even close) were Jimmy and Harry. And people fall all over themselves to say how great they were.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by Chez

And yet the two most negative, critical broadcasters I've ever heard (and it's not even close) were Jimmy and Harry. And people fall all over themselves to say how great they were.

Yeah, Harry became such a house shill when he went to the north side that people forget (or never knew) how much he ripped on the Sox from the booth, his voice often dripping with sarcasm. Was it Jay Johnstone that Harry refused to announce his batting average because it was too low, and Harry would bring it up pretty much every game? "I'm not going to say his batting average until he gets it up over .XXX (whatever the line was)." "That wouldn't be a home run in a phone booth." And Jimmy, with his "you young ballplayers out there, make sure you don't do it the way so-and-so does, the right way to do it is..."

[KingXerxes]

Originally Posted by Chez

And yet the two most negative, critical broadcasters I've ever heard (and it's not even close) were Jimmy and Harry. And people fall all over themselves to say how great they were.

Piersall and Caray had a certain endearing quality about them - kind of like your favorite uncle when he's drunk and arguing with your aunt about the right lead in a game of Pinochle.

Harrelson has the quality of that "know it all" two houses down who comes out to tell you you're not watering your lawn correctly.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by KingXerxes

Piersall and Caray had a certain endearing quality about them - kind of like your favorite uncle when he's drunk and arguing with your aunt about the right lead in a game of Pinochle.

Harrelson has the quality of that "know it all" two houses down who comes out to tell you you're not watering your lawn correctly.

Oh, please. Piersall was a huge know-it-all.

[KingXerxes]

Agreed - But he was viewed as the aunt who could never lead the right card. He would never shut up, he would never stop criticizing, yet it was endearing.

There is nothing in Harrelson's delivery even remotely pointing in the direction of lighthearted or humorous. Just the billowing of a guy who has no sense of the fact that he's delivering an entertainment product.

[Nellie_Fox]

Originally Posted by KingXerxes

Agreed - But he was viewed as the aunt who could never lead the right card. He would never shut up, he would never stop criticizing, yet it was endearing.

There is nothing in Harrelson's delivery even remotely pointing in the direction of lighthearted or humorous. Just the billowing of a guy who has no sense of the fact that he's delivering an entertainment product.

Definite example of "eye of the beholder" then, because I never found Jimmy "endearing."

[slavko]

Originally Posted by shingo10

Hawk is saying that its all about money and if you do it without money you either have a great manager or have spent many years being terrible acquiring top picks.

Stone is being his smug arrogant self. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out buddy...

But what if the smug, arrogant self is right, as Xerxes has just proven to us? (Ya know, the fact that only one of the pitchers was a top pick.)

[KingXerxes]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

Definite example of "eye of the beholder" then, because I never found Jimmy "endearing."

I'm fine with that Nellie, but have to ask you if you found the Caray/Piersall broadcasts to be more fun than the Harrelson/Stone or Farmer/Jackson broadcasts.

This is about having fun after all.

[Noneck]

Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox

Definite example of "eye of the beholder" then, because I never found Jimmy "endearing."

I never found Jimmy to be endearing either but had compassion for him because of his past, his on going problems and could overlook his arrogance. Harrelsons I can not.

[Golden Sox]

Nellie: Harry Caray wouldn't announce Jay Johnstones BA when he was with the Sox, but he called Johnstone "The Old Pro" when Johnstone was with the Cubs and Harry became a houseman for the Cubs.