Red Sox Mt. Rushmore

Connecticoin

Williams, Yaz, Fisk, Schilling.

Schilling is the wild card, but someone from the 2004/2007 teams should be on it. Could be Papi, but I would give the nod to Schill. Also Rice is a longshot to replace Fisk. Williams and Yaz are non-negotiable.

jdip9

I'd put Pedro on before Schilling....if Clemens wasn't such a d-bag and a cheater, he'd be on. The problem with most of the Sox players is that they didn't spend their entire career with the Sox. Kind of sad that the Yankees and Sox have been around for the same length of time, and they have like 5 or 6 guys fighitng for 4 rushmore spots, and the Sox only have 2 definites, 1 probable and 1 open spot.

Connecticoin

DEFINITELY Papi and not Schilling now!! Question now is should Pedro be there instead of Fisk . . . .

bronco2078

4 different busts of jim rice

Brick

Ruth, Williams, Yaz, Clemens.

1951WheatiesPremium

Taken with salt, as I'm a Yankee fan...

Ted Williams
Carl Yastrzemski
David Ortiz
Pedro Martinez

MCMLVTopps

Well, I'll vote with the Yankee fan above...shocking, as I'm a Red Sox fan , with one addition...Cy Young.

If you were to dig deeply into the Red Sox history, perhaps those of many years ago would get a vote or two, but their accomplishments are lost to history. Rice, Fisk, no.

stevek

Curt Schilling on a Red Sox Mt Rushmore?

I understand the reasoning, but Schilling only played in Boston for 4 years. I think of Schilling more as a Phillie than as a Red Sox player.

Odessafile

Jim Rice is in the HOF and all with the Sox....doesnt mean much they didnt win anything... He's on it. Ted Williams didnt win squat either. Yaz nuthin but a Pennant. Ruth they traded and is known as a Bomber. To even consider Ruth is farcical. Fisk is a CLOSE call...Ortiz is the real deal and they won the WS with him....that bumps Fisk a HOF'er who traveled all over.......Williams, Yaz, Rice, Ortiz IMO

Brick

I believe Ruth had one of the best records against the Yankees. That motivated the Yankee GM to say "If you can't beat him, buy him."

dallasactuary

The Red Sox, much moreso than other 100-year-old teams, have a serious lack of players who stayed with the team for all or almost all of their career. They got stints from Ruth, Young, Speaker, Foxx and other deserving HOFers but it seems wrong to put a player on your Mt. Rushmore who had equal or greater success with another team. Williams and Yaz are the two obvious choices but after that you either have to drop tremendously in quality, or drop tremendously in quality years with the Red Sox. My picks for:

Mt. Rushmore of career Red Sox: Williams, Yaz, Dewey Evans, Smoky Joe Wood

Mt. Rushmore of Red Sox Quality of 5+ years: Williams, Yaz, Speaker, Pedro

Barndog

Just Williams and Yaz.

Mt Rushmore could stand to lose a couple too

bronco2078

if only they could be like the celtics . If the celts had a mount rushmore it would have 53 guys on it. Celtics have retired so many numbers that next year they will be into 3 digits .

1951WheatiesPremium

Dustin Pedroia may get on their some day, I'd guess replacing Pedro.

dallasactuary

@Barndog said:
Just Williams and Yaz.

Mt Rushmore could stand to lose a couple too

Washington, Jefferson, Cleveland, Reagan

Brick

I happened to be at Mt. Rushmore the day Reagan died. Sadly I did not have my tools with me or I would have started chipping away right then.

Justacommeman

I would love to chisel Reagan in there as well.

mark

coinkat

Not sure I understand the reference to Cleveland and Mt. Rushmore.

As for Reagan, you can always watch King's Row and wonder what would have happened if Reagan had appeared as Rick instead of Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. Warner Bros took Casablanca in a different direction than what was originally planned. There's always Bedtime For Bonzo for the real fans...

dallasactuary

Grover Cleveland tops my list of greatest Presidents. Washington's second, and if I were charged with creating Mt. Rushmore today, those would be the only two on it.

coinkat

Well... Okay... That was unanticipated.

As for two other Red Sox candidates, possibly Joe Cronin and Jackie Jensen.

1951WheatiesPremium

@dallasactuary said:
Grover Cleveland tops my list of greatest Presidents. Washington's second, and if I were charged with creating Mt. Rushmore today, those would be the only two on it.

Andrew Jackson - only time in American history the National debt was paid off, crushed the corrupt Bank of the United States and created the modern Presidency. And that leaves out the remarkable things he did before taking office. Hindsight has hurt his legacy but this was a true patriot, a self made man and one of the most important Americans to ever walk the planet.

dallasactuary

A little more than 23% of all Presidential vetoes in the history of the United States were issued by Grover Cleveland. When Congress tried to spend money on anything not enumerated in the Constitution, Cleveland vetoed it. That is to say, he was the only President that we have ever had who actually upheld his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I'm a fan of Jackson, too, but Cleveland stands alone as the very model of how a President was intended to act when the Constitution was written. A Presidential candidate today who promised to uphold the Constitution, and meant it, would get my vote and probably fewer than 100 others; that reflects immensely well on Cleveland, and very, very poorly on what this country has become since he left office.

1951WheatiesPremium

I don't disagree with the numbers (not with you )but Jackson is most often credited as being the first president to properly wield the power, issuing more than the 6 presidents before him combined.

And he was a total badass...

dallasactuary

There are very few Presidents more badass than Jackson, and very few less badass than Cleveland. But while you are right about Jackson issuing more vetoes than all his predecessors combined, consider that Cleveland, although coming after Jackson and after Grant (who duplicated Jackson's feat), issued TWICE as many vetoes as all his predecessors combined.

1951WheatiesPremium

I don't necessarily think such significant veto power being wielded is such a good thing or evidence of competency as president. Cleveland also issued quite a great many executive orders. Taken together, this was a man more about ramming his agenda down the throats of Washington. That doesn't work, nor is it politics. He was, by all accounts, a very moral and decent man; the type where you'd say, "If anyone should be in charge and make the decisions because the are good and decent and right and just" it would be him. Still, that is not what makes a nation a democratic republic. We probably agree that the Constitution needs a stricter interpretation but at the same time there are many important steps in America's history that were taken where the actions had no basis in the Constitution (or outright defied it) that helped to secure our safety, our territories, our ideals, our principles and our liberty.

Bottom line, and I hate to put it this way but like Herbert Hoover after him, he was probably too good of a person to be a great president. And I do believe (in both cases) their reputations as good upstanding people helped spur on major economic disasters.

dallasactuary

With great power comes great responsibility, and Cleveland knew that and acted upon it wisely. I know of no exception to the rule that he used the veto to quash acts of Congress that were in violation of the Constitution; that is, he upheld the oath he swore when he took office, and he alone among our 45 Presidents can say that. I understand what you're saying about a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, but I can't say that I agree. The Constitution is written in English and it is really a terribly easy document to understand; it requires little if any interpretation. What we need are people who will abide by it and stop trying to "interpret" it to say what they wish it said. And I strongly disagree that any President ever has taken an action that was in violation of the Constitution that helped this country in any way. If you're thinking of Lincoln - the President who violated the Constitution the most often and the most egregiously - when you say that, please note that he ranks dead last, and by a very wide margin, on my list of greatest Presidents.

1951WheatiesPremium

I was actually thinking about how Jefferson found nothing in the document to support the purchase of the Louisiana Territory.

He bought it anyway.

Though Lincoln works, too.

bronco2078

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I was actually thinking about how Jefferson found nothing in the document to support the purchase of the Louisiana Territory.

He bought it anyway.

Though Lincoln works, too.

So Jefferson signed the death warrants of a whole bunch of native americans is what you mean? the french were to soft to do the mass killing so they sold us the deed to someone elses land so we could commence the slaughter.

1951WheatiesPremium

I love when people rewrite history. It is second only to applying today's morality to yesteryear.

its the best!

bronco2078

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I love when people rewrite history. It is second only to applying today's morality to yesteryear.

its the best!

Well in my defense I came up with that in like 20 seconds . I think the whole weird grover cleveland thing inspired me to inject some nonsense into a thread about the red sox. Further upthread when I said I wanted 4 Jim Rice's on the mount rushmore I wasn't really serious either.

1951WheatiesPremium

All good, man. No need to defend - I was just having some fun. I'm a Yankee fan anyway - I'm the one who should bounce. @dallasactuary is just a nice guy to chat with...

dallasactuary

I had never considered the Louisiana Purchase as unconstitutional, but maybe it was; I'll have to ponder that. In general I think of the Constitution's primary function to be limiting the federal government to only those tasks (like national defense, regulating disputes between the states, etc.) that the states or the people are unable to realistically do for themselves, and I would at least prefer the federal government to purchase that much land from a foreign power than a state or a private citizen. Leaving aside the morality of France's claim to the Louisiana territory, they did have a legal claim to it and I think it is at least arguable that purchasing it was in the "general welfare" of the United States (i.e., every citizen of the United States could be expected to benefit in some way from the purchase).

Justacommeman

Let us not forget that without the Louisiana Purchase there is no Popeyes

mark

DIMEMAN

@Justacommeman said:
Let us not forget that without the Louisiana Purchase there is no Popeyes

mark

Dilly Dilly !!!

Brick

Lavender Blue.

1951WheatiesPremium

The Louisiana Purchase was probably the most important event in American history for reasons innumerable.

dallasactuary

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
The Louisiana Purchase was probably the most important event in American history for reasons innumerable.

Agreed, and if it was indeed unconstitutional - I don't think it was, but I'm still pondering that - then I will concede an exception to what I said earlier about unconstitutional acts never having a positive impact on the country.

1951WheatiesPremium

Jefferson thought it was unconstitutional; that is why he accomplished it via treaty.

Exodus

@bronco2078 said:

So Jefferson signed the death warrants of a whole bunch of native americans is what you mean? the french were to soft to do the mass killing so they sold us the deed to someone elses land so we could commence the slaughter.

Maybe if the cowardly natives didn't do this, then they would have had a better reputation. The first ever school massacre in America.

The Enoch Brown school massacre was "one of the most notorious incidents" of Pontiac's War. On July 26, 1764, four Delaware (Lenape) American Indians entered a settlers' log schoolhouse in the Province of Pennsylvania in what is now Franklin County, near the present-day city of Greencastle.

Inside were the schoolmaster, Enoch Brown, and a number of young students. Brown pleaded with the warriors to spare the children; nonetheless he was shot and scalped. The warriors then tomahawked and scalped the children. Brown and nine children were killed. Two scalped children survived their wounds. Four children were taken as prisoners.

A day earlier, the warriors had encountered a pregnant woman, Susan King Cunningham, on the road. She was beaten to death, scalped, and the baby was cut out of her body. When the warriors returned to their village on the Muskingum River in the Ohio Country and showed the scalps, an elder Delaware chief rebuked them as cowards for attacking children.

So to put this in context, Pontiac's War started because the English were no longer going to give gifts to trible leaders since the French were no longer in power. The tribe leaders took this as an isult, and a war started. The "brave" Indians decided to raid a defenseless school, and scalp children.

The warrior indian tribes have no one to blame but themselves for all the retribution they received over the centuries. I'm sure the indian elders said to themselves, "we're screwed" after they saw what these butchers did.

Odessafile

From Red Sox to politics .. lovely

stevek

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@dallasactuary said:
Grover Cleveland tops my list of greatest Presidents. Washington's second, and if I were charged with creating Mt. Rushmore today, those would be the only two on it.

Andrew Jackson - only time in American history the National debt was paid off, crushed the corrupt Bank of the United States and created the modern Presidency. And that leaves out the remarkable things he did before taking office. Hindsight has hurt his legacy but this was a true patriot, a self made man and one of the most important Americans to ever walk the planet.

I'm glad that the silly idea of taking Jackson off our $20 bills for some obscure lady that 99+% of Americans never heard of before, has been placed on hold for the immediate future, hopefully the permanent future.

stevek

@dallasactuary said:
Grover Cleveland tops my list of greatest Presidents. Washington's second, and if I were charged with creating Mt. Rushmore today, those would be the only two on it.

Come on now...place Cleveland as high as ya wish, up to second if ya wish...but it is impossible for any president to top George Washington...and it's not even debatable.

Would Americans have eventually formed their own country without Washington? Of course, but the key word is eventually. There is no debate that without Washington, the event of Americans creating our own country would not have been successful at that time. Therefore the same Founding Fathers wouldn't have wrote our Constitution and America would be a different country today. In my opinion, not as great of a country without that original document which is beloved and cherished by all those who love freedom and liberty.

stevek

@Odessafile said:
From Red Sox to politics .. lovely

Not politics...it is history.

Now if you would have said from Red Sox to history, I would agree with ya.

Hey don't blame me, i didn't start it.

stevek

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
The Louisiana Purchase was probably the most important event in American history for reasons innumerable.

Point noted...but frankly, if France didn't sell us that land, we would have taken it anyway...and they knew it.

stevek

@Exodus said:

@bronco2078 said:

So Jefferson signed the death warrants of a whole bunch of native americans is what you mean? the french were to soft to do the mass killing so they sold us the deed to someone elses land so we could commence the slaughter.

Maybe if the cowardly natives didn't do this, then they would have had a better reputation. The first ever school massacre in America.

The Enoch Brown school massacre was "one of the most notorious incidents" of Pontiac's War. On July 26, 1764, four Delaware (Lenape) American Indians entered a settlers' log schoolhouse in the Province of Pennsylvania in what is now Franklin County, near the present-day city of Greencastle.

Inside were the schoolmaster, Enoch Brown, and a number of young students. Brown pleaded with the warriors to spare the children; nonetheless he was shot and scalped. The warriors then tomahawked and scalped the children. Brown and nine children were killed. Two scalped children survived their wounds. Four children were taken as prisoners.

A day earlier, the warriors had encountered a pregnant woman, Susan King Cunningham, on the road. She was beaten to death, scalped, and the baby was cut out of her body. When the warriors returned to their village on the Muskingum River in the Ohio Country and showed the scalps, an elder Delaware chief rebuked them as cowards for attacking children.

So to put this in context, Pontiac's War started because the English were no longer going to give gifts to trible leaders since the French were no longer in power. The tribe leaders took this as an isult, and a war started. The "brave" Indians decided to raid a defenseless school, and scalp children.

The warrior indian tribes have no one to blame but themselves for all the retribution they received over the centuries. I'm sure the indian elders said to themselves, "we're screwed" after they saw what these butchers did.

Well, let's be honest, the Indian warriors were responding to the settlers who were grabbing their land, their heritage, and I'm sure there were any number of atrocities committed by settlers against the Indians. Both sides did what they felt they had to do to win.

It was a different time, and that "mentality" by human beings of conquering others who were weaker and had desirable land was still basic standard operating procedure around the world, up until the end of WW2.

The horror of that war, plus the advent of nuclear weapons, and other factors changed that "mentality" to a large degree. However on a smaller scale it is still seen around the world, such as Russia annexing Crimea.

1951WheatiesPremium

...and many an international corporation - through 'legal' means, of course.

Same game, new titles. Pharaoh, King, Tzar, Emperor, President,CEO = largely the same.

coinkat

After reading the entire thread, Williams and Yaz and that is it.

1951WheatiesPremium

Billy Wagner had great stuff. He was a dominant closer in the sense the he had a lot of saves and a great K rate and ratios were great too. But many guys have done this. However, I trust my memory and while I am unwilling to go to game log levels to look for individual game performances I can say that I know he wasn't on a team that contended every year BUT I recall him having been shaky in the good years as they got into bigger spots. One thing I CAN provide for the stat guys is the entirety of his post season record. It's not pretty.

You can cry small sample size all you want. When it counted, he sucked. Repeatedly. And that Pujols home run might still be traveling if there wasn't a wall/roof there!

coinkat

Are you sure you did not confuse Billy Wagner with Sam "Mayday" Malone?

1951WheatiesPremium

Sam had all the talent in the world. Had he found sobriety, he still would have had to overcome his skirt chasing ways.

Women weaken legs.

Connecticoin

@coinkat said:
After reading the entire thread, Williams and Yaz and that is it.

At least add Papi - 3 World Series and ending the Curse should count for something. Unless one is a baseball "purist" still opposed to the DH rule.