Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    How about Felix D to the Marlins as part of a blockbuster  for Giancarlo.

    To get Stanton without losing Bogaerts, we might have to give up...

    Doubront

    Middlebrooks or Cecchini

    Betts or Coyle

    2 from Webster, de la Rosa, Barnes, Workman, Britton, or Ranaudo

     

    Sox4ever

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to MadMc1944's comment:

    How about Felix D to the Marlins as part of a blockbuster  for Giancarlo.

     Or to the Angels as part of a deal for Trumbo.

    Or to Texas even up for Joe Nathan or Mitch Moreland.

    I don't follow theAstros  that closely--there may be something available in Houston.

    Time will tell.

     

     



    Straight up for Mitch Moreland or Joe Nathan!? You're kidding, right?  Trumbo is at least reasonable thinking, but the Sox wouldn't do that in a million years, either.  Do you not like Felix Doubront for some reason? 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    How about Felix D to the Marlins as part of a blockbuster  for Giancarlo.

    To get Stanton without losing Bogaerts, we might have to give up...

    Doubront

    Middlebrooks or Cecchini

    Betts or Coyle

    2 from Webster, de la Rosa, Barnes, Workman, Britton, or Ranaudo

     

    Sox4ever



    I don't think the Sox would consider Doubront & Middlebrooks for Stanton, never mind throwing in  a couple of prospects.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazyworldoftroybrown. Show crazyworldoftroybrown's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    Nope.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Javi60. Show Javi60's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    How about Doubront this afternoon!... He would my second lefty (after breslow) in the playoffs...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jader. Show jader's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to RedSoxFireman's comment:

    I was fine with Gomes and Napoli acquisitions. I like Middlebrooks, Lester, Pedroia, Buch, Nava, to name a few, and I was against Lackey's contract offer but denounced dumping him at his trade value low. 

    Carp has been a true fluke, wonderfully used by Farrell as a back bencher part-timer lefty matchup guy. I'm calling every GM and telling them Carp goes to the highest bidder, this winter. It will be the only chance to cash on a fluke part-time role player who would definitely get an overpay in a solid prospect sent by another GM. Nava should take over the bench lefty matchup plate role that Carp's been in.




     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jader. Show jader's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?


    Right on w Nava - he needs to ride the bench as a b/u. Never seen a player with such pretty offensive number who NEVER comes thru in the clutch!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jader. Show jader's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    He's got to start thinking coming into camp more in shape, get his mind right, about Pitching. Kid has the talent big time. Just needs to refine it.




     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jader. Show jader's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    Trading Doubrant away would be like trading away Bronson Arroyo, who's given the REDS 8? good years thanks to us and Wily Mo

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc1944. Show MadMc1944's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    Jasko and Crazy--

    It's not that I don't like Doubie now or next year. I think another team would be willing to give us some prospects that we don't have to carry right now on our 40. Doubrount has not exhibited an interest in coming into camp in good shape in the past.

    Dempster, Lester, Lackey, Buch, Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, Workman, Wright--I think have a stronger work ethic than what Doubie has exhibited. We will need players at 1 B, perhaps a catcher, CF, SS and possibly a closer.

    I love Ue and Breslow  as a  set-up guys but it would be great to have a Cishek, Nathan, Soria, Perkins, or Collins to close or add added depth in the pen.

    Plus if we could add a guy like Granderson or Cuddyer for CF or a corner OF for Doubie ---I think we would be looking good.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    How about Felix D to the Marlins as part of a blockbuster  for Giancarlo.

    To get Stanton without losing Bogaerts, we might have to give up...

    Doubront

    Middlebrooks or Cecchini

    Betts or Coyle

    2 from Webster, de la Rosa, Barnes, Workman, Britton, or Ranaudo

     

    Sox4ever

     



    I don't think the Sox would consider Doubront & Middlebrooks for Stanton, never mind throwing in  a couple of prospects.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Ben would give up Doubie and Middy for Stanton, but it's not enough to get him.

    I don't see many other available big boppers out there, but that doesn't mean we should give up everything to get him.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to MadMc1944's comment:

    Jasko and Crazy--

    It's not that I don't like Doubie now or next year. I think another team would be willing to give us some prospects that we don't have to carry right now on our 40. Doubrount has not exhibited an interest in coming into camp in good shape in the past.

    Dempster, Lester, Lackey, Buch, Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, Workman, Wright--I think have a stronger work ethic than what Doubie has exhibited. We will need players at 1 B, perhaps a catcher, CF, SS and possibly a closer.

    I love Ue and Breslow  as a  set-up guys but it would be great to have a Cishek, Nathan, Soria, Perkins, or Collins to close or add added depth in the pen.

    Plus if we could add a guy like Granderson or Cuddyer for CF or a corner OF for Doubie ---I think we would be looking good.



    People think that if someone suggests trading a player, they do not value them. I'd say mentioning Doubront's name is the same sentence as Stanton is a great compliment to the lefty.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    How about Felix D to the Marlins as part of a blockbuster  for Giancarlo.

    To get Stanton without losing Bogaerts, we might have to give up...

    Doubront

    Middlebrooks or Cecchini

    Betts or Coyle

    2 from Webster, de la Rosa, Barnes, Workman, Britton, or Ranaudo

     

    Sox4ever

     

     



    I don't think the Sox would consider Doubront & Middlebrooks for Stanton, never mind throwing in  a couple of prospects.  

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Ben would give up Doubie and Middy for Stanton, but it's not enough to get him.

     

    I don't see many other available big boppers out there, but that doesn't mean we should give up everything to get him.

    [/QUOTE]

    I literally don't think the Sox Front Office would even discuss that trade in a meeting.  I think Ben's secretary would have the autonomy to turn that trade down, herself.   Ben literally told everyone who called near the deadline that Will was "unavailable."  Forget including Doubront as well in trade for Stanton.  Let's agree to disagree.  Middlebrooks & Doubront are two players you haven't put much stock in over the years, but their value within the Sox organization is significantly higher than on this board.  

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to MadMc1944's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Jasko and Crazy--

    It's not that I don't like Doubie now or next year. I think another team would be willing to give us some prospects that we don't have to carry right now on our 40. Doubrount has not exhibited an interest in coming into camp in good shape in the past.

    Dempster, Lester, Lackey, Buch, Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, Workman, Wright--I think have a stronger work ethic than what Doubie has exhibited. We will need players at 1 B, perhaps a catcher, CF, SS and possibly a closer.

    I love Ue and Breslow  as a  set-up guys but it would be great to have a Cishek, Nathan, Soria, Perkins, or Collins to close or add added depth in the pen.

    Plus if we could add a guy like Granderson or Cuddyer for CF or a corner OF for Doubie ---I think we would be looking good.

     



    People think that if someone suggests trading a player, they do not value them. I'd say mentioning Doubront's name is the same sentence as Stanton is a great compliment to the lefty.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No , it's not.  You very obviously have something against Doubront, despite your denials. You are being very disingenuous . If you do not like Doubront, and want to get rid of him, fine. But don't try to sugar coat it. Better to just be honest and blunt. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

     

    In response to MadMc1944's comment:

     

     

    Should Douby be reading the handwriting on the wall and expect a new address for 2014?

     

     




    Doubront did great for a large part of this year. He was consistently good. Then he hit a wall. I am pretty sure that we will trade either Doubront, Lackey, or Dempster this offseason. Whoever nets us the most in return will be the bait. We have guys in the minors, not to mention Workman and Morales, who may win a job as a SP.

     

     



    With the depth of young pitching, I doubt Morales will get a shot at starting. They might stretch him out to me an emergency spot starer but that's it.

     

    But as for Doubront, I agree. He had a 15-game stretch where he was as good as any pitcher on the staff. He was key in helping to carry the staff when Lester hit his funk. He showed me a lot, that maybe he does have the stuff to be a solid starter.

    He hit a wall as you said late in the season, so I want to see what he does in the offseason and what he looks like next spring. Twice in three years he came to camp out of shape. I'm not saying htat's why he hit a wall this year. Sometimes it just happens with young pitchers.

    But if he's out of shape next spring, I'd ship is butt out of town.

    If he goes to camp in shape, then I think he'd be a key young arm to have on the staff.

     



    Right now we have six SP who are not going to be shipped to Pawtucket. All of them are out of options. I agree 100% with you that its time for Doubront to be more professional about the condition in which he shows up in ST. Someone needs to have a long talk with him about that, maybe someone like Pedro. I would expect that his endurance would be better next year since he was stretched out vis a vis IP this year. But one of our six SP is not going to be here next year IMO. None of them is really #6 SP material. Even Dempster is just an expensive #5. My preference would be to ship Doobie, Dempster, or Lackey depending on who can bring us the greatest return. The idea of trading Lackey at peak value does have allure. We should be able to net someone very good for him.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    i don't think shipping out the guy who will give us the "best return" is the "best idea". We want the best 5 guys in our rotation. Just because we'd get a better prospect for Lackey than Dempster doesn't mean it is the right choice if we plan on putting the best possible team on the field in 2014. Dempster is the odd man out in 2014. he can be moved in a salary dump trade which gives us flexibility on other areas. Which is what i would do and it also makes the most sense for us.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    I literally don't think the Sox Front Office would even discuss that trade in a meeting.  I think Ben's secretary would have the autonomy to turn that trade down, herself.   Ben literally told everyone who called near the deadline that Will was "unavailable."  Forget including Doubront as well in trade for Stanton.  Let's agree to disagree.  Middlebrooks & Doubront are two players you haven't put much stock in over the years, but their value within the Sox organization is significantly higher than on this board.  

    Look, I'm tired of people saying I do not value Middy or Doubront. Suggesting some possible trades for mega stars is not devaluing a player.

    Stanton is a very good proven player. 

    No player is "unavailable".

    I'd hate to lose Middlebrooks, but his future is not a certainty. The fact that we have Bogey and Cecchini to play 3B, makes the trade a possibility, but I doubt it happens- not because Ben would say no (although he might), but because Miami's secretary would hang up on Ben.

    BTW, I have mentioned trading for Stanton several times, and this was the first time I mentioned Doubront, as far as I know. I was only responding to someone's post. I actually think Miami would rather have younger prospects than Doubront, and they also may take Cecchini instead of Middy: something like this:

    Bradley

    Cecchini

    2 from Webster, de la Rose, Barnes, Workman, Britton or maybe Ranaudo (I'd avoid putting Owens in this group).

    1 from Brentz, Coyle, Betts, Hassan, Wilson

    Sox4ever

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment: 

    In response to MadMc1944's comment:

    Should Douby be reading the handwriting on the wall and expect a new address for 2014?


    Doubront did great for a large part of this year. He was consistently good. Then he hit a wall. I am pretty sure that we will trade either Doubront, Lackey, or Dempster this offseason. Whoever nets us the most in return will be the bait. We have guys in the minors, not to mention Workman and Morales, who may win a job as a SP.


    With the depth of young pitching, I doubt Morales will get a shot at starting. They might stretch him out to me an emergency spot starer but that's it.

    But as for Doubront, I agree. He had a 15-game stretch where he was as good as any pitcher on the staff. He was key in helping to carry the staff when Lester hit his funk. He showed me a lot, that maybe he does have the stuff to be a solid starter.

    He hit a wall as you said late in the season, so I want to see what he does in the offseason and what he looks like next spring. Twice in three years he came to camp out of shape. I'm not saying htat's why he hit a wall this year. Sometimes it just happens with young pitchers.

    But if he's out of shape next spring, I'd ship is butt out of town.

    If he goes to camp in shape, then I think he'd be a key young arm to have on the staff.



    Right now we have six SP who are not going to be shipped to Pawtucket. All of them are out of options. I agree 100% with you that its time for Doubront to be more professional about the condition in which he shows up in ST. Someone needs to have a long talk with him about that, maybe someone like Pedro. I would expect that his endurance would be better next year since he was stretched out vis a vis IP this year. But one of our six SP is not going to be here next year IMO. None of them is really #6 SP material. Even Dempster is just an expensive #5. My preference would be to ship Doobie, Dempster, or Lackey depending on who can bring us the greatest return. The idea of trading Lackey at peak value does have allure. We should be able to net someone very good for him.

    [/QUOTE]

    i don't think shipping out the guy who will give us the "best return" is the "best idea". We want the best 5 guys in our rotation. Just because we'd get a better prospect for Lackey than Dempster doesn't mean it is the right choice if we plan on putting the best possible team on the field in 2014. Dempster is the odd man out in 2014. he can be moved in a salary dump trade which gives us flexibility on other areas. Which is what i would do and it also makes the most sense for us.

    [/QUOTE]

    I couldn't agree more, MEF.  I never understood why a perennial contender would trade someone who had a good year and wasn't making much money.  Isn't that the kind of person we should be trying to KEEP??

    John Lackey is a great example.  John Lackey is under contract to the Sox through 2015. He has an ERA of 3.44 and a WHIP of 1.15 for this, his first year after surgery.  Next year he'll make $15.2M but under his current contract in 2015 he will earn the ML minimum. The MLBPA lists the minimum salary for 2013 as $490,000.  Even if that mimimum climbs to $800,000 over the next two years (doubtful) Lackey's salary would still average $8M year. 

    Why in the name of God's Green Earth would you want to trade a pitcher with those numbers and that salary for a position player whom someone else doesn't want??  And yet some people want to do just that.  Go figure. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment: 

    In response to MadMc1944's comment:

    Should Douby be reading the handwriting on the wall and expect a new address for 2014?


    Doubront did great for a large part of this year. He was consistently good. Then he hit a wall. I am pretty sure that we will trade either Doubront, Lackey, or Dempster this offseason. Whoever nets us the most in return will be the bait. We have guys in the minors, not to mention Workman and Morales, who may win a job as a SP.


    With the depth of young pitching, I doubt Morales will get a shot at starting. They might stretch him out to me an emergency spot starer but that's it.

    But as for Doubront, I agree. He had a 15-game stretch where he was as good as any pitcher on the staff. He was key in helping to carry the staff when Lester hit his funk. He showed me a lot, that maybe he does have the stuff to be a solid starter.

    He hit a wall as you said late in the season, so I want to see what he does in the offseason and what he looks like next spring. Twice in three years he came to camp out of shape. I'm not saying htat's why he hit a wall this year. Sometimes it just happens with young pitchers.

    But if he's out of shape next spring, I'd ship is butt out of town.

    If he goes to camp in shape, then I think he'd be a key young arm to have on the staff.

     



    Right now we have six SP who are not going to be shipped to Pawtucket. All of them are out of options. I agree 100% with you that its time for Doubront to be more professional about the condition in which he shows up in ST. Someone needs to have a long talk with him about that, maybe someone like Pedro. I would expect that his endurance would be better next year since he was stretched out vis a vis IP this year. But one of our six SP is not going to be here next year IMO. None of them is really #6 SP material. Even Dempster is just an expensive #5. My preference would be to ship Doobie, Dempster, or Lackey depending on who can bring us the greatest return. The idea of trading Lackey at peak value does have allure. We should be able to net someone very good for him.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    i don't think shipping out the guy who will give us the "best return" is the "best idea". We want the best 5 guys in our rotation. Just because we'd get a better prospect for Lackey than Dempster doesn't mean it is the right choice if we plan on putting the best possible team on the field in 2014. Dempster is the odd man out in 2014. he can be moved in a salary dump trade which gives us flexibility on other areas. Which is what i would do and it also makes the most sense for us.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I couldn't agree more, MEF.  I never understood why a perennial contender would trade someone who had a good year and wasn't making much money.  Isn't that the kind of person we should be trying to KEEP??

     

    John Lackey is a great example.  John Lackey is under contract to the Sox through 2015. He has an ERA of 3.44 and a WHIP of 1.15 for this, his first year after surgery.  Next year he'll make $15.2M but under his current contract in 2015 he will earn the ML minimum. The MLBPA lists the minimum salary for 2013 as $490,000.  Even if that mimimum climbs to $800,000 over the next two years (doubtful) Lackey's salary would still average $8M year. 

    Why in the name of God's Green Earth would you want to trade a pitcher with those numbers and that salary for a position player whom someone else doesn't want??  And yet some people want to do just that.  Go figure. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Or get can get the better part of 14M off of your books and give the role of #6 starter (which is what Demp ranks in our current 2014 rotation) to a prospect.

    I think it'll take door #3!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I literally don't think the Sox Front Office would even discuss that trade in a meeting.  I think Ben's secretary would have the autonomy to turn that trade down, herself.   Ben literally told everyone who called near the deadline that Will was "unavailable."  Forget including Doubront as well in trade for Stanton.  Let's agree to disagree.  Middlebrooks & Doubront are two players you haven't put much stock in over the years, but their value within the Sox organization is significantly higher than on this board.  

    Look, I'm tired of people saying I do not value Middy or Doubront. Suggesting some possible trades for mega stars is not devaluing a player.

    Stanton is a very good proven player. 

    No player is "unavailable".

    I'd hate to lose Middlebrooks, but his future is not a certainty. The fact that we have Bogey and Cecchini to play 3B, makes the trade a possibility, but I doubt it happens- not because Ben would say no (although he might), but because Miami's secretary would hang up on Ben.

    BTW, I have mentioned trading for Stanton several times, and this was the first time I mentioned Doubront, as far as I know. I was only responding to someone's post. I actually think Miami would rather have younger prospects than Doubront, and they also may take Cecchini instead of Middy: something like this:

    Bradley

    Cecchini

    2 from Webster, de la Rose, Barnes, Workman, Britton or maybe Ranaudo (I'd avoid putting Owens in this group).

    1 from Brentz, Coyle, Betts, Hassan, Wilson

    Sox4ever

     



     

    The Sox Front Office would never consider that trade, believe it or not.  You have a history of posts that suggest you don't put much stock in Middlebrooks or Doubront.  These are facts.  By the way, some players are in fact "unavailable," whether you want to believe it or not.  Xander Boegarts is "unavailable."  Period.  Straight up for Stanton?  The Sox wouldn't think twice about it.    Just because you want Giancarlo Stanton, it doesn't mean the Sox Front Office does.  They may consider the possibility at the price, but that "right" price, but would never include Middlebrooks or Boegarts.     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MadMc1944's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Jasko and Crazy--

    It's not that I don't like Doubie now or next year. I think another team would be willing to give us some prospects that we don't have to carry right now on our 40. Doubrount has not exhibited an interest in coming into camp in good shape in the past.

    Dempster, Lester, Lackey, Buch, Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, Workman, Wright--I think have a stronger work ethic than what Doubie has exhibited. We will need players at 1 B, perhaps a catcher, CF, SS and possibly a closer.

    I love Ue and Breslow  as a  set-up guys but it would be great to have a Cishek, Nathan, Soria, Perkins, or Collins to close or add added depth in the pen.

    Plus if we could add a guy like Granderson or Cuddyer for CF or a corner OF for Doubie ---I think we would be looking good.

     

     



    People think that if someone suggests trading a player, they do not value them. I'd say mentioning Doubront's name is the same sentence as Stanton is a great compliment to the lefty.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No , it's not.  You very obviously have something against Doubront, despite your denials. You are being very disingenuous . If you do not like Doubront, and want to get rid of him, fine. But don't try to sugar coat it. Better to just be honest and blunt. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    When did I deny I have nothing against Doubront? I have a lot "against Doubront", but please don't confuse that with not "valuing" him. None of my trade suggestions have been "dumps". You and others might not like Justin Upton or G Stanton, but most baseball people realize these two have tremendous value and skillsets. To offer Doubront as part of a trade for these type guys is not trading him for the sake of dumping him.

    I have said over and over Doubront has some "nasty stuff" and has great potential. I was very high on Doubront a few years back, but he really got under my skin when he came to camp out of shape in 2011. It raised a red flag to me that a player coming to camp with an inside track at a rotation slot would not be ready. Apparently, he came to camp this year a bit out of shape again. 

    I have also held the WHIP stat in high regards long before Doubront was even born. His 1.400+ WHIP is not something I enjoy. I do not want to trade Doubront for lesser value. We may disagree on what his value is or what the value is of the player I suggest in return, but I take issue with posters who say I do not "value" someone, just because I suggest trading him for a better player.

    I think this team has too much quantity and not enough quality. It's a foundation for my philosophy on suggesting trades for this winter. We may lose a couple very good players to rule 5, because we have a lot of quality players. making a 3 for 1 trade might allow us to keep some players that may turn out to be close to the value of 1 or 2 of the guys we trade in a large deal.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I literally don't think the Sox Front Office would even discuss that trade in a meeting.  I think Ben's secretary would have the autonomy to turn that trade down, herself.   Ben literally told everyone who called near the deadline that Will was "unavailable."  Forget including Doubront as well in trade for Stanton.  Let's agree to disagree.  Middlebrooks & Doubront are two players you haven't put much stock in over the years, but their value within the Sox organization is significantly higher than on this board.  

    Look, I'm tired of people saying I do not value Middy or Doubront. Suggesting some possible trades for mega stars is not devaluing a player.

    Stanton is a very good proven player. 

    No player is "unavailable".

    I'd hate to lose Middlebrooks, but his future is not a certainty. The fact that we have Bogey and Cecchini to play 3B, makes the trade a possibility, but I doubt it happens- not because Ben would say no (although he might), but because Miami's secretary would hang up on Ben.

    BTW, I have mentioned trading for Stanton several times, and this was the first time I mentioned Doubront, as far as I know. I was only responding to someone's post. I actually think Miami would rather have younger prospects than Doubront, and they also may take Cecchini instead of Middy: something like this:

    Bradley

    Cecchini

    2 from Webster, de la Rose, Barnes, Workman, Britton or maybe Ranaudo (I'd avoid putting Owens in this group).

    1 from Brentz, Coyle, Betts, Hassan, Wilson

    Sox4ever

     



     

    The Sox Front Office would never consider that trade, believe it or not.  You have a history of posts that suggest you don't put much stock in Middlebrooks or Doubront.  These are facts.  By the way, some players are in fact "unavailable," whether you want to believe it or not.  Xander Boegarts is "unavailable."  Period.  Straight up for Stanton?  The Sox wouldn't think twice about it.    Just because you want Giancarlo Stanton, it doesn't mean the Sox Front Office does.  They may consider the possibility at the price, but that price would never include Middlebrooks or Boegarts.        

    [/QUOTE]

    I have never said I'd trade Bogey for Stanton, but he is available, if the Nats offered us Harper and Stasburg of the Angels offered us Trout.

    When did I ever say that Ben likes or wants Stanton?

    I make suggestions on a baseball blog. Some suggestions are just responses to other peoples posts, and I'm not even sure I'd make the deal.

    In fact, I would not give Cecchini, Bradley, Ranuado, Barnes, and Betts for Stanton. I would give Middlebrooks and Doubront for him, but Miami does not want players that will be reaching arb sooner rather than later. It's not ever going to be an offer made by either side, but not for the reasons you guys seem to think.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I literally don't think the Sox Front Office would even discuss that trade in a meeting.  I think Ben's secretary would have the autonomy to turn that trade down, herself.   Ben literally told everyone who called near the deadline that Will was "unavailable."  Forget including Doubront as well in trade for Stanton.  Let's agree to disagree.  Middlebrooks & Doubront are two players you haven't put much stock in over the years, but their value within the Sox organization is significantly higher than on this board.  

    Look, I'm tired of people saying I do not value Middy or Doubront. Suggesting some possible trades for mega stars is not devaluing a player.

    Stanton is a very good proven player. 

    No player is "unavailable".

    I'd hate to lose Middlebrooks, but his future is not a certainty. The fact that we have Bogey and Cecchini to play 3B, makes the trade a possibility, but I doubt it happens- not because Ben would say no (although he might), but because Miami's secretary would hang up on Ben.

    BTW, I have mentioned trading for Stanton several times, and this was the first time I mentioned Doubront, as far as I know. I was only responding to someone's post. I actually think Miami would rather have younger prospects than Doubront, and they also may take Cecchini instead of Middy: something like this:

    Bradley

    Cecchini

    2 from Webster, de la Rose, Barnes, Workman, Britton or maybe Ranaudo (I'd avoid putting Owens in this group).

    1 from Brentz, Coyle, Betts, Hassan, Wilson

    Sox4ever

     

     



     

     

    The Sox Front Office would never consider that trade, believe it or not.  You have a history of posts that suggest you don't put much stock in Middlebrooks or Doubront.  These are facts.  By the way, some players are in fact "unavailable," whether you want to believe it or not.  Xander Boegarts is "unavailable."  Period.  Straight up for Stanton?  The Sox wouldn't think twice about it.    Just because you want Giancarlo Stanton, it doesn't mean the Sox Front Office does.  They may consider the possibility at the price, but that price would never include Middlebrooks or Boegarts.        

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I have never said I'd trade Bogey for Stanton, but he is available, if the Nats offered us Harper and Stasburg of the Angels offered us Trout.

    This isn't "realistic" at all.  None of these guys are "available."  Is Pedroia "available?" The answer is no.  I have no issues discussing reality, but theowing these names in trade "possibilities" is an exercise in futility.  Middlebrooks & Boegarts aren 't going anywhere.  That's a fact.  Believe it or not.

    When did I ever say that Ben likes or wants Stanton?

     

    I make suggestions on a baseball blog. Some suggestions are just responses to other peoples posts, and I'm not even sure I'd make the deal.

    In fact, I would not give Cecchini, Bradley, Ranuado, Barnes, and Betts for Stanton. I would give Middlebrooks and Doubront for him, but Miami does not want players that will be reaching arb sooner rather than later. It's not ever going to be an offer made by either side, but not for the reasons you guys seem to think.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What you would trade for Stanton and what the Sox would trade for Stanton are clearly two different worlds.  You are "stat" driven to a fault, while this Front Office seems to consider other factors as well, especially when you consider the fact that "stats" can be manipulated a thousand ways.  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    What you would trade for Stanton and what the Sox would trade for Stanton are clearly two different worlds.  You are "stat" driven to a fault, while this Front Office seems to consider other factors as well, especially when you consider the fact that "stats" can be manipulated a thousand ways.  

    What do stats have to do with Doubront coming to camp out of of condition in 2 of the last 3 years?

    The WHIP stat just quantifies what we all know through observations: Doubie allows too many walks and hits. It effects how many innings he can give us. While his IP per start is not bad, the fact that he walks too many batters is something all of us know he needs to improve on, before he can take the next step up.

    Doubront pitched incrdibably well for a very long stretch this year. He has great talent. I have never denied that. It's not about stats. 

    I suggested we rest him back in August, so he'd be fresh for the playoffs. He certainly hit some kind of wall. I'm not claiming it is conditioning related, but it could be. 

    We have 6 starters returning and a bunch of kids knocking loudly at the door. I'd rather have Doubront as out #5 than Dempster, but trading Dempster won't bring back anything worthwhile, but Doubront, as part of a bigger package, could net us very nice return, and his replacement may not be much of a step down, and could even turn out better.

     

    Sox4ever

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    Stanton is a good young ball player with pop who's a career .266 hitter with power..he's not however in the class of Miguel Cabrera. So while I too would love to see him in Sox uniform. He's not worth selling the farm for...

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Are Doubrount's days numbered with the Sox?

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    Stanton is a good young ball player with pop who's a career .266 hitter with power..he's not however in the class of Miguel Cabrera. So while I too would love to see him in Sox uniform. He's not worth selling the farm for...



    I agree, but he's under team control for 3 more years (prime for an extension), and he is averaging 39 HRs per 162 games. He has a career .893 OPS at age 23 and a sample size large enough to matter (nearly 2000 PAs).

    Only 11 MLB players have more PAs and a higher OPS over the last 4 years. Only 8 have a higher SLG%: Cabrera, Bautista, C Gon, Braun, Votto, Beltre & J Hamilton.

    This kid is financially cheap, young and can improve, and already a top 10 MLB offensive threat.

    I would not give up the world, but I'd try hard to get him with more quantity than quality farm players, perhaps some very far away from the bigs: the type of players the Marlins might be interested in.

     

Share