ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     He said there was "no way any team would take CC and his deal."

    In fact, you, the Board stooge, did not protest before the fact on CC. In fact, you, the Board stooge, stated that a team would swap salary dump players in what you called a CC "trade". In fact, I said there was no way any team would do salary dump swap for all those absurd trades you kept repeating for Crawford. In fact, giving away AGon and sending Beckett's last years and cash to write off the worthless nearly 40 million dollar investment in CC for 2nd and 3rd tier prospects was not a "trade" or "salary dump swap". What was is what I oppsed and still oppose, giving AGon away so the narrative for 1st base moves to "trading for Morneau" and signing Berkman or paying 40 million for bad wheel Napoli.

    The stooge likes to prevaricate. I said there was no way that any team would do the "salary dump swaps" that the stooge kept throwing out. Crawford was embarrassingly sent with AGon and the cheeleader fans like the stooge call it "the deal of the century".

    AGon should have been retained, so there wouldn't be a narrative about Berkman, a self-described old mule. Beckett should never have received the premature extension, and Beckett should have been traded separately. As embarrassingly incompetent as Crawford's FA contract offer was, Crawford's worthless stock should not have been disposed of last summer under the cover of AGon.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I never ever said the Sox "would" swap CC for a salary dump. Your continued misrepresentation of my position is astounding.

    I said we "could" try to swap CC's huge contract with another salary dump player with less years such as Zito.

    I also mentioned several times, that we could possibly trade CC with a prospect to entice someone to take him.

    You said there "was no way CC would be traded'. There were no qualifiers or alternate scenarios. You said "nobody would take on CC's salary until he proved he could play." Admit you werew wrong and move on.

    More lies: I did say we should not sign CC before the fact, but that still has nothing to do with the fact that you have said repeatedly that I was for the CC deal, when it could not be any clearer to anyone that I have always been deadset against it. I previously provided the quotes from teh day of the signing trade, and ever since the trade I have been arguing that he should not even be in the line-up vs LHPs or at best batting 9th, and that he should bat no higher than 6th vs RHPs, unless we moved Pedfey to a 3-5 slot and batted CC 2nd. You, on the other hand, clearly thought CC was better than I did by advocating he bat lead off vs lefty or righty.

     

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Matt Holiday's Coor's Field numbers" by those that opposed his signing. A player in hindsight, who'd look good in a Sox uniform today.

    As for Boegharts...if you can with certainty predict that he will realize his potential and continue to progress as he rises through the differing levels of competition and arrives at Fenway an impact player that can replace the 25 homer-90 Rbi 800ish OPS of Upton then I would concur they shouldn't trade him. That's what makes trading prospects a gamble and it's also the risk the aquiring team has to weigh...

    [/QUOTE]


    Rockies Holliday vs. Diamondbacks Upton road OPS's

    Holliday-------career for Rockies 803 last 3 seasons 819-860-892

    Upton---------career for Diammondbacks 731 last 3 seasons 790-767-670

    I think a 72 point advantage is quite a big difference. And their last 3 seasons it was more like a 115 point difference, with Holliday gradually adjusting and Upton gradually getting worse. Considering how much angst there was involving Hollidays road performance at the time, it should say a ton about Upton. 

     

    Now to Bogaerts. He was just ranked as the 6th overall prospect by fans at John Sickels site. There is a reasonable chance[maybe 15-20%] that Bogaerts will be one of the 10 best players in baseball and one of the 3 most valuable in a few years. Think Hanley in his prime. Imagine somebody who hits better then Upton at SS controlled for nearly 7 years, instead of 3. On the cheap and with hopefully a better attitude.

     

    Bogaerts just put up a 948 OPS in AA[SSS] as a 19 year old SS. If he can stay at SS imagine how good he could be. Talk about upside piquing ones interest.  Of course as  you say, its all a gamble. No guarantee. I am beggining to put my bet on Bogaerts over Upton however. Even Bogaerts downside might be close to as valuable as the current Upton. Bogaerts is no longer some obscure question mark. Unless he is really 23 or roided up, his bat is going to be good.

     

    Now if you want to trade Bogaerts for Stanton, I am willing to talk.

     

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    Rockies Holliday vs. Diamondbacks Upton road OPS's

    Holliday-------career for Rockies 803 last 3 seasons 819-860-892

    Upton---------career for Diammondbacks 731 last 3 seasons 790-767-670

    I think a 72 point advantage is quite a big difference. And their last 3 seasons it was more like a 115 point difference, with Holliday gradually adjusting and Upton gradually getting worse. Considering how much angst there was involving Hollidays road performance at the time, it should say a ton about Upton. 

     

    And, softy blasted me for wanting us to sign Holliday way back when, saying he was not "an elite hitter". later, he argued for days that VMart was an elite hitting 1Bman in MLB and would continue to be for his 3 years in Detroit.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Rockies Holliday vs. Diamondbacks Upton road OPS's

    Holliday-------career for Rockies 803 last 3 seasons 819-860-892

    Upton---------career for Diammondbacks 731 last 3 seasons 790-767-670

    I think a 72 point advantage is quite a big difference. And their last 3 seasons it was more like a 115 point difference, with Holliday gradually adjusting and Upton gradually getting worse. Considering how much angst there was involving Hollidays road performance at the time, it should say a ton about Upton. 

     

    And, softy blasted me for wanting us to sign Holliday way back when, saying he was not "an elite hitter". later, he argued for days that VMart was an elite hitting 1Bman in MLB and would continue to be for his 3 years in Detroit.

    [/QUOTE]

    I am still shocked they didn't sign him. Wasn't the owner friends with his family or something too? Never figured out their reasoning. Did they ever say? He was only 28 at the time. All round game. Good guy. Still confused by it.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Rockies Holliday vs. Diamondbacks Upton road OPS's

    Holliday-------career for Rockies 803 last 3 seasons 819-860-892

    Upton---------career for Diammondbacks 731 last 3 seasons 790-767-670

    I think a 72 point advantage is quite a big difference. And their last 3 seasons it was more like a 115 point difference, with Holliday gradually adjusting and Upton gradually getting worse. Considering how much angst there was involving Hollidays road performance at the time, it should say a ton about Upton. 

     

    And, softy blasted me for wanting us to sign Holliday way back when, saying he was not "an elite hitter". later, he argued for days that VMart was an elite hitting 1Bman in MLB and would continue to be for his 3 years in Detroit.

    [/QUOTE]

    I am still shocked they didn't sign him. Wasn't the owner friends with his family or something too? Never figured out their reasoning. Did they ever say? He was only 28 at the time. All round game. Good guy. Still confused by it.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Sox offered Holliday 5/90ish early on that off season, but he didn't bite obviously, and by the time he finally decided to sign a contract, the Sox had already allocated that money to Lackey.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Rockies Holliday vs. Diamondbacks Upton road OPS's

    Holliday-------career for Rockies 803 last 3 seasons 819-860-892

    Upton---------career for Diammondbacks 731 last 3 seasons 790-767-670

    I think a 72 point advantage is quite a big difference. And their last 3 seasons it was more like a 115 point difference, with Holliday gradually adjusting and Upton gradually getting worse. Considering how much angst there was involving Hollidays road performance at the time, it should say a ton about Upton. 

     

    And, softy blasted me for wanting us to sign Holliday way back when, saying he was not "an elite hitter". later, he argued for days that VMart was an elite hitting 1Bman in MLB and would continue to be for his 3 years in Detroit.

    [/QUOTE]

    I am still shocked they didn't sign him. Wasn't the owner friends with his family or something too? Never figured out their reasoning. Did they ever say? He was only 28 at the time. All round game. Good guy. Still confused by it.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Sox offered Holliday 5/90ish early on that off season, but he didn't bite obviously, and by the time he finally decided to sign a contract, the Sox had already allocated that money to Lackey.

    [/QUOTE]


    In hindsight not making a bigger play for Holiday, then spending those dollars on a pitcher with a pre-existing elbow condition. Lyes the root problem for almost all of the tribulation that was the Red Sox since the offseason of 2009...Had Epstein and the Red Sox signed Holiday, they likely pass on Lackey and then the Crawford deal never happens...Why Epstein didn't pursue him after allowing Bay to leave is still a mystery. Holiday was the perfect fit and signed for less than Crawford ultimately signed for...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to craze4sox's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I wouldn't package Barnes for anything less than a F. Hernandez type starter, we need good young pitching.  Uptons defense is average and I really don't see swapping leagues helping his offensive stats much at any age.

    [/QUOTE]


    Would you have traded for Kemp?

     

    Through his age 24 season, Matt Kemp hit .299 / .346 / .480 (.826) with 61HRs and an OPS+ of 116 in 1,801 plate appearances.

     

    Through his age 24 season, Justin Upton has hit .275 / .357 / .475 (.832) with 108 HRs and an OPS+ of 117 in 2,663 plate appearances.

     

    I would say they are comparable at the same ages...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not sure notin, I do like Kemp better defensively and I'm sure opposing pithers fear him a lot more than Upton.  I'm just against filling one hole to create another because our SP is already mediocre at best.  Giving up our best young SP prospect would probably have a negative impact and also leave us few options to land another starter if needed.

    I believe Upton can be had for Bogy, Bradley and others, hes no superstar like Braun or Hamilton that who would demand much more.  Just my opinion but I do agree our team needs to upgrade more before being taken seriously. 

    Tough call! 

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

     

     

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jasko2248's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Rockies Holliday vs. Diamondbacks Upton road OPS's

    Holliday-------career for Rockies 803 last 3 seasons 819-860-892

    Upton---------career for Diammondbacks 731 last 3 seasons 790-767-670

    I think a 72 point advantage is quite a big difference. And their last 3 seasons it was more like a 115 point difference, with Holliday gradually adjusting and Upton gradually getting worse. Considering how much angst there was involving Hollidays road performance at the time, it should say a ton about Upton. 

     

    And, softy blasted me for wanting us to sign Holliday way back when, saying he was not "an elite hitter". later, he argued for days that VMart was an elite hitting 1Bman in MLB and would continue to be for his 3 years in Detroit.

    [/QUOTE]

    I am still shocked they didn't sign him. Wasn't the owner friends with his family or something too? Never figured out their reasoning. Did they ever say? He was only 28 at the time. All round game. Good guy. Still confused by it.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Sox offered Holliday 5/90ish early on that off season, but he didn't bite obviously, and by the time he finally decided to sign a contract, the Sox had already allocated that money to Lackey.

    [/QUOTE]


    In hindsight not making a bigger play for Holiday, then spending those dollars on a pitcher with a pre-existing elbow condition. Lyes the root problem for almost all of the tribulation that was the Red Sox since the offseason of 2009...Had Epstein and the Red Sox signed Holiday, they likely pass on Lackey and then the Crawford deal never happens...Why Epstein didn't pursue him after allowing Bay to leave is still a mystery. Holiday was the perfect fit and signed for less than Crawford ultimately signed for...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, Holliday was definitely plan A that off season and they thought they made an aggressive offer.  This was also one year after they felt they got burned by Texeira, so they may have figured Holliday would use them to drive up the offer from St. Louis.  They had money allocated for one big signing that off season and they felt Bay was a health risk so they went with Lackey, despite his injury concern as well.  

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You said there "was no way CC would be traded'. There were no qualifiers or alternate scenarios

    In fact, I specified that there was no way any team would take Crawford in a trade that was a "salary dump swap".  That the best Red Sox position player was the condition to get rid of the remaining money due Crawford is not a trade. And at the time, I even made fun of the notion that calling write-offs trades was bogus. They traded AGon, a ton of trade value, and sent millions to get rid of Crawbust. Beckett and AGon and millions in cash netted 2 2nd tier prospects.

    I never said you were in favor of Crawford after he signed. I have correctly pointed out that you never, before the fact, said to avoid the guy like the plague. You also enaged in a circle jerk, after the signing, with another poster named "boomerang", in trumpeting "Crawbury" and how exciting that was going to be. That's a fact.  

    [/QUOTE]

    No. You have said dozens of times that I supported the CC signing. You lie so much, you lose track of them.

    I never was part of the whole "Crawbury" rants. It is not even close to a fact. I spent pages and pages blasting the signing and arguing with you about not having CC bat leadoff or even be in the line-up vs LHPs. You know that, but choose to lie and lie.

    My posts are all still here, since unlike you, I have never been banned. 

    Prove it and provide the link or admit you are a liar.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Matt Holliday is in decline. In addition, VMart was not in the same FA class. In addition, you advocated Varitek for 2011. I advocated trading for AGon, and signing VMart to catch and acquiring a defense catcher to get rid of the washed up Varitek. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Here is your answer

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

    [/QUOTE]

    You must be softy, since you answer to his trolling. Right?

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    Yeah, Holliday was definitely plan A that off season and they thought they made an aggressive offer.  This was also one year after they felt they got burned by Texeira, so they may have figured Holliday would use them to drive up the offer from St. Louis.  They had money allocated for one big signing that off season and they felt Bay was a health risk so they went with Lackey, despite his injury concern as well.  

    Yeah, that's the excuse. It's the same every year.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    the matt holliday/john lackey disaster is one that will haunt the sox for the forseable future. not signing him was a big mistake and signing an injured john lackey even more so. the sox gave up on holliday too quickly and signed lackey. who knows where this team would be if they had signed holliday, never signed lackey, signed cliff lee and never signed crawford. i mean look at what the team would have looked like:

    ellsbury

    pedroia

    gonzalez

    holliday

    middlebrooks

    victorino

    salty

    drew/iglesias

     

    lee

    lester

    beckett

    buchholz

    doubront

     

    totally different team, no way that team collapses like last years team. much more balanced line up too. 

     

    now back to justin uption who i have said many times the sox should have targeted, i would not give up boegarts for justin upton, had they not dealt bauer however i would have included boegarts in a upton/bauer combo deal. but for upton no boegarts, i would be willing to trade anyone else though. this team lacks in middle of the order bats. we trade away agonz who was our anchor in the  line up, now we need to replace him. Justin upton has big time potential and has already shown what he is capable of merely 2 seasons ago. were talking a 40 100 guy in fenway and he is legitimately available. as much as i would love giancarlo stanton, upton is more realistic at this point and would ultimately cost less in terms of prospects. upton would be a great mover for the sox and if they could swing a deal without including boegarts, then even better. it would give us a talented young core a line up with big time potentail:

    ellsbury (cf)

    pedroia (2b)

    boegarts (ss)

    j.upton (lf)

    middlebrooks (3b)

    ortiz (dh)

    napoli (1b/c)

    victorino (rf)

    salty/lava (c)

     

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah, Holliday was definitely plan A that off season and they thought they made an aggressive offer.  This was also one year after they felt they got burned by Texeira, so they may have figured Holliday would use them to drive up the offer from St. Louis.  They had money allocated for one big signing that off season and they felt Bay was a health risk so they went with Lackey, despite his injury concern as well.  

    Yeah, that's the excuse. It's the same every year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Moon,

    My hope is that your statement above is proven to be false with the reinstatement of Luccino as the go to guy...

    In the end it was Epstein that was charged with the oversight of the roster. Since wrestling control from his mentor in the very public contract squable that led to his ursurping Luccino's authority and taking over as the head of baseball operations in the winter of 2006. Most of the troubles and the dysfuction of our team can be traced back to that episode. Fractured leadership is never a good thing...While Henry still controlled the purse strings, what was a model organziation with Luccino leading the day to day operation of the team. Surrounded by a group of up and coming professionals. Slowly eroded and cleary the dynamics at play within the inner office of the Red Sox became strained and manifested itself on the field. Make no mistake about it Luccino knows how to play the game and I'm not sure that his voice carried the same authority after he was repositioned. Those that were loyal to him I'm pretty sure were left in an uncomfortable position or I'm sure that his being repositioned led to some of them leaving.

    Meanwhile Henry, in support of Epstein never once veto'd any decision made by him and as such. At the end of the day, due to some curious roster moves that left the team void of on-field leadership. Which ulimately led to Francona being fired and the purge of Agon, Beckett and Crawford. The demise of the team and the dysfuction of the front office, lays squarely at his feet and Henry's to a lessor degree Luccino's. Which is why he's now in Chicago and Luccino is back in the leadership role. Time will tell if Henry made the right choice in sticking with Luccino in the winter of 2010 and not forcing his retirement. Insteadof promoting Espstien to the position he coveted "President and CEO".

    In looking back now that the dust has settled. IMHO the offseason, after we were elimanted in 2008 is where the genesis of the collapse of 2011 can be traced. It started with the trade of Manny for Bay during the season and was further exasorbated by the courting of Texiera and the debacle that ensued after he chose the Yanks over the Sox in the winter of 2008...Leaving Henry with a little egg on his face. I'm pretty sure that Henry was not pleased with his GM for his handling of the negotiations. You don't set-up a press conference and have your owner board a plane and fly to Texas having not dotted all the i's crossed all the t's.

    The failure to sign Texiera served as a warning to Henry that something was amiss with his charge and lost on him and Epstein was the cause and effect the public nature of the courtship would have on the lockerroom. Specifically IMHO it served to strained their relationship with Youkilis, who at the time was a gold glove, All Star 1B with an OPS above .900. After failing to sign Tex and still in need of a middle of the order bat led to them aquiring Victor Martinez in the summer of 2009. Trading away valuable assets for a middle of the order bat to serve as our primary catcher and then adding the free agent aquisition of Beltre to replace the departed Bay with no real intent to lock either of them up. Rather to have both hold down the 3-4-5-6 hole spots with Papi and Youk. While they targeted the next new shiny toy in AGon. Once more firing a shot accross Youks bow. While they did recoup draft picks in allowing Bay, then V-Mart & Beltre to walk. Passing on Holiday and signing Lackey in the winter of 2010 was one of those head scratching decisions. That at the time, I thought was a mistake and today in hindsight given what's transpired with the roster since. It;s prove to be somewhat prophetic...

    My feeling is that where we erred as an organization specifically Epstein, was not in the quest to win, rather in understanding the human element and the importance of the makeup of a ballclub. Which led to Epstein extending Beckett who he saw as the staff leader and didn't want the Lackey deal to cause Beckett to feel as though he wasn't the still seen as the ACE and then the signing of Crawford was perhaps the most curious of all given the makeup of the team (The unfortunate illness that befelled young Westmoreland alos played a role). A signing at the time that I was in favor of having not signed Holiday the previous year. Curious none the less in that Crawford simply was not an organizational fit given his lack of plate disipline....spilt milk

    All of the above moves had a cause and effect on the fortunes of the team and in my humble opinion it was Epstein and Henry's facination with the cost benefit and value of the draft pick compensation that led them to not see the real value in having guys like Bay, Martinez and Beltre on the team...All of them were pro's, pro's...While I too would have let Bay walk...It would have been far more palateable had they then signed Holiday. Once they made the decision to court Texiera another decision I supported, you would have thought they'd have sat with Youk and got his buyin...Again he was the one effected by the move and as a veteran leader of the team with All Star credentials. Asking him to move accross the diamond and getting his buyin before making public your intent to aquire another All Star 1B should have been the first order of buisness. Or they should have once they inked Beltre, then traded Youk and I am of the opinion that had they done that along with inking Holiday and then making the Gonzalez deal...Our roster today and the fortunes of the team would be starkly different....

    In short my hope is that the lessoned learned is that synergy is a key componant in team sports. In my mind team is synonomus with Synergy...Where when the dynamic is right. The results are greater, than the sum of the parts.

    Ellsbury

    Pedrioa

    Gonzalez

    Holiday

    Ortiz

    Beltre

    Salty

    Drew

    Kalish

    hmmm...looks like a pretty potent lineup to me...

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    I never was part of the whole "Crawbury" rants

    You were in a state-sponsered like circle jerk with Boomerang over "Crawbury" and how exciting it was gonig to be. You never condmened Crawford as a FA option before the fact. Because you are so canned, it's only recently that you've begun to attack a small segment of FA class members in what amounts to a watered down copy of what I've been doing for over a half a decade.

    I never once uttered the words "Crawbury" except to slam it. Everyone here knows it. 

    You lie and lie and lie. You are sick and pathetic.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah, Holliday was definitely plan A that off season and they thought they made an aggressive offer.  This was also one year after they felt they got burned by Texeira, so they may have figured Holliday would use them to drive up the offer from St. Louis.  They had money allocated for one big signing that off season and they felt Bay was a health risk so they went with Lackey, despite his injury concern as well.  

    Yeah, that's the excuse. It's the same every year.

    [/QUOTE]

    Moon,

    My hope is that your statement above is proven to be false with the reinstatement of Luccino as the go to guy...

    In the end it was Epstein that was charged with the oversight of the roster. Since wrestling control from his mentor in the very public contract squable that led to his ursurping Luccino's authority and taking over as the head of baseball operations in the winter of 2006. Most of the troubles and the dysfuction of our team can be traced back to that episode. Fractured leadership is never a good thing...While Henry still controlled the purse strings, what was a model organziation with Luccino leading the day to day operation of the team. Surrounded by a group of up and coming professionals. Slowly eroded and cleary the dynamics at play within the inner office of the Red Sox became strained and manifested itself on the field. Make no mistake about it Luccino knows how to play the game and I'm not sure that his voice carried the same authority after he was repositioned. Those that were loyal to him I'm pretty sure were left in an uncomfortable position or I'm sure that his being repositioned led to some of them leaving.

    Meanwhile Henry, in support of Epstein never once veto'd any decision made by him and as such. At the end of the day, due to some curious roster moves that left the team void of on-field leadership. Which ulimately led to Francona being fired and the purge of Agon, Beckett and Crawford. The demise of the team and the dysfuction of the front office, lays squarely at his feet and Henry's to a lessor degree Luccino's. Which is why he's now in Chicago and Luccino is back in the leadership role. Time will tell if Henry made the right choice in sticking with Luccino in the winter of 2010 and not forcing his retirement. Insteadof promoting Espstien to the position he coveted "President and CEO".

    In looking back now that the dust has settled. IMHO the offseason, after we were elimanted in 2008 is where the genesis of the collapse of 2011 can be traced. It started with the trade of Manny for Bay during the season and was further exasorbated by the courting of Texiera and the debacle that ensued after he chose the Yanks over the Sox in the winter of 2008...Leaving Henry with a little egg on his face. I'm pretty sure that Henry was not pleased with his GM for his handling of the negotiations. You don't set-up a press conference and have your owner board a plane and fly to Texas having not dotted all the i's crossed all the t's.

    The failure to sign Texiera served as a warning to Henry that something was amiss with his charge and lost on him and Epstein was the cause and effect the public nature of the courtship would have on the lockerroom. Specifically IMHO it served to strained their relationship with Youkilis, who at the time was a gold glove, All Star 1B with an OPS above .900. After failing to sign Tex and still in need of a middle of the order bat led to them aquiring Victor Martinez in the summer of 2009. Trading away valuable assets for a middle of the order bat to serve as our primary catcher and then adding the free agent aquisition of Beltre to replace the departed Bay with no real intent to lock either of them up. Rather to have both hold down the 3-4-5-6 hole spots with Papi and Youk. While they targeted the next new shiny toy in AGon. Once more firing a shot accross Youks bow. While they did recoup draft picks in allowing Bay, then V-Mart & Beltre to walk. Passing on Holiday and signing Lackey in the winter of 2010 was one of those head scratching decisions. That at the time, I thought was a mistake and today in hindsight given what's transpired with the roster since. It;s prove to be somewhat prophetic...

    My feeling is that where we erred as an organization specifically Epstein, was not in the quest to win, rather in understanding the human element and the importance of the makeup of a ballclub. Which led to Epstein extending Beckett who he saw as the staff leader and didn't want the Lackey deal to cause Beckett to feel as though he wasn't the still seen as the ACE and then the signing of Crawford was perhaps the most curious of all given the makeup of the team (The unfortunate illness that befelled young Westmoreland alos played a role). A signing at the time that I was in favor of having not signed Holiday the previous year. Curious none the less in that Crawford simply was not an organizational fit given his lack of plate disipline....spilt milk

    All of the above moves had a cause and effect on the fortunes of the team and in my humble opinion it was Epstein and Henry's facination with the cost benefit and value of the draft pick compensation that led them to not see the real value in having guys like Bay, Martinez and Beltre on the team...All of them were pro's, pro's...While I too would have let Bay walk...It would have been far more palateable had they then signed Holiday. Once they made the decision to court Texiera another decision I supported, you would have thought they'd have sat with Youk and got his buyin...Again he was the one effected by the move and as a veteran leader of the team with All Star credentials. Asking him to move accross the diamond and getting his buyin before making public your intent to aquire another All Star 1B should have been the first order of buisness. Or they should have once they inked Beltre, then traded Youk and I am of the opinion that had they done that along with inking Holiday and then making the Gonzalez deal...Our roster today and the fortunes of the team would be starkly different....

    In short my hope is that the lessoned learned is that synergy is a key componant in team sports. In my mind team is synonomus with Synergy...Where when the dynamic is right. The results are greater, than the sum of the parts.

    Ellsbury

    Pedrioa

    Gonzalez

    Holiday

    Ortiz

    Beltre

    Salty

    Drew

    Kalish

    hmmm...looks like a pretty potent lineup to me...

    [/QUOTE]

    So, this is Luccino behind this playing it halfway plan? I'm not sure we are better off now than with Theo. At least Theo had a plan that tried to make us serious contenders. What we have now is no plan to help the now or the later, except to not trade away our prospects.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to poprox13's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Crawford part II

    [/QUOTE]


    sorta agree ... and will cost more than just money.  Prospect costs will be high ...

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     never once uttered the words "Crawbury" except to slam it. Everyone here knows it. 

    Anyone who wants to spend a lifetime reading all your blather, will find your giddy exchange with Bommerang, right after the Crawford signing was announced. "Excitement" was your word of choice, in reponse to Boomerang's "Crawbury". You were doing your routine version of online hazing on a platfrom that gives you license to do so.

    As for leading off, on Crawford, I was 100% correct that the Red Sox made the mistake of trying to make Crawford a #3 hitter. Had they told him to simply do what ever it took to get on base, regardless of how low his SLG would be, they would have handled him correctly. Instead, they defaulted to your #7 hitter approach, to completely destroy and confident he had left from the empty seats environment of FL.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Complete lies. From day one, I have done nothing to promte Craford being here in any way shape or form, unlike you.

    Boom and others know I was not a "Crawbury" supporter or in any way "excited" by it.

    You level false claims- prove it. Do the research. Find the Crawbury thread and show one statement I made saying I was excited by Crawford being here.

    You wanted CC to lead off, while I wanted him batting 9th vs RHPs and on the bench vs LHPs, and yet somehow you twist this to mean I liked CC more than you. You are an absurd clown spewing lies and lies. Get a grip, fool.

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

    Re: ESPN proposes Sox trade for JUpton

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I never was part of the whole "Crawbury" rants

    You were in a state-sponsered like circle jerk with Boomerang over "Crawbury" and how exciting it was gonig to be. You never condmened Crawford as a FA option before the fact. Because you are so canned, it's only recently that you've begun to attack a small segment of FA class members in what amounts to a watered down copy of what I've been doing for over a half a decade.

    I never once uttered the words "Crawbury" except to slam it. Everyone here knows it. 

    You lie and lie and lie. You are sick and pathetic.

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't let this idiot get under your skin, Moon.  Everyone knows he's a lying pot-stirrer.

     

Share