MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to ImagydSportsBos' comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    ok moon-me, let me get this straight.. u wouldnt trade owens and barnes right now straight up for the master? if he were a baker, he would b a master Baker. thats how good he's been. what are we pittsburgh> u know how many barnes and henry owens turn out to b busts with time? master was lights out in the bullpen, remember that? could have solved our closa issues if not as a starter. u hook him up with a farrel and nieves, u dont think he's realizing his potential. geez, we aint talking about Jesse Owens here, talking Henry. how has the webster worked out? seems like s mean featured words are WALK and BALL! looked like a cant-miss as well. bok is still open on B and O, not about to crown them yet!

    Actually, I would not trade just Owens for masterson right now. Forget Barnes.

    Masterson is a FA after next year. We can sign him then and have all 3.

    1.7 years of Masterson is not equal to many many years of Owens and Barnes. Yes, they may both turn out to be busts, but then again, masterson may repeat his 2012 numbers the rest of this year and next: 11-15  4.93 (1.454 WHIP).  Or, he may repeat his 2010 numbers: 6-13 4.70 (1.500), or his 2009 season, or .... 

    The guy is hot and cold. You chose this current hot streak and assume this is who he is, has been, and will be. I'll take the two young studs with higher upside and about 15 years of team control between them. You can have the 1.7 years of the inconsistent Masterson.

     

    (I'm not saying I wouldn't take Masterson over Doubront right now, but I wouldn't trade 2 of our best pitcvhing prospects for him.)

     




    thatsnice, but thats the master baker's going rate right now. also, meant if all things were relatively equal, meaning if we had a window to extend the master before finalizing the trade and what not... u have no clue how these 2 prospects will turn out. master's overall work shows he can bake in the majors. worse case scenario, u can always throw him back in the bullpen.. he's the anti-bard (not bard to the bone).. very valuable guy. plus with his frame and delivery , i dont c him suffering arm issues anytime soon.

     



    Actually, mastersons' work shows he's more likely to have a bad or average year than a good one.

    Stop this 'all things equal" nonsense. I said i wouldn't trade Owens and Barnes for Masterson right now, and of course that is based on years of team control. If it was based on just the next 1.7 years, then of course, I'll take the guy that will be in MLB not on the farm.

    No GM would trade Owens and barnes straight up for Masterson right now, even if they were one good pitcher away from being a strong contender. 

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to ImagydSportsBos' comment:

     

    19 innings of shut out ball, 6-0 shutout today (almost) as he outpointed the king of felix in a battle of ACES (he's up there with buch and lest). we got v-mart, had a solid year and we balked at a salary for a proven elite hitter that we now throw around to every jabro that comes thru the door. then we kept him for only one year. tito has done a great job building red sox midwest pitching (cleveland).. lets see, had dice-k, has hagadone, has master, has fat albers, i forget the others.. i digress but i saw oki on red sox west (oakland).

     



    I'm sure you were talking about Masterson like this last year too, when he had a 4.93 ERA and a 1.45 WHIP.  Are you aware of his total stats with Cleveland, or just the last few games?

     



    Trade worked out great.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    sorry posted twice

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to georom4's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to ImagydSportsBos' comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    ok moon-me, let me get this straight.. u wouldnt trade owens and barnes right now straight up for the master? if he were a baker, he would b a master Baker. thats how good he's been. what are we pittsburgh> u know how many barnes and henry owens turn out to b busts with time? master was lights out in the bullpen, remember that? could have solved our closa issues if not as a starter. u hook him up with a farrel and nieves, u dont think he's realizing his potential. geez, we aint talking about Jesse Owens here, talking Henry. how has the webster worked out? seems like s mean featured words are WALK and BALL! looked like a cant-miss as well. bok is still open on B and O, not about to crown them yet!

    Actually, I would not trade just Owens for masterson right now. Forget Barnes.

    Masterson is a FA after next year. We can sign him then and have all 3.

    1.7 years of Masterson is not equal to many many years of Owens and Barnes. Yes, they may both turn out to be busts, but then again, masterson may repeat his 2012 numbers the rest of this year and next: 11-15  4.93 (1.454 WHIP).  Or, he may repeat his 2010 numbers: 6-13 4.70 (1.500), or his 2009 season, or .... 

    The guy is hot and cold. You chose this current hot streak and assume this is who he is, has been, and will be. I'll take the two young studs with higher upside and about 15 years of team control between them. You can have the 1.7 years of the inconsistent Masterson.

     

    (I'm not saying I wouldn't take Masterson over Doubront right now, but I wouldn't trade 2 of our best pitcvhing prospects for him.)

     




    thatsnice, but thats the master baker's going rate right now. also, meant if all things were relatively equal, meaning if we had a window to extend the master before finalizing the trade and what not... u have no clue how these 2 prospects will turn out. master's overall work shows he can bake in the majors. worse case scenario, u can always throw him back in the bullpen.. he's the anti-bard (not bard to the bone).. very valuable guy. plus with his frame and delivery , i dont c him suffering arm issues anytime soon.

     

     



    Actually, mastersons' work shows he's more likely to have a bad or average year than a good one.

     

    Stop this 'all things equal" nonsense. I said i wouldn't trade Owens and Barnes for Masterson right now, and of course that is based on years of team control. If it was based on just the next 1.7 years, then of course, I'll take the guy that will be in MLB not on the farm.

    No GM would trade Owens and barnes straight up for Masterson right now, even if they were one good pitcher away from being a strong contender. 

     




     

    yea right, like these minor league guys have done anything to warrant this insane comment...starting pitching is the most important commodity in MLB....the fact that so many posters (yes Moon I mean you) would declare this a great trade already shows the utter hypocrisy of the Polyanna brigades here on BDC. VMART was a rental that lasted a year or so...he didnt help us win anything...(i loved the guy and wanted him resigned btw). The same folks who lecture us about the long term view of assessing trades now have aready declared that trade a great one for Theo even though these two young players's future is uncertain. Meanwhile, a pitcher like masterson, who is in his prime, is mainly responsible for his team's first place standing. The guys been pitching in the majors since that trade with mostly lousy teams. Would you trade him 4 lackey? Dempster? Durabront?Of course you would....so cut out the "Trade was great nonsense"...at least wait to see if those two guys pan out first

     




     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    Masterson alone is certainly not worth 2 top pitching prospects.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    No GM would trade Owens and barnes straight up for Masterson right now, even if they were one good pitcher away from being a strong contender. 

     




     

    yea right, like these minor league guys have done anything to warrant this insane comment...starting pitching is the most important commodity in MLB....

    Yes, and that's why the fact that we got Owens and barnes for Masterson via VMart is exactly why I feel this was an excellent trade. Of course, we won't know until years from now, but unlike many here, I'm not afraid of voicing my opinion up front.

    GMs all over the league would jump through hoops to get Owens and Barnes. Masterson is not enough. Yes, both could bomb out, and we'd never hear the end of it from you, but Masterson is too inconsistent for my liking, and the 1.7 years of team control is the deal buster.

     

    the fact that so many posters (yes Moon I mean you) would declare this a great trade already shows the utter hypocrisy of the Polyanna brigades here on BDC. VMART was a rental that lasted a year or so...he didnt help us win anything...(i loved the guy and wanted him resigned btw).

    And how did Masterson help Cleveland win anything, if this is your measure of value?

     

    The same folks who lecture us about the long term view of assessing trades now have aready declared that trade a great one for Theo even though these two young players's future is uncertain.

    Good point, but we already have the results in on VMart and most of Masterson's years of control are behind him. Projecting the value of Owens and Barnes is certainly sketchy, so your point here is very well taken.

     

    Meanwhile, a pitcher like masterson, who is in his prime, is mainly responsible for his team's first place standing.

    He was in his prime last year too.

    The guys been pitching in the majors since that trade with mostly lousy teams.

    And he was pitching lousy for much of the time as well. I'm not too impressed by his 1.372 WHIP with Cleveland. He's not the solid top of rotation pitcher I am looking for, but he would be an improvement over Doubront.

    Would you trade him 4 lackey?

    Yes, but mostly for the money differential and not because I have a lot more faith that Masterson will do better than Lackey over the next 1.7 years..

    Dempster?

    Yes, but for the same reasons as for Lackey.

    Durabront?

    I already answer this one. Yes, I'd trade Doubront for Masterson, but not Owens & Barnes or even Owens alone. Barnes straight up is about 50-50 to me, but if I thought we could win it this year by adding a starter like Masterson, I might do it. (Note: I'm not as high on barnes as many here seem to be.)

    Of course you would....so cut out the "Trade was great nonsense"...at least wait to see if those two guys pan out first

    This discussion is not about trading Lackey for Masterson, it's about maybe two main issues:

    1) Would we take back the trade we made long ago? No VMart. Who would have been our catcher and at what cost? Would Masterson have done the same for Boston as with a team in a weak division with virtually no media or fan pressure to excel or be boo'd? Would we feel as good about our pitching prospects without Barnes and Owens?

    2) Would you trade Barnes and Owens for Masterson right now?

    The second question is easier for me: No.

    The first question is more layered. It's easy to look back in hindsight and totally discount what VMart did for the team, since "we never won a ring with him", but seriously geo, are you implying we'd have won with Masterson?

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    No GM would trade Owens and barnes straight up for Masterson right now, even if they were one good pitcher away from being a strong contender. 

     




     

    yea right, like these minor league guys have done anything to warrant this insane comment...starting pitching is the most important commodity in MLB....

    Yes, and that's why the fact that we got Owens and barnes for Masterson via VMart is exactly why I feel this was an excellent trade. Of course, we won't know until years from now, but unlike many here, I'm not afraid of voicing my opinion up front.

    GMs all over the league would jump through hoops to get Owens and Barnes. Masterson is not enough. Yes, both could bomb out, and we'd never hear the end of it from you, but Masterson is too inconsistent for my liking, and the 1.7 years of team control is the deal buster.

     

    the fact that so many posters (yes Moon I mean you) would declare this a great trade already shows the utter hypocrisy of the Polyanna brigades here on BDC. VMART was a rental that lasted a year or so...he didnt help us win anything...(i loved the guy and wanted him resigned btw).

    And how did Masterson help Cleveland win anything, if this is your measure of value?

     

    The same folks who lecture us about the long term view of assessing trades now have aready declared that trade a great one for Theo even though these two young players's future is uncertain.

    Good point, but we already have the results in on VMart and most of Masterson's years of control are behind him. Projecting the value of Owens and Barnes is certainly sketchy, so your point here is very well taken.

     

    Meanwhile, a pitcher like masterson, who is in his prime, is mainly responsible for his team's first place standing.

    He was in his prime last year too.

    The guys been pitching in the majors since that trade with mostly lousy teams.

    And he was pitching lousy for much of the time as well. I'm not too impressed by his 1.372 WHIP with Cleveland. He's not the solid top of rotation pitcher I am looking for, but he would be an improvement over Doubront.

    Would you trade him 4 lackey?

    Yes, but mostly for the money differential and not because I have a lot more faith that Masterson will do better than Lackey over the next 1.7 years..

    Dempster?

    Yes, but for the same reasons as for Lackey.

    Durabront?

    I already answer this one. Yes, I'd trade Doubront for Masterson, but not Owens & Barnes or even Owens alone. Barnes straight up is about 50-50 to me, but if I thought we could win it this year by adding a starter like Masterson, I might do it. (Note: I'm not as high on barnes as many here seem to be.)

    Of course you would....so cut out the "Trade was great nonsense"...at least wait to see if those two guys pan out first

    This discussion is not about trading Lackey for Masterson, it's about maybe two main issues:

    1) Would we take back the trade we made long ago? No VMart. Who would have been our catcher and at what cost? Would Masterson have done the same for Boston as with a team in a weak division with virtually no media or fan pressure to excel or be boo'd? Would we feel as good about our pitching prospects without Barnes and Owens?

    2) Would you trade Barnes and Owens for Masterson right now?

    The second question is easier for me: No.

    The first question is more layered. It's easy to look back in hindsight and totally discount what VMart did for the team, since "we never won a ring with him", but seriously geo, are you implying we'd have won with Masterson?

     

     



    Moon - I was really surprised you declared this trade a good one already given your long term view of things.....Alls I know is that the Sox continue to be in contention, a pitcher like Masterson might make a huge difference (Trade him for Salty or Drew/Iggy or Felix D or a combo of whatever)  who would look really good in the 3 role and maybe the difference between a rested effective bullpen and an overtaxed one.....personally i would love to have him back (of course keep the two younguns as well) but teams getting pitchers usually overpay at the deadline (which was my other objection to some of the other posts)

     

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    No GM would trade Owens and barnes straight up for Masterson right now, even if they were one good pitcher away from being a strong contender. 

     




     

    yea right, like these minor league guys have done anything to warrant this insane comment...starting pitching is the most important commodity in MLB....

    Yes, and that's why the fact that we got Owens and barnes for Masterson via VMart is exactly why I feel this was an excellent trade. Of course, we won't know until years from now, but unlike many here, I'm not afraid of voicing my opinion up front.

    GMs all over the league would jump through hoops to get Owens and Barnes. Masterson is not enough. Yes, both could bomb out, and we'd never hear the end of it from you, but Masterson is too inconsistent for my liking, and the 1.7 years of team control is the deal buster.

     

    the fact that so many posters (yes Moon I mean you) would declare this a great trade already shows the utter hypocrisy of the Polyanna brigades here on BDC. VMART was a rental that lasted a year or so...he didnt help us win anything...(i loved the guy and wanted him resigned btw).

    And how did Masterson help Cleveland win anything, if this is your measure of value?

     

    The same folks who lecture us about the long term view of assessing trades now have aready declared that trade a great one for Theo even though these two young players's future is uncertain.

    Good point, but we already have the results in on VMart and most of Masterson's years of control are behind him. Projecting the value of Owens and Barnes is certainly sketchy, so your point here is very well taken.

     

    Meanwhile, a pitcher like masterson, who is in his prime, is mainly responsible for his team's first place standing.

    He was in his prime last year too.

    The guys been pitching in the majors since that trade with mostly lousy teams.

    And he was pitching lousy for much of the time as well. I'm not too impressed by his 1.372 WHIP with Cleveland. He's not the solid top of rotation pitcher I am looking for, but he would be an improvement over Doubront.

    Would you trade him 4 lackey?

    Yes, but mostly for the money differential and not because I have a lot more faith that Masterson will do better than Lackey over the next 1.7 years..

    Dempster?

    Yes, but for the same reasons as for Lackey.

    Durabront?

    I already answer this one. Yes, I'd trade Doubront for Masterson, but not Owens & Barnes or even Owens alone. Barnes straight up is about 50-50 to me, but if I thought we could win it this year by adding a starter like Masterson, I might do it. (Note: I'm not as high on barnes as many here seem to be.)

    Of course you would....so cut out the "Trade was great nonsense"...at least wait to see if those two guys pan out first

    This discussion is not about trading Lackey for Masterson, it's about maybe two main issues:

    1) Would we take back the trade we made long ago? No VMart. Who would have been our catcher and at what cost? Would Masterson have done the same for Boston as with a team in a weak division with virtually no media or fan pressure to excel or be boo'd? Would we feel as good about our pitching prospects without Barnes and Owens?

    2) Would you trade Barnes and Owens for Masterson right now?

    The second question is easier for me: No.

    The first question is more layered. It's easy to look back in hindsight and totally discount what VMart did for the team, since "we never won a ring with him", but seriously geo, are you implying we'd have won with Masterson?

     

     



    Moon - I was really surprised you declared this trade a good one already given your long term view of things.....Alls I know is that the Sox continue to be in contention, a pitcher like Masterson might make a huge difference (Trade him for Salty or Drew/Iggy or Felix D or a combo of whatever)  who would look really good in the 3 role and maybe the difference between a rested effective bullpen and an overtaxed one.....personally i would love to have him back (of course keep the two younguns as well) but teams getting pitchers usually overpay at the deadline (which was my other objection to some of the other posts)

     




     

    Georom, I know how we could put a air-tight lid on this thread about Masterson.  Two ways.

    1.  If Lackey keep repeating his great performance of yesterday...and

    2.  If Dempster starts being Dempster instead of dumpster and starts winning games for us.

    That is assuming that Lester and Buchholz keep pitching their top notch best.  These things happen and we will not be talking about Masterson much after that.

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to georom4's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    No GM would trade Owens and barnes straight up for Masterson right now, even if they were one good pitcher away from being a strong contender. 

     




     

    yea right, like these minor league guys have done anything to warrant this insane comment...starting pitching is the most important commodity in MLB....

    Yes, and that's why the fact that we got Owens and barnes for Masterson via VMart is exactly why I feel this was an excellent trade. Of course, we won't know until years from now, but unlike many here, I'm not afraid of voicing my opinion up front.

    GMs all over the league would jump through hoops to get Owens and Barnes. Masterson is not enough. Yes, both could bomb out, and we'd never hear the end of it from you, but Masterson is too inconsistent for my liking, and the 1.7 years of team control is the deal buster.

     

    the fact that so many posters (yes Moon I mean you) would declare this a great trade already shows the utter hypocrisy of the Polyanna brigades here on BDC. VMART was a rental that lasted a year or so...he didnt help us win anything...(i loved the guy and wanted him resigned btw).

    And how did Masterson help Cleveland win anything, if this is your measure of value?

     

    The same folks who lecture us about the long term view of assessing trades now have aready declared that trade a great one for Theo even though these two young players's future is uncertain.

    Good point, but we already have the results in on VMart and most of Masterson's years of control are behind him. Projecting the value of Owens and Barnes is certainly sketchy, so your point here is very well taken.

     

    Meanwhile, a pitcher like masterson, who is in his prime, is mainly responsible for his team's first place standing.

    He was in his prime last year too.

    The guys been pitching in the majors since that trade with mostly lousy teams.

    And he was pitching lousy for much of the time as well. I'm not too impressed by his 1.372 WHIP with Cleveland. He's not the solid top of rotation pitcher I am looking for, but he would be an improvement over Doubront.

    Would you trade him 4 lackey?

    Yes, but mostly for the money differential and not because I have a lot more faith that Masterson will do better than Lackey over the next 1.7 years..

    Dempster?

    Yes, but for the same reasons as for Lackey.

    Durabront?

    I already answer this one. Yes, I'd trade Doubront for Masterson, but not Owens & Barnes or even Owens alone. Barnes straight up is about 50-50 to me, but if I thought we could win it this year by adding a starter like Masterson, I might do it. (Note: I'm not as high on barnes as many here seem to be.)

    Of course you would....so cut out the "Trade was great nonsense"...at least wait to see if those two guys pan out first

    This discussion is not about trading Lackey for Masterson, it's about maybe two main issues:

    1) Would we take back the trade we made long ago? No VMart. Who would have been our catcher and at what cost? Would Masterson have done the same for Boston as with a team in a weak division with virtually no media or fan pressure to excel or be boo'd? Would we feel as good about our pitching prospects without Barnes and Owens?

    2) Would you trade Barnes and Owens for Masterson right now?

    The second question is easier for me: No.

    The first question is more layered. It's easy to look back in hindsight and totally discount what VMart did for the team, since "we never won a ring with him", but seriously geo, are you implying we'd have won with Masterson?

     

     



    Moon - I was really surprised you declared this trade a good one already given your long term view of things.....Alls I know is that the Sox continue to be in contention, a pitcher like Masterson might make a huge difference (Trade him for Salty or Drew/Iggy or Felix D or a combo of whatever)  who would look really good in the 3 role and maybe the difference between a rested effective bullpen and an overtaxed one.....personally i would love to have him back (of course keep the two younguns as well) but teams getting pitchers usually overpay at the deadline (which was my other objection to some of the other posts)

     



    I'm sure Mark Shapiro, GM of the first place Cleveland Indians, is dying to move Justin Masterson back to the Red Sox right now.  I'm sure he'd love to have the underachieving Doubront along with Salty & Drew, especially when you consider the Indians have an all-star SS and an all-star catcher.  Seriously?

     
  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: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    Notice geo isn't mentioning Reddick anymore. Soon, Masterson will fall from these pages too.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jozee76. Show jozee76's posts

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    It was and still is a great trade for us.

    Masterson has been up and down, and as these threads keep showing up on the up swings, they are silent during the down times.

    We got VMart for 1.5 years and made the playoffs once with his help.

    We then drafted Matt Barnes and Henry Owens as compensation for losing VMart to free agency.

    I would not trade those two for Masterson right now.

    How did that trade work out for us again?

     

    EXCELLENT!

     




    Actually, great post!!!!!

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to jozee76's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    It was and still is a great trade for us.

    Masterson has been up and down, and as these threads keep showing up on the up swings, they are silent during the down times.

    We got VMart for 1.5 years and made the playoffs once with his help.

    We then drafted Matt Barnes and Henry Owens as compensation for losing VMart to free agency.

    I would not trade those two for Masterson right now.

    How did that trade work out for us again?

     

    EXCELLENT!

     

     




    Actually, great post!!!!!

     



    I wrote this in my sleep...

    Wink

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    It was and still is a great trade for us.

    Masterson has been up and down, and as these threads keep showing up on the up swings, they are silent during the down times.

    We got VMart for 1.5 years and made the playoffs once with his help.

    We then drafted Matt Barnes and Henry Owens as compensation for losing VMart to free agency.

    I would not trade those two for Masterson right now.

    How did that trade work out for us again?

     

    EXCELLENT!

     




    Moon, Can't say excellent until Barnes and Owens have at least done something at MLB level. For all we know they could get hurt or become great AAA pitchers. While I agree I would not trade those 2 for Masterson at this point in time, Masterson would look awfully good in the RS rotation right now. But that is problem with trades like this, your pushing your young players down the line and explains why RS have had few impact young player last few yrs and why team has not made playoffs past few yrs. Players like Anthony Rizzo would also look very good in a RS uniform right now. The good news is farm is loaded and hopefully we will go back to being a top producing farm system that will make RS perrenial playoff team. I prefer we trade veterans when young players are ready. Trading Agon /Beckett/ Crawford while relieving us of salary burden, also gave us a couple good young pitchers. Imagine what kind of talent you might get back if those guys didn't have such terrible contracts. If Webster proves to be ready, might want to look at dealing a Lackey if he continues to pitch well [contract not to bad due to TJ surgery] some contender would absolutely give up a top prospect if they felt he could help them to playoffs, and if RS believe Webster can replace Lackey's #'s why not?

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    Moon - I was really surprised you declared this trade a good one already given your long term view of things.....Alls I know is that the Sox continue to be in contention, a pitcher like Masterson might make a huge difference (Trade him for Salty or Drew/Iggy or Felix D or a combo of whatever)  who would look really good in the 3 role and maybe the difference between a rested effective bullpen and an overtaxed one.....personally i would love to have him back (of course keep the two younguns as well) but teams getting pitchers usually overpay at the deadline (which was my other objection to some of the other posts)

    I wouldn't trade Owens and Barnes for Masterson.

    The jury is not in yet, but the 1.5 years of VMart is about equal to Masterson's numbers in Cleveland, so anything these two prospects give us is gravy.

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    Moon, Can't say excellent until Barnes and Owens have at least done something at MLB level.

    True, but I'll take the 2 kids and 15 years of control over 1.7 from the sketchy Masterson.

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to garyhow's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    It was and still is a great trade for us.

    Masterson has been up and down, and as these threads keep showing up on the up swings, they are silent during the down times.

    We got VMart for 1.5 years and made the playoffs once with his help.

    We then drafted Matt Barnes and Henry Owens as compensation for losing VMart to free agency.

    I would not trade those two for Masterson right now.

    How did that trade work out for us again?

     

    EXCELLENT!

     

     




     

    Moon, Can't say excellent until Barnes and Owens have at least done something at MLB level. For all we know they could get hurt or become great AAA pitchers. While I agree I would not trade those 2 for Masterson at this point in time, Masterson would look awfully good in the RS rotation right now. But that is problem with trades like this, your pushing your young players down the line and explains why RS have had few impact young player last few yrs and why team has not made playoffs past few yrs. Players like Anthony Rizzo would also look very good in a RS uniform right now. The good news is farm is loaded and hopefully we will go back to being a top producing farm system that will make RS perrenial playoff team. I prefer we trade veterans when young players are ready. Trading Agon /Beckett/ Crawford while relieving us of salary burden, also gave us a couple good young pitchers. Imagine what kind of talent you might get back if those guys didn't have such terrible contracts. If Webster proves to be ready, might want to look at dealing a Lackey if he continues to pitch well [contract not to bad due to TJ surgery] some contender would absolutely give up a top prospect if they felt he could help them to playoffs, and if RS believe Webster can replace Lackey's #'s why not?

     




    We have certainly made some very strange moves.  Our FO and many of our fans became fed up with Tek offense so we traded for Victor.  I personally feel Victor and Beltre were our best 1/2 punch since Manny & Papi.  Not signing Victor turned out good but I personally would have tried to keep Beltre.  

     

    Are we really that much better three years later?

    SS? Went from Scuter, to the less talented Aviles and Punto, then Ciriaco and now Drew.  I think Drew is equal to Scuter.  Iggy is still waiting to be our SS of the future with Bogy's name now being thrown around so whats up?

    C? Salty catching the last two years have been worse than having Tek.  Salty has at least been helpfull this season and we finally seem to have some good young farm hands.

    SP? Since losing a major league ready starter in Masterson for one plus years of better offensive catching, we are still waiting for another good young arm to develop.

    3B? We traded the injury prone Youk and now have the younger Middy who "again" the jury is still out on

    1B, We went from Adrian to a much less all round player in Nap.

    RHH OF? McDon to Gomes "enough said" Johnny may walk a bit but hes been a dissapointment.

    FO/Management?  I feel we are much better off with Farrell and Ben

    So, the best moves I see from all this was, a new manager and pitching coach, freeing up some cash and trading Beckett and Crawford.  Victorino, Farrell, Nieves and Dempster are better fits although Demp wasn't the SP our team really needed.  It's a small improvement but we have a long way to go.

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    we got v-mart, had a solid year and we balked at a salary for a proven elite hitter


    We balked?  Are you seriously lamenting that VMart left?  Wow, you might be the last person in the world lamenting the loss of VMart.  Even Softlaw doesn't mention him any more.

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    we got v-mart, had a solid year and we balked at a salary for a proven elite hitter


    We balked?  Are you seriously lamenting that VMart left?  Wow, you might be the last person in the world lamenting the loss of VMart.  Even Softlaw doesn't mention him any more.



    Actually, he was as late as early April of this year.

    softy's the guy who calls Papi, Victorino and others old, but wanted Ramon "the statue" Hernandez as our starting catcher for a 2 year deal. and actually thought VMart could catch for 1-2 years and then be "an elite hitting 1Bman" for the final 2-4 years of his deal- getting some DH time in if Papi retired.

    He even argued that Youk, VMar, Papi and AGon on the same team was not going to create any issues.

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    we got v-mart, had a solid year and we balked at a salary for a proven elite hitter


    We balked?  Are you seriously lamenting that VMart left?  Wow, you might be the last person in the world lamenting the loss of VMart.  Even Softlaw doesn't mention him any more.

     



    Actually, he was as late as early April of this year.

     

    softy's the guy who calls Papi, Victorino and others old, but wanted Ramon "the statue" Hernandez as our starting catcher for a 2 year deal. and actually thought VMart could catch for 1-2 years and then be "an elite hitting 1Bman" for the final 2-4 years of his deal- getting some DH time in if Papi retired.

    He even argued that Youk, VMar, Papi and AGon on the same team was not going to create any issues.



    I was actually referring to the OP.  It's one of my standards for determining if someone is a troll.  We got the better of the trade pretty clearly, but at least I could see the argument.  But then, we added the line about us balking on signing VMart, that's nuts.

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

    Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

     

    we got v-mart, had a solid year and we balked at a salary for a proven elite hitter


    We balked?  Are you seriously lamenting that VMart left?  Wow, you might be the last person in the world lamenting the loss of VMart.  Even Softlaw doesn't mention him any more.

     



    Actually, he was as late as early April of this year.

     

    softy's the guy who calls Papi, Victorino and others old, but wanted Ramon "the statue" Hernandez as our starting catcher for a 2 year deal. and actually thought VMart could catch for 1-2 years and then be "an elite hitting 1Bman" for the final 2-4 years of his deal- getting some DH time in if Papi retired.

    He even argued that Youk, VMar, Papi and AGon on the same team was not going to create any issues.

     



    I was actually referring to the OP.  It's one of my standards for determining if someone is a troll.  We got the better of the trade pretty clearly, but at least I could see the argument.  But then, we added the line about us balking on signing VMart, that's nuts.

     



    Yeah. It's getting deeper and deeper here.

     

Share