Re: MASTERSON = MASTERFUL, how did that trade work out for us again?
posted at 5/20/2013 7:53 PM EDT
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..
Yes, but for the same reasons as for Lackey.
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)