nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma09. Show scauma09's posts

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    I've been a buchholz supporter for awhile. Figured he'd bust out years ago. Still think Webster and/or de la rosa is starting by the end of this year. The sox will be well built for the playoffs. 

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    In response to BurritoT-'s comment:

    In response to ConanObrien's comment:

     

    funny

    last year people wanted these 2 run out of town

     



    no they didn't triumph, I wish you an others would stop assuming 5 or 6 posters or WEEI callers speak for the majority.

     



    you gotta admit... there were a number of people on the forum who DID want them run out of town after last year. many posters are so what-have-you-done-for-me-lately? that they look at the most immediate season as the all important indicator and forget about career/3 year numbers. Everyone here has done it. Me with Punto, you with Naps etc.

    but noone can deny a ton of posters wanted Lester and/or Buch traded/released during 2012. But those posters won't speak up now. they try to save face by hiding.

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    In response to BurritoT-'s comment:

    In response to ConanObrien's comment:

     

    funny

    last year people wanted these 2 run out of town

     



    no they didn't triumph, I wish you an others would stop assuming 5 or 6 posters or WEEI callers speak for the majority.

     



    It's usually the complainers, nay-sayers, haters etc etc etc who speak louder making their numbers appear to larger than they actually are. 

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    I'm sure a lot of people might have been upset with them, but more or less wanted to see them reclaim their effectiness and turn it around.  At least.....thats how I felt. 

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    I believe Beckett is LAD #3. Dempster is doing better than him so far. Id like someone to do a comparison of all the #3's, although I think Dempster is more a #4/5, and see where we stand. Also would like to see each players salary too.

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    I believe Beckett is LAD #3. Dempster is doing better than him so far. Id like someone to do a comparison of all the #3's, although I think Dempster is more a #4/5, and see where we stand. Also would like to see each players salary too.



    Dempster might of had a much better outcome during his last game if he a.) had better defensive play behind him and b.) didn't have a rain out. 

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    I was fine with using this winter as a rebuilding stepping stone to a great team in 2014 or 2015, but Sox management appeared to want to try and win this year. The problem was, they failed to addfress our two biggest need areas to have any real significant chance at winning a ring:

     

    1) A "LIGHTS OUT" NUMBER 2-3 SLOT STARTING PITCHER.

               (No, Dempster is not that guy.)

     

    2) A SOLID RH'D 3 OR 4 SLOT HITTER.

               (No, Napoli is a decent #5-6 hitter.)

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    We dont know , on April 15th, whether we have a solid #3 or not.

    Webster throws a 98 MPH sinker

    Dempster has a K/9 > 13

    Doubront had > K / inning last year, and struck a lot of guys out in his first start

    De La Rosa is an option, Stephen Wright is an option, Barnes is an option...

    We may not have a solid #3 on 4/15, but we have a lot of candidates who may be solid #3's by the stretch run.  Im very happy w/ our starting pitching right now.

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    We dont know , on April 15th, whether we have a solid #3 or not.

    Webster throws a 98 MPH sinker

    Dempster has a K/9 > 13

    Doubront had > K / inning last year, and struck a lot of guys out in his first start

    De La Rosa is an option, Stephen Wright is an option, Barnes is an option...

    We may not have a solid #3 on 4/15, but we have a lot of candidates who may be solid #3's by the stretch run.  Im very happy w/ our starting pitching right now.




    Im with you Drew. I like what we have right now and what we have on the way. We also have the $$ and prospects to make a deal later if need be. Were in a very good position IMO.

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I was fine with using this winter as a rebuilding stepping stone to a great team in 2014 or 2015, but Sox management appeared to want to try and win this year. The problem was, they failed to addfress our two biggest need areas to have any real significant chance at winning a ring:

     

    1) A "LIGHTS OUT" NUMBER 2-3 SLOT STARTING PITCHER.

               (No, Dempster is not that guy.)

     

    2) A SOLID RH'D 3 OR 4 SLOT HITTER.

               (No, Napoli is a decent #5-6 hitter.)




    But if they could have addressed all of those needs, they would have.  If you think the plan is for 2014 and 2015, theere was no bneed to get everything today, and trying to do so would have resulted in "settling."

     

    They signed a lot of players to short teerm deals, which is smart.  Because if things are not panning out, these contracts are mose easily flipped for prospects.   Watch the offseason activity for the Cubs the past 2 years.   Like Theo Epstein or not, one had to asdmit that there is no way he felt hecould turn the Cubs into a contender by acquiring missing peices like David DeJesus, Paul Maholm, Scott Feldman, Scott Baker, Scott Hairston, etc.    The plan was most likely to trade each peice for as much as possible.  Last off-season, he dealt short timers Maholm and Reed Johnson.  I would not be surprised if he was puishing DeJesus at some point as well, but simply never got a deal he liked.  This July, he will be offering around all th Scotts and Dejesus.

     

    The Sox might find thmeelves in a similar position as well.  Drew and Dempster, for example, are both on very short deals and could potentially move even if the club in still alive for the post-season.  (Drew moreso than Dempster in that case.)

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    The RS are IMPROVED, not Worldbeaters. Few would compare them to the Nationals.

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    The RS are IMPROVED, not Worldbeaters. Few would compare them to the Nationals.




    I dont think anyone here is saying they are "Worldbeaters". Well, at least I know Im not. They are improved for sure and in a very good position to improve more.

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    I would suggest that getting a lights-out #3 is not only impractical, it might be counter-productive.  When you lead the league in a given category, improving the same category is not as value-added as improving a weaker category.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    In response to BurritoT-'s comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

     

    The RS are IMPROVED, not Worldbeaters. Few would compare them to the Nationals.

     



    No but we  can compare the Yanks to the Pirates.

     



    Pirates aren't that bad.

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I was fine with using this winter as a rebuilding stepping stone to a great team in 2014 or 2015, but Sox management appeared to want to try and win this year. The problem was, they failed to addfress our two biggest need areas to have any real significant chance at winning a ring:

     

    1) A "LIGHTS OUT" NUMBER 2-3 SLOT STARTING PITCHER.

               (No, Dempster is not that guy.)

     

    2) A SOLID RH'D 3 OR 4 SLOT HITTER.

               (No, Napoli is a decent #5-6 hitter.)

     




    But if they could have addressed all of those needs, they would have.  If you think the plan is for 2014 and 2015, theere was no bneed to get everything today, and trying to do so would have resulted in "settling."

     

     

    They signed a lot of players to short teerm deals, which is smart.  Because if things are not panning out, these contracts are mose easily flipped for prospects.   Watch the offseason activity for the Cubs the past 2 years.   Like Theo Epstein or not, one had to asdmit that there is no way he felt hecould turn the Cubs into a contender by acquiring missing peices like David DeJesus, Paul Maholm, Scott Feldman, Scott Baker, Scott Hairston, etc.    The plan was most likely to trade each peice for as much as possible.  Last off-season, he dealt short timers Maholm and Reed Johnson.  I would not be surprised if he was puishing DeJesus at some point as well, but simply never got a deal he liked.  This July, he will be offering around all th Scotts and Dejesus.

     

    The Sox might find thmeelves in a similar position as well.  Drew and Dempster, for example, are both on very short deals and could potentially move even if the club in still alive for the post-season.  (Drew moreso than Dempster in that case.)



    I understand the reasons not to go all out this year by trading away our future to fill one of the big 2 needs I listed above. I didn't see many choices via free agency, and getting Upton might have been harder than many of us think, but in the absence of filling those 2 big needs, I thought we should have set our sights on 2014 or 2015 and made most deals accordingly.

    I get the short term deal flexibility thing, but we basically just put off the big decisions for another year and didn't really do anything to improve our odds in 2014 or 2015.

    If we end up trading Drew or Dempster for prospects, maybe that will change. If we suprise this year and make a strong run, even if we end up losing, I'll admit it was worth it, since we didn't really sacrifice anything in the future.

    I like where we are right now.

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I was fine with using this winter as a rebuilding stepping stone to a great team in 2014 or 2015, but Sox management appeared to want to try and win this year. The problem was, they failed to addfress our two biggest need areas to have any real significant chance at winning a ring:

     

    1) A "LIGHTS OUT" NUMBER 2-3 SLOT STARTING PITCHER.

               (No, Dempster is not that guy.)

     

    2) A SOLID RH'D 3 OR 4 SLOT HITTER.

               (No, Napoli is a decent #5-6 hitter.)

     




    But if they could have addressed all of those needs, they would have.  If you think the plan is for 2014 and 2015, theere was no bneed to get everything today, and trying to do so would have resulted in "settling."

     

     

    They signed a lot of players to short teerm deals, which is smart.  Because if things are not panning out, these contracts are mose easily flipped for prospects.   Watch the offseason activity for the Cubs the past 2 years.   Like Theo Epstein or not, one had to asdmit that there is no way he felt hecould turn the Cubs into a contender by acquiring missing peices like David DeJesus, Paul Maholm, Scott Feldman, Scott Baker, Scott Hairston, etc.    The plan was most likely to trade each peice for as much as possible.  Last off-season, he dealt short timers Maholm and Reed Johnson.  I would not be surprised if he was puishing DeJesus at some point as well, but simply never got a deal he liked.  This July, he will be offering around all th Scotts and Dejesus.

     

    The Sox might find thmeelves in a similar position as well.  Drew and Dempster, for example, are both on very short deals and could potentially move even if the club in still alive for the post-season.  (Drew moreso than Dempster in that case.)

     



    I understand the reasons not to go all out this year by trading away our future to fill one of the big 2 needs I listed above. I didn't see many choices via free agency, and getting Upton might have been harder than many of us think, but in the absence of filling those 2 big needs, I thought we should have set our sights on 2014 or 2015 and made most deals accordingly.

     

    I get the short term deal flexibility thing, but we basically just put off the big decisions for another year and didn't really do anything to improve our odds in 2014 or 2015.

    If we end up trading Drew or Dempster for prospects, maybe that will change. If we suprise this year and make a strong run, even if we end up losing, I'll admit it was worth it, since we didn't really sacrifice anything in the future.

    I like where we are right now.



    "putting off" the decision might end up being better than the alternative. very few FAs in 2012 were worth giving out a deal long enough to help us in 2015 and beyond. So by signing bridge guys/placeholders and keeping our farm intact we can make a deal (trade or FA) in the next 2 years and land marquee players who (are available and) will help us in 2015 and beyond. You can also look at it this way, the guys we signed this winter won't help us in 2015 and beyond but they also will not hurt us in 2015 and beyond.

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

    Re: nickname for Lester-Buch combo.... is BC at fault for not getting a lights-out #3 as well?

                                 Nickname:    Clesterbuch. ? No.....just a thought.

     

Share