So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Moonslav has moved towards the center on the "Glass half-empty, half-full" scale. Now is Softlaw would do likewise then this bickering might subside somewhat. If Congress can comprimise then anything is possible.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are we headed towards a Forum Cliff?

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What do Springfield, MA and Cranston, RI have in common? Trivia quiz.

    [/QUOTE]


    Is Geo from Springfield?  I honestly dont know.  Are you going to compare me to Geo?  Because that is my first guess.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    Moonslav has moved towards the center on the "Glass half-empty, half-full" scale...

    No, the glass is nearly empty.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Moonslav has moved towards the center on the "Glass half-empty, half-full" scale...

    No, the glass is nearly empty.

    [/QUOTE]


    Or 1/8 full.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, Moonshemp's 2013 plan is Colon. There is no value on the market to "improve the staff". For the first time, Moonshwemp has learned the hard way that the Red Sox don't need 2nd rate pitchers on 1st rate contracts.

    [/QUOTE]


    The man love sickes me.  Get a room.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So, Moonshemp's 2013 plan is Colon. There is no value on the market to "improve the staff". For the first time, Moonshwemp has learned the hard way that the Red Sox don't need 2nd rate pitchers on 1st rate contracts.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why misrepresent my plan again? I said I would have paid B Mccarthy what he got paid. You know as well as anyone that I have mentioned him as one of my top targets this winter. (I actually said I'd offer him $24M/3.) I mentioned Colon as an option based on his value vs cost, which is what I thought this thread was about.

    Yes, I'd rather have just Colon than nothing as your plan amounts to.

    My plan was to sign McCarthy, trade for Brett Anderson (a very specific offer you initially said was too much for "a bum", but then later said the A's would refuse), and trade for J Upton (in a much more realistic deal than your fantasy offer). 

    I mentioned I would rather have had Pagan at $41M/4 than Victorino at $39M/3 to replace Ellsbury after he was traded.

    I said I liked the Uehara deal.

    My plan would help us get better in 2013, but maybe fall short of being a legitimate favorite, but more importantly, the addityions all would help us in 2014 and 2015 and perhaps beyond in some cases. With the hoped for infusion of youth in 2014 and beyond and another strategic FA signing/trade or two would make us serious contenders in the future.

    The deals we have made so far do not make us serious contenders in 2013, and most of the players rate to be in decline or gone by 2014 or 2015. Our roster is a joke now, but somehow you have read all my posts and conclude that I have supported Ben's signings. You are a clown, a blatant liar, and worse.

    For once, it would be nice to see you restate a poster's position in an accurate way. Stop constructing strawmen, naming them seemingly at random with BDC poster's names, and then repeating your drivel ad nauseum.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    Don't hijack the thread.  I want to find out what Springfield , MA and Cranston , RI (my home town) have in common.  Pike has me hanging.  I think he is implying that I am Geo, which surprises me, because I thought Pike and I were cool.

    Geo, are you from Springfield? 

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    Geo is from East Gish.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    They didnt want someone with an injury history, someone who could give them 200 IP, keep them in games, and ashort term deal. 1-2 years...

    grienke? no

    Sanchez? no

    Jackson? no

    Marcum? no

    McCarthy? no

    Guthrie? no

    Haren? no

    Lohse? no

    Theres a few more, but there were a lot of no's on that list either because of years, $$$, injuries, lack of IP etc... Dempster actually fits their criteria. Not sure guys like Jeff Francis, Joe Blanton or Joe Saunders were good fits in Boston. Tough to choose from the pitchers in this years FA class. I really dont think any of them would be a great fit, including dempster. But Im hoping for the best. If we get 12 wins and an ERA of 4.50 or lower, Im happy.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They didnt want someone with an injury history, someone who could give them 200 IP, keep them in games, and ashort term deal. 1-2 years...

    grienke? no

    Sanchez? no

    Jackson? no

    Marcum? no

    McCarthy? no

    Guthrie? no

    Haren? no

    Lohse? no

    Theres a few more, but there were a lot of no's on that list either because of years, $$$, injuries, lack of IP etc... Dempster actually fits their criteria. Not sure guys like Jeff Francis, Joe Blanton or Joe Saunders were good fits in Boston. Tough to choose from the pitchers in this years FA class. I really dont think any of them would be a great fit, including dempster. But Im hoping for the best. If we get 12 wins and an ERA of 4.50 or lower, Im happy.

    [/QUOTE]

    Haren is younger than Dempster and has this for recent IP:

    177

    238

    235

    229

    216

    223

    223

    217

     

    A Sanchez is much younger than Dempster and has this:

    196

    196

    195

     

    E Jackson (much younger):

    190

    200

    209

    214

    183

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They didnt want someone with an injury history, someone who could give them 200 IP, keep them in games, and ashort term deal. 1-2 years...

    grienke? no

    Sanchez? no

    Jackson? no

    Marcum? no

    McCarthy? no

    Guthrie? no

    Haren? no

    Lohse? no

    Theres a few more, but there were a lot of no's on that list either because of years, $$$, injuries, lack of IP etc... Dempster actually fits their criteria. Not sure guys like Jeff Francis, Joe Blanton or Joe Saunders were good fits in Boston. Tough to choose from the pitchers in this years FA class. I really dont think any of them would be a great fit, including dempster. But Im hoping for the best. If we get 12 wins and an ERA of 4.50 or lower, Im happy.

    [/QUOTE]

    Haren is younger than Dempster and has this for recent IP:

    177

    238

    235

    229

    216

    223

    223

    217

     

    A Sanchez is much younger than Dempster and has this:

    196

    196

    195

     

    E Jackson (much younger):

    190

    200

    209

    214

    183

    [/QUOTE]

    Everyone of these guys have issues that would prevent the Sox from wanting them or themselves not interested in Boston.


    I couldve dealt with haren for one year, bur he was one of the guys with injury worries and didnt want to come to this market anyway.

    Sanchez wouldve been nice, but one again years and $$ and the fact that he wanted to stay in Detroit and was never considering Boston.

    Jackson will walk the entire team. Sure, he will give you innings, but if he wants anything more than 1-2 years, I wouldnt do it. I believe he will get 3-4 years. Hes a backend starter.

     

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They didnt want someone with an injury history, someone who could give them 200 IP, keep them in games, and ashort term deal. 1-2 years...

    grienke? no

    Sanchez? no

    Jackson? no

    Marcum? no

    McCarthy? no

    Guthrie? no

    Haren? no

    Lohse? no

    Theres a few more, but there were a lot of no's on that list either because of years, $$$, injuries, lack of IP etc... Dempster actually fits their criteria. Not sure guys like Jeff Francis, Joe Blanton or Joe Saunders were good fits in Boston. Tough to choose from the pitchers in this years FA class. I really dont think any of them would be a great fit, including dempster. But Im hoping for the best. If we get 12 wins and an ERA of 4.50 or lower, Im happy.

    [/QUOTE]

    Haren is younger than Dempster and has this for recent IP:

    177

    238

    235

    229

    216

    223

    223

    217

     

    A Sanchez is much younger than Dempster and has this:

    196

    196

    195

     

    E Jackson (much younger):

    190

    200

    209

    214

    183

    [/QUOTE]

    Everyone of these guys have issues that would prevent the Sox from wanting them or themselves not interested in Boston.


    I couldve dealt with haren for one year, bur he was one of the guys with injury worries and didnt want to come to this market anyway.

    Sanchez wouldve been nice, but one again years and $$ and the fact that he wanted to stay in Detroit and was never considering Boston.

    Jackson will walk the entire team. Sure, he will give you innings, but if he wants anything more than 1-2 years, I wouldnt do it. I believe he will get 3-4 years. Hes a backend starter.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I didn't say I wanted any of these guys (except Sanchez), but was responding to the fact that Dempster was not the only innings eater on your short list.

    I guess we just differ on our overall philosophy. I am OK with your idea to keep the kids and plan for the future, but to me signing Dempster is counterintuitive to that philosophy. If we are really looking to 2014, 2015 and beyond, most of our signings and trades should be with that as the top priority. 

    It hasn't been close to that, in fact, the moves appear to look like a "let's win it all right now" plan, but played only half way. Playing it "half way" puts the longer term plan at risk or at least it hasn't helped in anyway, except if we end up trading these guys this July or next.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    4 years of Shane or Pagan @ 40 million for 4 years 

    It's 3 years of Shane not 4. Do try to keep up.

    I was not for signing Pagan, but merely stated that I'd rather have him for 4 years at the cost of Victorino at 3 years.

    Try to get my position correct just once in your sad life.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    (Pagan or Shane are not impact players in any sense of the word)

     And Guthrie is?

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    McCarthey and Colon and 11 million for Moonsh's 2013 SP plan

    Pagan for 4 years and 41 million, which is better than Shane but which is a huge blunder given the fact that the one to two year adequate CF patching could be done through a platoon approach for no more than 3 to 5M with Reed Johnson MLB contract of 2M and minor league contracts to Sizemore and Pods and retaining Kalish on the 40 man.

    There is no need to unload 20 to 30 million on Pagan or Shane with Bradley, Jr.

    1 to 2 years of R. Johnson, Pods, Sizemore and Kalish + 2 to 3 Years of Bradley, Jr. = 5M  >

    4 years of Shane or Pagan @ 40 million for 4 years 

    (Pagan or Shane are not impact players in any sense of the word)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Bradley hasnt earned his spot on teh MLB team; therefore, I disagree w/ earmarking a roster spot for him.

    It's not like he hit .330 in AAA last year.  If he did I would agree with you. However, he hit .330 in A , was called up to AA and hit about .270 there.  The "CF of the future" title is his to win, but he hasn't won it yet.

    If Bradley wins it, we can always shift Shane to RF or eat a couple million and work out a trade.

    But prospects need to earn their spots, in my opinion.  No Obama-esque entitlements. ;)

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    Bradley hasnt earned his spot on teh MLB team; therefore, I disagree w/ earmarking a roster spot for him.

    Remember how upset softy got when they "earmarked" a spot for Ellsbury in CF?

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bradley hasnt earned his spot on teh MLB team; therefore, I disagree w/ earmarking a roster spot for him.

    Remember how upset softy got when they "earmarked" a spot for Ellsbury in CF?

    [/QUOTE]


    ellsbury was amazing though.. he crushed it in EVERY level and i doubt they earmarked him a roster stop after half a season of A ball....

    although i wasn't around then so idk for sure. someone probably did

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    4 years of Shane or Pagan @ 40 million for 4 years 

    It's 3 years of Shane not 4. Do try to keep up.

    Try understanding that it's "or Pagan for 40 mllion for 4 years" . In your captious catatonic reply, you are unable to grasp the basic concept of how absurd it is to suggest 40 million for Shane or Pagan over 4 years. I stated Pagan was better, which is due to age and base, but both are absurd. How's that "corpseman" working out in the whitehouse.

    If Bradley wins it, we can always shift Shane to RF or eat a couple million and work out a trade.

    You make two obvious mistakes. One, you point towards Bradley's BA in minor league ball. CF is a defensive position, primarily, and Bradley should be slotted for the spot in the next year or two. You pretend that the Red Sox management runs a "merit" system. They don't. They make decisions based upon skillsets that they want to inject into roster construction. Their slugging SS approach is a good example.

    The other mistake you make is "eat a couple of million". In fact, 13 million on an old platooning OF is not "eat a couple of million". The value and fit options in CF and RF are exponentially better by never guaranteeing 40 million to a profile like Shane.

    More than any single FA offer in this pitiful 2nd and 3rd rate FA class of 2013, the 39 million offer to Shane epitomizes the incompetence of Red Sox middle management.

    And, to make matters worse, in the last two years, Shane's lost more than a step and will be no matter than marginal, defensively, and offers a weak profile offensively.

    [/QUOTE]


    how has shane lost a step? he set a career high in SB and CS% as well as playing GG calibur defense. neither of those things would be true if he "lost a step" you fool.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to mef429's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bradley hasnt earned his spot on teh MLB team; therefore, I disagree w/ earmarking a roster spot for him.

    Remember how upset softy got when they "earmarked" a spot for Ellsbury in CF?

    [/QUOTE]


    ellsbury was amazing though.. he crushed it in EVERY level and i doubt they earmarked him a roster stop after half a season of A ball....

    although i wasn't around then so idk for sure. someone probably did

    [/QUOTE]

    softy went off the deep end after Pesky mentioned Ted Williams in the same breath as Jacoby. softy felt the job was handed to the white Jacoby over the better black Coco Crisp. softy hates players that come from liberal colleges and go on to prove him wrong.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So, What Pitchers Should the Red Sox have paid market value for?

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    players that come from liberal colleges and go on to prove him wrong.

    Said player has proven me right. Nice to see Crisp as a veteran leader on a playoff series winning team. Sadly, I made the mistake of saying Crisp should be traded and Ellspuff retained.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was for keeping Crisp and trading Ells.  Crisp was the veteran on this team, and the trade value of Ellsbury was through the roof.

    We could have flipped him for a young pitcher with ace potential.  We would have been fine w Crisp in CF over these last bunch of years.

     

Share