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

  1. 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]

     

    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. Y

    I know that you think that Ben is incompetent.  However, you realize that there are other incompetent GM's out there as well.  If Bradley emerges and Shane becomes a mediocre fourth outfielder, the entire 13 million will not be a sunk cost.  We could probably eat 3M, turn him into a 10M/yr fourth outfielder and flip him to one of: the Blue Jays/Cubs/Mets/Dodgers for low level farm scraps w/ decent upside.

     

     

    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.

    Touche.  I would like to add that this approach, to me, is overly simplistic and narrow-minded.  I dont know why they are in love w/ offensive players at D first positions (S. Drew) and defensive players at offense first postioins (Casey Kotchman, Crawfull in LF).  What bothers me, maybe even more than than  this backwards approach, is the fact that they downright refuse to deviate from it.  You want a slugging SS, okay.  I dont understand why, but okay.  However, if there are no slugging SS available, put a defensive whiz there and try to compensate by replacing the offense at a different position (e.g. LF).

     
  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 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]

    Make no mistake, Softlaw's hatred of Ellsbury stems from when this board dubbed him the next Ted Williams.  His hatred started with the posters who wildly overrated Ellsbury; however, the hatred spilled over to Ellsbury himself.

    I get this.  I hate Johnny Depp for the same reasons.  I didnt hate Johnny Depp at first, I hated how all my friends considered his portrayal of a metrosexual pirate to be groundbreaking.  However, my hatred soon spilled over and now I hate Johnny Depp himself.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. 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.

    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.

    You wrote 4 years for Shane, not me.

    I have been against the SV signing since day one, so stop acting like I was for it.

    I'll try to explain it one more time, clown: I was against the SV signing, but said that I'd rather have Pagan at 4 yrs for about the same cost as SV for 3. Stop assuming that means I wanted either at that cost.

     

     
  5. 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?

    playing GG calibur defense

    Shane is playing OG calibur defense, "old glove" defense. He hasn't won a GC since 2010, before he turned 30. Now, allow Moonshemp to enlighten you on why GG mean nothing.

    This from the defender of Jete's "OG" Awards.

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

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

    In response to Drewski5'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]

    Make no mistake, Softlaw's hatred of Ellsbury stems from when this board dubbed him the next Ted Williams.  His hatred started with the posters who wildly overrated Ellsbury; however, the hatred spilled over to Ellsbury himself.

    I get this.  I hate Johnny Depp for the same reasons.  I didnt hate Johnny Depp at first, I hated how all my friends considered his portrayal of a metrosexual pirate to be groundbreaking.  However, my hatred soon spilled over and now I hate Johnny Depp himself.

    [/QUOTE]

    That was actually Johnny Pesky, a man who softlaw professed to admire who said that.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  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?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    4) Dempster  $26.5M/2

    Stooge, you are a mental midget. So, Dempster's getting 53 million according to your doodle drivel.

     

    Here, I'll walk you through basic math:

    $26.5M x 2 = $53M

    $26.5M/2 = $13.25M per year at 2 years service time.

     

    "x" = multiplication

    "/" = division

     

    Quiz on Friday.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Hes an idiot, but he also knows what you mean and is just trying to get you all worked up but putting words in your mouth. Another one of his board persona's miserable traits.

     
  11. 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 bobbysu's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I still would take flyer on Jurrjens. Still young, when he is good he is good. Now a Manager who was a Pitching Coach, work with him in the Spring. Could add excellent depth. These are moves that really could pan out.

    [/QUOTE]


    His FB has sunk all the way to the mid 80's. Not sure anyone can fix this guy.

     
  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]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    We can only sign and trade with those willing to deal. The half way part is to be competitive. They dont want to field a team of AAAA guys and prospects that arent ready. They have fielded a competitive team IMO. They havent traded any prospects so the longer term plan is still in tact.

    The Dempster signing is better because it is only 2 years. although a rough start in Texas, his final 10 games he had a 3.77 Era and was learning about the AL hitters. Hes a smart veteran pitcher that talked with Greg Maddox frequently while in Chicago, and has learned to pitch now that he doesnt throw 95MPH anymore. Will he be a 15+ game winner? Doubt it, but he should give us about 200 IP 12-14 wins and an era in the low 4's. Im good with that.

    Jackson wouldve been one of the closest to what the Sox wanted, but hes a 4yr contract guy.

    RDLR, Barnes, Webster, and Workman are 1-2 years away. This covers 2013 and if RD needs to be moved, he can be. Hes not blocking anyone. Theres no guarentee any of our pitchers will be ready in 2014. Injuries could happen, theyre "stuff" doesnt translate to MLB like Stewert. he had solid ML numbers, but couldnt do it in the majors as we saw first hand this year. Or they could just simply take a step backwards in 2013. Dempsters 2nd year covers that possibility.

     
  13. 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 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]


    Theyre trying to be competitive while waiting for their prospects. Pods siezmore and kalish will not accomplish that.

     
  14. 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 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]


    Theyre trying to be competitive while waiting for their prospects. Pods siezmore and kalish will not accomplish that.

    [/QUOTE]

    His plan was Sizemore, Pods, and Guthrie, and a fantasy trade for Upton, but when you look closer, he grossly underbid everyone, so his plan was basically do zilch.

     
  15. 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 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]

    39 sb only caught 6 times in 2012. 994 fielding % in 2012. 7 GG and 4 AS appearances. AS in 2011. Id say hes not lost a step, never mind more than a step.

    But you keep posting your opinions as if they're fact and everyone here will post the facts to disprove you yet again.

     
  16. 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]

    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]


    Theyre trying to be competitive while waiting for their prospects. Pods siezmore and kalish will not accomplish that.

    [/QUOTE]

    His plan was Sizemore, Pods, and Guthrie, and a fantasy trade for Upton, but when you look closer, he grossly underbid everyone, so his plan was basically do zilch.

    [/QUOTE]


    Id rather they do what they did. At least these guys are good ballplayers and are likable. This team will be competitive in 2013. I wont go as far to say a ws contender, but the playoffs are certainly obtainable.

    I also believe they are not done yet. More moves to be made.

     
  17. 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?

    Id rather they do what they did. At least these guys are good ballplayers and are likable. This team will be competitive in 2013. I wont go as far to say a ws contender, but the playoffs are certainly obtainable.

    I also believe they are not done yet. More moves to be made.

     

    I don't know. Doing nothing but maybe Uehara, Ross and Gomes might have been better. With the saved money they could have spent big next winter.

    You all know what my 2013 choices were by now, so I won't bore you.

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

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

    Which year? 

    • Pedro Martinez, in 1999, was paid $11.1m
    • Sandy Koufax, 1963, $35k
    • Bob Feller, 1939, $20k
    • Old Hoss Radbourne, 1884, $3k
    • Al Spalding, 1873, $1.8k

     

     

     

     

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. 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?

    His plan was Sizemore, Pods, and Guthrie, and a fantasy trade for Upton, but when you look closer, he grossly underbid everyone, so his plan was basically do zilch.

    Folks, this guy is a stooge. He's signed off on no position players at market, making whimpy comments like "I'm not saying I want Pagan I'm just saying I'd rather him than Shane". The only move this stooge makes is to spend 11 milllion on Colon and McCarthy.

     

    This thread asked for pitchers. That's why I never mentioned positional players until the Victorino comment was made.

    You accusing me of offering no "market" offers is a joke. You haven't suggested a market offer ever.

    My plan is minor league contract offers to Sizemore and Pods, a MLB of 2M to R. Johnson, a 2 year and 6M a year offer to Guthrie (He would have gone elsewhere which is fine), and, no, not a fantasy trade for Anderson, the following trade pool for J. Upton, which would close the deal (and don't let this stooge fool you into saying "they don't want Ellsbury) and only the stooge doesn't know that a 3 or more team deal goes without saying:

    Ellsbury and one year plus his draft compensation

    De La Rosa or Webster

    Brentz (Include Bogaerts and subtract Brentz if needed to top other teams offers, unlikely)

    Any other single player from the farm except Barnes and Bradley, Jr.

    This is a clear joke of an offer. There is no way AZ takes this deal even if you added Bradley instead of Brentz.

     

    There is nothing "fantasy" about that offer. Now contrast that to the stooges offer of Doubrant and (it changes from 2nd rate prospects and position players" for Anderson, and he always meekly says "it might take a little more than that", Ya think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I gave a specific deal I thought would land Anderson. You said I offered way too much, and that it wasn't "realsitic unless i offered a pool of players". Later, after realizing that Anderson is not a "bum" as you called him earlier, you then flipped and flopped to say that the A's would never accept my suggested offer.

    I also said, "do what it takes to get it done", not your feeble attempt at saying I said "a little more..."

    My "pool offer" was

    Any 2 of Doubront, Tazawa or Morales

    Salty or Lava

    Cecchini

    Any prospect beyond #10 on soxprospects.com

     

    Later, after saying "get it done", I said I'd offer Bradley instead of one of the pitchers.

     

    These offers are much closer to what the A's might take than your total joke of an offer to AZ.

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

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

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Theyre trying to be competitive while waiting for their prospects. Pods siezmore and kalish will not accomplish that.

    Reed Johnson and Pods and Sizemore on minor league contracts and Kalish will accomplish more than 39 million on Shane. The're spending a lot of money and their incompetence is manifest in the results. Repeating it is insane.


    His plan was Sizemore, Pods, and Guthrie, and a fantasy trade for Upton, but when you look closer, he grossly underbid everyone, so his plan was basically do zilch.

    Folks, this guy is a stooge. He's signed off on no position players at market, making whimpy comments like "I'm not saying I want Pagan I'm just saying I'd rather him than Shane". The only move this stooge makes is to spend 11 milllion on Colon and McCarthy.

    My plan is minor league contract offers to Sizemore and Pods, a MLB of 2M to R. Johnson, a 2 year and 6M a year offer to Guthrie (He would have gone elsewhere which is fine), and, no, not a fantasy trade for Anderson, the following trade pool for J. Upton, which would close the deal (and don't let this stooge fool you into saying "they don't want Ellsbury) and only the stooge doesn't know that a 3 or more team deal goes without saying:

    Ellsbury and one year plus his draft compensation

    De La Rosa or Webster

    Brentz (Include Bogaerts and subtract Brentz if needed to top other teams offers, unlikely)

    Any other single player from the farm except Barnes and Bradley, Jr.

     

    There is nothing "fantasy" about that offer. Now contrast that to the stooges offer of Doubrant and (it changes from 2nd rate prospects and position players" for Anderson, and he always meekly says "it might take a little more than that", Ya think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Isn't every alleged offer "fantasy" until it's agreed?

     
  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 SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Theyre trying to be competitive while waiting for their prospects. Pods siezmore and kalish will not accomplish that.

    Reed Johnson and Pods and Sizemore on minor league contracts and Kalish will accomplish more than 39 million on Shane. The're spending a lot of money and their incompetence is manifest in the results. Repeating it is insane.


    His plan was Sizemore, Pods, and Guthrie, and a fantasy trade for Upton, but when you look closer, he grossly underbid everyone, so his plan was basically do zilch.

    Folks, this guy is a stooge. He's signed off on no position players at market, making whimpy comments like "I'm not saying I want Pagan I'm just saying I'd rather him than Shane". The only move this stooge makes is to spend 11 milllion on Colon and McCarthy.

    My plan is minor league contract offers to Sizemore and Pods, a MLB of 2M to R. Johnson, a 2 year and 6M a year offer to Guthrie (He would have gone elsewhere which is fine), and, no, not a fantasy trade for Anderson, the following trade pool for J. Upton, which would close the deal (and don't let this stooge fool you into saying "they don't want Ellsbury) and only the stooge doesn't know that a 3 or more team deal goes without saying:

    Ellsbury and one year plus his draft compensation

    De La Rosa or Webster

    Brentz (Include Bogaerts and subtract Brentz if needed to top other teams offers, unlikely)

    Any other single player from the farm except Barnes and Bradley, Jr.

     

    There is nothing "fantasy" about that offer. Now contrast that to the stooges offer of Doubrant and (it changes from 2nd rate prospects and position players" for Anderson, and he always meekly says "it might take a little more than that", Ya think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Isn't every alleged offer "fantasy" until it's agreed?

    [/QUOTE]

    softy still insists that the SD GM could have and should have pried Jake and Jed from Theo's clutches for AGon.

    I suggested an offer of Kelly, Rizzo and Bowden, and softy called my offer a "joke".

     

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

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

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    playing GG calibur defense

    Shane is playing OG calibur defense, "old glove" defense. He hasn't won a GC since 2010, before he turned 30. Now, allow Moonshemp to enlighten you on why GG mean nothing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Moon doesn't need help from a mental midget like me - only the joint dumbest person here, sadly, but I'll work on it - to answer this but I'll jump in anyway....because it's a vote, praps?:

    • Film:  How Green Was My Valley?
    • Music:  St. Bo Diddley barred from Ed Sullivan for refusing to play a cover for the "white folk"

     

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

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

    Market value where? Boston....California.....Texas....New York ....Toronto ??????

    they are all different remember it is not based upon what you think but many ffactors needs...team structure...state/country you play in.....cost of living....

    it is not just about stats. And what you think is market value based upon your interpretations of the players history.

     

Share