BZ's Pick 5: Update
Here is an update on the action (Table below)
Elsewhere: Bedard (PIT), Bell (FL), Beltran (STL), Breslow (ARZ), Broxton (KC), Buerhle (FL), Cahill (OAK), Capuano (LAD), Capps (MIN), Darvish (TEX), Gonzalez (WAS), Harang (LAD), Nathan (TEX), Ramirez (MIL), Rodriguez (MIL), Sherrill (SEA), Willingham (MIN), Willis (PHI), Wilson (LAA)
In the Fold: Ortiz, Shoppach
|
BZs Pick 5 |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Call Sign |
Pick 1 |
Pick 2 |
Pick 3 |
Pick 4 |
Pick 5 |
|
BobZupcic |
|
|
|
|
Ortiz, D. |
|
TheLoneDavid |
|
|
Cespedes, Y. |
|
Ortiz, D. |
|
royredd87 |
|
Cespedes, Y. |
|
Ortiz, D. |
Wakefield, T. |
|
Rogue Nine |
|
Cespedes, Y. |
|
Ortiz, D. |
Qualls, C. |
|
bosoxman94 |
|
Cespedes, Y. |
Ortiz, D. |
Varitek, J. |
Wakefield, T. |
|
Marisa Ingemi |
|
|
Ortiz, D. |
Shoppach, K. |
Wakefield, T. |
|
KtownGreek |
Headley, C. |
Jackson, E. |
Maholm, P. |
|
Ortiz, D. |
|
Redsoxmike |
|
|
Headley, C. |
Jackson, E. |
Ross, C. |
|
Thunder64 |
|
Cespedes, Y. |
Jackson, E. |
Ortiz, D. |
Wakefield, T. |
|
gizmosandy |
|
|
Kazmir, S. |
Madson, R. |
Ortiz, D. |
|
Dave D |
|
|
|
Jackson, E. |
|
|
nuthinboutnuthin |
|
|
Cespedes, Y. |
Ortiz, D. |
Saunders, J. |
|
wolf9309 |
|
|
Jackson, E. |
Ortiz, D. |
Ross, C. |
|
Jake_W |
|
|
Beltran, C. |
McCarthy, B. |
Ortiz, D. |
|
justinbunko |
|
Jurrjens, J. |
Ortiz, D. |
Young, C. |
Zumaya, J. |
|
LesterJohn |
|
|
|
|
Ortiz, D. |
|
outofleftfield |
|
Madson, R. |
Ortiz, D. |
Oswalt, R. |
|
|
South Coast Ghost |
Choo, S. |
Gonzalez, M. |
Maholm, P. |
Oswalt, R. |
|
|
Sologlub |
|
Madson, R. |
Maholm, P. |
Ortiz, D. |
Varitek, J. |
|
AlohaSox |
|
|
Ortiz, D. |
Oswalt, R. |
Wheeler, D. |
|
Brandon C. |
|
|
Madson, R. |
Ortiz, D. |
Shoppach, K. |
|
B_Edelman |
|
Madson, R. |
Ortiz, D. |
Varitek, J. |
Wakefield, T. |
|
Rick Bentsen |
|
Ortiz, D. |
Oswalt, R. |
Varitek, J. |
Wakefield, T. |
|
aubatron2011 |
Bailey, A. |
Cespedes, Y. |
|
Ortiz, D. |
Oswalt, R. |
|
The Name is Dalton |
|
Garland, J. |
Ludwick, R. |
McCarthy, B. |
Ortiz, D. |
|
Rick Bentsen |
|
Ortiz, D. |
Oswalt, R. |
Varitek, J. |
Wakefield, T. |
|
Conor Duffy |
|
Danks, J. |
Ortiz, D. |
Varitek, J. |
Wakefield, T. |
|
ThoughtsAndSox |
|
Ordonez, M. |
Ortiz, D. |
Wakefield, T. |
|
|
CoachDee3 |
|
Jackson, E. |
Ortiz, D. |
Oswalt, R. |
Varitek, J. |
|
Revived0103 |
|
|
Oswalt, R. |
|
|
|
n0va |
|
Lannan, J. |
Ortiz, D. |
|
Varitek, J. |
238 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I didn't get a chance to do this
and now I feel left out. :(
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
And no one picked Miller.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Wishful thinking on that part.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 7, 2011 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I really didn't consider him as a pick 5
I was looking for impact – Miller just does not make that cut…but, maybe this is the year (cough cough) he has his big breakout
"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis
Well, it's still possible for me to go 5 for 5
Although I think I was being very optimistic about the amount of payroll space we have.
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 7, 2011 1:41 PM EST reply actions
Bedard apparently off the board...
… to the Pirates – 1/ $4.5MM
"It is so on that things have now become very much like Donkey Kong."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Dec 7, 2011 1:59 PM EST reply actions
Scratch Bedard off of everyone's list.
Just signed a 1yr 4.5 million deal with the Pirates. What the hell Cherington? Why wouldn’t you make that offer?
John Lackey: Boston hates you
For all we know, he did
Bedard didn’t exactly seem thrilled to be coming to Boston in the first place. Not to mention last year was the first year since 2007 that Bedard pitched over 100 innings. Maybe he’s willing to spend a little extra to get someone more consistent?
By the way, we’ve heard a lot about Buehrle and Wilson and even a bit on Oswalt, but there’s been nothing on guys like Edwin Jackson.
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 7, 2011 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
Well, you can blame the Boston media for that, then.
Quite the welcome they gave him when he first got here. @#$%ing embarrassing.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
This is making me nervous
if we go into battle with the team we have right now it’s going to be disgusting.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
I'm baffled at letting Bedard walk.
I mean, if you aren’t willing to give a guy who posted a sub-4 ERA and a K/9 over 8 a 1yr/4.5 mil deal, what are you willing to do?
John Lackey: Boston hates you
Exactly
Next thing you know, Cherington’s going to start using the first pick in every draft he’s in to pick a Wide Receiver, then grow a stupid mustache.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Well, of all those 1st round WRs, you did get Calvin Johnson.
But I did get the humor.
John Lackey: Boston hates you
Yes, that news didn't make me happy either.
And I didn’t even know the $4.5 million cost…
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Harang went to the Dodgers yesterday
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
Gordon Edes
tweeted:White Sox, Red Sox meeting on Danks, Floyd
I'm just nervous about the return we give.
If they truly do want a Ubaldo-like package, I’d have to say no. I really want to keep Boegarts no matter what, and only give up Middlebrooks for a proven middle-of-the-order bat or top-of-the-rotation arm.
John Lackey: Boston hates you
I think that yesterday's trade might take them off their stance.
The prospect they got for Santos is getting mixed reviews, with most people believing that he will be a reliever, not a starter. That was just a negotiating ploy to try and maximize the value they get back.
John Danks isn't an ace
but he’s definitely a great #3 guy. If they only wanted WMB for him I’d do that deal.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
With Kenny Williams you never know what he'll accept.
He makes some pretty weird trade. Like the one yesterday.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 7, 2011 10:08 PM EST up reply actions
Yup, KW is a fucking psycho
but he’s got a ring. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 7, 2011 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
That's why I'm a little more confident the Red Sox could get Danks or Floyd, than Gio or Cahill.
The White Sox are clearly rebuilding, and the step they took yesterday shows that. We really don’t know what KW asked for. I read somewhere he wanted an infielder who could play mulitiple positions (Jed Lowrie anyone?) and maybe a pitching prospect or two for Danks, and maybe just one for Floyd.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 8, 2011 12:03 AM EST up reply actions
I would jump at the chance to get Floyd or Danks for Lowrie, Britton, and Pimental.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 8, 2011 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe that's what KW asked for.
Any guy who trades for Alex Rios, and signs Adam Dunn, is crazy enough to take on those three guys. Cherington’s said this week was an information gathering week for the Sox and they clearly met with KW today. Trades usually take a little while longer than FA signings, so who knows when a trade may happen. Maybe next week will hear some movment on a few trades.
it's hard to hate the Adam Dunn and Rios moves quite that much
he didn’t really trade for Rios so much as he accepted the contract, and who the hell knew that Adam Dunn would instantly morph from one of the most consistent power hitters in baseball into the literal worst hitter in the game?
In fact, if the Sox end up trading Reddick for pitching somewhere, I would be honestly thrilled if they’d take Rios and some/all of his salary from the white sox as part of a trade. How could anyone not think that a guy who logged a LD% of 18.4% but only a .237 BABIP is not a very intriguing bounceback candidate?
I don't want anything to do with Rios.
Anything. AT ALL.
Dogs it.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
they'll ask for the moon
but the won’t get it- Ubaldo got the return that he did primarily because he was under team control for a long, long time. Danks is a free agent at the end of the season and Williams has admitted that they’ve started a rebuilding phase. They might as well ask because it doesn’t really hurt them to drag out trade proceedings until the free agent market is resolved so that they can get top value from desperate teams, but it doesn’t mean they’ll actually get a Ubaldo-like haul.
I agree with that, and that's why I think the Sox either would be more attainable
than Gio or Cahill. Gio or Cahill maybe better than Danks or Floyd respectively, but that just means there costs will be greater as well. Add on the fact they are both under control for more years than Danks and Floyd makes the A’s more likely to get a great haul for one or both. If the Sox wanted to extend Danks, they could wait till the season begins and sign him to the extension after the season begins, like they’ve done in the past.
I think Ubaldo is a free agent the year after Danks is
So I agree…the Ubaldo package is probably a pipe dream for the WS to think they’ll get.
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 8, 2011 9:26 PM EST up reply actions
Hate to say it, but at this point the best option available is looking like Edwin Jackson.
What do you all think? 4yr/40 million?
John Lackey: Boston hates you
Nervous about locking up that many rotation spots for a long period of time
Unless we lock up all five to long term deals and move Lackey to Wake’s role.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
I guess, but there's not much coming up.
I like Ranaudo and Barnes, but Ranaudo is not coming up until mid 2013 at the earliest, and Barnes mid 2014 at the earliest. Pimentel and Britton will have to bounce back big to get consideration.
John Lackey: Boston hates you
I know that
but that’s three big-money contracts in the rotation, one of which is already hurt. If Beckett or Jackson goes down you have to replace them without spending money. I’d rather have a couple guys in the back on short term deals so you’re not committing money to pitchers, all of whom are notoriously injury prone.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Another idea, how about trying to trade for Hanley?
Maybe Youk + Kalish + Wilson or Weiland? Then trade Scutaro to a team that needs a SS (Atlanta, Milwaukee, St. Louis) for an average #4 or 5 starter
John Lackey: Boston hates you
No
No no no no no no no no no. No.
He’s got Manny’s ego without Manny’s bat and plays a prime defensive position without prime defense, and his bat has been tailing off lately.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
All that.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Scratch of Buehrle
In Lax We Trust - Official Pro Lacrosse Blog of SBN
Follow me on Twitter - In Lax We Trust
The Lacrosse Radio Network - Unique Lacrosse Programming
$58/4 ?!?!?!?!
I thought he was set to retire in a year.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
No kidding. The Marlins are nuts.
They gave 100mil to an oft-injured speedster with marginal power (sound familiar?) and 60 mil to an aging lefty who projects as a #3 starter at best. That is simply irresponsible.
John Lackey: Boston hates you
The Red Sox secretly traded Larry Lucchino to Miami
John Lackey: Boston hates you
Well, before Reyes
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Okay... what was that... how did that post?
Before Reyes was injured in 2011, the expectation was he was going to get Carl Crawford money… so the Marlins got him “cheap.”
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
yeah, honestly,
it’s hard to hate that deal too much. For the potential he brings, even though you know he’ll be injured some of the time, he could well be worth it. Especially because it’s 5 years, not, say, 7. There are plenty of people who are going to complain that almost any free agent contract sucks and, well, it’s because most of them do. But that one is unlikely to be completely crippling.
According to mlbtr, yes. Still in on Fielder though.
John Lackey: Boston hates you
Crasnick and Bob Nightengale
Have both said that they are out but that there are still other teams in the mix besides the Cardinals.
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 7, 2011 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
Eh, yeah, I did notice Bedard didn't seem very happy with the Sox.
Sucks though…
"Remember, it's not over until the fat lady drops one."
watch him, he just doesn't seem very happy
it’s how he goes. I think he actually appeared happier with the Sox than when I’ve seen him before. Still, after everything that happened at the end of the year, if I were him and had just been traded to the Sox for a couple of months, I probably would’ve signed somewhere else, if for no other reason than that I didn’t want to be asked 10,000 times in spring training about the collapse.
I always kinda enjoyed that about Bedard
that complete lack of expression. I found it rather…enthralling. I was really looking forward to having him on the team this year.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Now the Sox should trade for John Lannan 8)
Nats are looking for a center fielder though. He gives up quite a bit of hits and only goes like 6 innings but he could be the odd man out.
"Remember, it's not over until the fat lady drops one."
For John Lannan I wouldn't give up much more than Joey Gathright.
John Lackey: Boston hates you
The only thing I can see wrong
is his 4.0/4.6/4.5 slash line going way up in the AL East. He’s kind of a “meh” player, but if we don’t give up anything major for him my response is decidedly “meh” towards him.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
I understand, I looked at a few of his games against the AL
He seems to have that one bad inning everytime. I think with a much better defense, he would do so much better. I just found him interesting to bring up because he’s still young, hopefully won’t cost much, and the fact that he has pretty good ground ball numbers.
"Remember, it's not over until the fat lady drops one."
I wonder about having a "bullpen" slot in the rotation
Pitch Lannan, Doubront, and Ace for three innings each every five days.
Lester/Beckett/Buchholz/Bullpen/Miller doesn’t fill me with a ton of confidence, but it’s better than shelling out big money for Edwin Jackson.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
I thought Aceves was going to be stretched out to become a starter?
I may be wrong though. Not too thrilled about Miller in the rotation. I don’t think Lannan’s bad enough to be in that “bullpen” slot in the rotation. Would definitely be interesting nonetheless.
"Remember, it's not over until the fat lady drops one."
Ace said he wants to start
and you could swap Miller and Lannan in that situation if you wanted. My ideal bullpen starter would be Doubront/Aceved/Weiland though Doubront for three innings, Ace for four, and Weiland for two.
I'm a 7 WAR player in bed.
Jackson would probably cost twice as much as Lannan with a worse fb rate
"Remember, it's not over until the fat lady drops one."
I mean, yeah, Lannan gets ground balls pretty well
but that’s pretty much all that he does well. His K and walk rates just would scare me way too much coming to the AL East.
His walk rate isn't bad. It's pretty similar to Edwin Jackson's
I don’t mind K’s. The more K’s, the more pitches. Can’t go for the strikeout everytime. Jackson’s fly ball rate scares me pitching in Fenway.
"Remember, it's not over until the fat lady drops one."
and the walk rate isn't awful
but when it’s that similar to the strikeout rate, it’s not exactly encouraging
I watch Lannan pitch regularly he has his bright spots
The AL East would be tough on him I dunno,…
"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis
Point of Order (and I really do not know the answer here)
If a player is offered arbitration is that really the same as free agency or a trade? I thought the idea was to pick five not currently on the roster – does Ortiz qualify if he is offered arbitration?
"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis
yeah because he was a free agent and wasn't on the roster
arbitration just assures that he will re-sign with them. He was free to sign with another team if he chose
Ok thanks for clarifying
"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis
Don't think it's final yet
But it looks like Cahill might be going to Arizona. Like I said, not final yet.
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 9, 2011 4:54 PM EST reply actions
We don't have a pitching prospect at the level of Parker/Skaggs/Bauer
That’s what it’s taking to get Cahill, plus some. Simple as that. Our pitching in the minors right now is not so good. Teams that want pitching back probably aren’t going to be dealing with us.
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 9, 2011 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
I'd love to watch you run a baseball team.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 9, 2011 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Sean O would be more entertaining
In Lax We Trust - Official Pro Lacrosse Blog of SBN
Follow me on Twitter - In Lax We Trust
The Lacrosse Radio Network - Unique Lacrosse Programming
by Marisa Ingemi on Dec 9, 2011 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
Either one.
They are way too over reactionary.
The winter meetings, tender deadlines
They all exist to get things done. Other teams are getting things done, by the very nature of that, the number of things we can do is now limited.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
I don't know,
looking at the board up top, there’s only a handful of players gone, almost all of which aren’t intriguing or cost too much.
That's assuming this board is representative of the sort of players we actually could get
rather than the ones we wanted. Players like Bedard, Sanchez, or Slowey are the sort I think we should be trying to get and only so many of them move in any given year.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
Jonathan
The one that was traded for Melky Cabrera.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
straight-up?
I think I see where you’re going with this
haha no, not straight up
the Giants (yes I said the right team) also sent a AA pitching prospect in the trade. Not a prospect who’s any good, but still…
You would probably be good running a team
In Lax We Trust - Official Pro Lacrosse Blog of SBN
Follow me on Twitter - In Lax We Trust
The Lacrosse Radio Network - Unique Lacrosse Programming
by Marisa Ingemi on Dec 10, 2011 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
You think that
Until you realize my plan is to just clone Ortiz, Pedroia and Lester and make them do everything. Sounds good in theory but none of them can play CF, RF or 3B.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
Oh well on Cahill - I do not know what to make of this off season so far
I hoped to see a trade for Cahill but when I saw the pieces Arizona gave up – the Sox do not have that kind of package. I have to wonder if the Sox are even able to trade with potential partners unless they start dangling some Major League talent like Reddick, Lowrie, Ellsbury and Youk…of course it depends on the team. budget and the talent they are looking for. I am not saying they should or should not do that – just musing on what it takes to make a splash to shore up their rotation.
"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis
They've had discussions about Lowrie and Reddick that's for sure.
I think if they make a trade for SP it will be with the White Sox. They’re rebuilding and their GM is a little crazy when it comes to the trades he makes.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 10, 2011 12:19 AM EST up reply actions
With Kenny Williams you never know what he wants.
He could ask for less than that.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 10, 2011 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
maybe
and another hole is opened up in right field. And then Danks is gone after the year.
Would you rather do that or keep the prospects and give Edwin Jackson a bit more money than that for 3-4 years? Before you answer too quickly, take a look carefully at what the two of them have done the last two years:
Jackson: 409.0 IP 7.24 k/9 3.08 bb/9 0.81hr/9 46.6 % GB% 4.14 ERA/3.71 FIP/3.72 xFIP 7.6 WAR
Danks: 383.1 IP 6.97 k/9 2.72 bb/9 0.87hr/9 44.7 % GB% 3.99 ERA/3.75 FIP/3.90 xFIP 7.5 WAR
Danks is good. I just can’t, for the love of god, understand why everyone is clamoring to trade whatever for him and no one has any interest in Jackson. Jackson is a little older, but still won’t even turn 29 until next September.
heh, then we can be well on our way to the lefty-only pen
honestly, I’d like Thornton a lot. In my mind though, with your plan, we’d need to find money for Dank’s (projected $7.6 million), Thornton ($5.5 million this year and next), and Beltran (because reasonably, there’s just no one else out there that I think could handle being our right fielder). I don’t know what Beltran will make, but that seems to me to be a reach and really, to just be making the team older, which isn’t the direction I’d like to go it.
It also would mean that we’d still need to fill a slot in the rotation next year and there’s a quite good chance that we’ll have somebody else playing right field a good amount of the time.
I think what might be more feasible payroll-wise is signing Jackson, trading something less than Ranaudo for Thornton, and letting Reddick start. I know that doesn’t jive with your dislike of Reddick.
I'm in this camp.
Play Reddick, hope he has a hot few months, and hope Kalish is ready by June or July.
I don’t want Beltran, Cuddyer, Willingham or whomever else we can sign in RF. Just go with Reddick/Kalish.
Now, when we start talking pitching? Wolf… I’ll say you’re convincing me that Jackson might be the best deal we can make (costs us less than a trade, and seems reasonably good). I wonder why the market for him has been so quiet.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
In my opinion
Danks, who they could extend at some point if they wanted to, or Floyd would be the most attainable via trade. I’d have no problem with Jackson. But that’s just my opinion. As long as they get somebody good, be it Danks, Floyd, Jackson, or anybody else other than maybe Joe Saunders or Wandy Rodriguez, not saying that Wandy is bad, I just don’t how good he’d be in the AL East, I’d be happy honestly. I’m just happy they stayed out the Wilson and Buhrle sweepstakes.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 10, 2011 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, really just my biggest problem with Danks is
that I don’t understand why we’d give up prospects for him then sign him to a free agent deal (because there’d be no real reason for him to give the Sox a discount, it’s not like it’s a hometown thing), when we can basically just get the right-handed version of him without the prospects.
That said, I’ll be thrilled if they can trade for Danks or Floyd.
I whole heartedly agree with you.
Even if it’s Yu Darvish, who I have some reservations about, I’d be ok with it. If he sucks, I’ll bitch, but if he’s good, I’ll admit he’s good. The fact that they were disciplined enough to stay out of the Wilson and Buehrle sweepstakes gives me hope they are working on something. What that is I really don’t know, but I don’t think they are just sitting around on their asses doing nothing. Transactions take a long time to make sometimes. We’re all getting a little antsy, some more than others, but I really don’t think they are just doing absolutely nothing and were satisfied how they finished the season.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 10, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
In my opinion
that’d be way too much for Danks. That’s two major league ready bats plus a really high ceiling starter for a #3 starter with what, 2 more years on his contract?
no Danks only has 2012 of team control
Kenny Williams said he was looking for a Ubaldo-like package in exchange for him, which is just absurdist.
Me neither.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I think you are overrating Lowrie and Reddick a bit
but yeah adding Ranaudo wold probably be too much
I think that Ranaudo has a lot less value
than we like to think that he does.
Didn’t have the huge year we were hoping for, and at the trading deadline, even Peter Gammons, lover of all Red Sox Prospects, specifically mentioned a few times that there was nobody interested in him in trades.
Then probably better we keep him to see if 2012 is a better development year.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
I should have included Laporta
I have a feeling they will deal for him, especially if the Indians get Willingham.
The 2011 Over the Monster Gedman League Fantasy Baseball Champion
I hate free agency
Red Sox sign Kelly Shoppach
1 yr, $1.35M.
Put it on the board.
Thank you for everything Cap’n.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2011/12/13/2632946/boston-red-sox-to-sign-kelly-shoppach
I called this. I so called this.
In Lax We Trust - Official Pro Lacrosse Blog of SBN
Follow me on Twitter - In Lax We Trust
The Lacrosse Radio Network - Unique Lacrosse Programming
by Marisa Ingemi on Dec 13, 2011 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
I think it's a waste of money
That million dollars could be the difference between getting say a Saunders and a Kuroda for us. Salty was solid enough last year and Lavarnway I think is ready, we had two catchers ready to go, plus I think their defensive inefficiencies are overstated.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
no it couldn't
if they have the option to get Kuroda for $1 million over the price of Saunders, they’re just going to sign Kuroda and go over.
I still don’t buy, in any case, that Kuroda is actually willing to come to the east coast. I think he’s just trying to gain leverage. I think it’s west coast or Japan.
The Shoppach signing tells me that they aren't ready to make smart moves yet
Which makes Cespedes more likely, 100-way tie here we come!
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
If I thought we were ready to make smart moves
my pick five would be way different.
You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 13, 2011 11:15 AM EST up reply actions
Woo hoo!
In Lax We Trust - Official Pro Lacrosse Blog of SBN
Follow me on Twitter - In Lax We Trust
The Lacrosse Radio Network - Unique Lacrosse Programming
by Marisa Ingemi on Dec 13, 2011 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Congrats... that was a nice call!
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Brandon C?
Isn’t he still right in the mix? He had K Shop too..
Yeah, just saw that myself.
Hey BZ!! You need to highlight Brandon C’s pick of Shoppach… is this the same Brandon C from Pinstripe Alley? Wait… we cannot have the Pick 5 won by a Yankees fan… We need Marisa to score a Wakefield signing.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
We could sign Cespedes and trade for Danks to give me the win.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 15, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
I almost think my signing Oswalt and Wheeler is more likely than your win.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
If we signed Cespedes and traded for Danks.
You and I would be tied.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 15, 2011 2:14 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, but that's still a win.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 15, 2011 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
And the Sox would clearly be better.
So that’s all I care about.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 15, 2011 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
Funny thing is, I don't even want to sign Wake.
In Lax We Trust - Official Pro Lacrosse Blog of SBN
Follow me on Twitter - In Lax We Trust
The Lacrosse Radio Network - Unique Lacrosse Programming
by Marisa Ingemi on Dec 20, 2011 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
May not have a choice...
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Thank god
You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 13, 2011 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
Willingham off the board
to Minnesota
"It is so on that things have now become very much like Donkey Kong."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Dec 13, 2011 7:33 PM EST reply actions
Didn't they lose Kubel too?
I thought they were both OF’ers but I don’t follow the Twins…
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 14, 2011 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
next year, we should do this again
but also another pick 5 where we guess 5 players on the Red Sox 40 man at the end of the season who won’t be there at the beginning of the next season.
I was just thinking this
This year an easy one of course would have been Drew. And I’m sure Tek and Wakefield would’ve been on alot of people’s picks.
by The Name is Dalton on Dec 14, 2011 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
Almost feels like you'd have to take the obvious ones out of the running.
You know, so Gizmo could have said “Lowrie” and been right, while I would have gone with “Youk” and been wrong.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
So by then, the obvious candidates...
… like Tek, Wakefield and Drew are off the 40 man?
(Also, Big Papi would fall into that group, and some folks might have picked him though, right?)
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Well it would primarily be a study in who could pick the guys
the Sox are getting rid of that they currently have, so I doubt they would sign someone like a Papi then trade him away
Right...
What I meant was… we wait until after the Rule 5 draft, where we’ve set the 40 man with our protected prospects. At that point, though, Big Papi wouldn’t have been on the 40 man, right? He was a free agent…
So while it removes the obvious guys that are leaving (probably Tek, Wake and definitely Drew), but it also means Big Papi wasn’t on the 40 man (which is why he’s eligible for this Pick 5, right? I almost think Big Papi could have been on both lists, with some folks expecting him to get a bigger offer somewhere else and some of us expecting him to sign with the Sox again.
Of course, you could argue the same for Tek/Wake up until the Shoppach signing, and the eventual Kuroda/Maholm/Garland (or dare I hope Jackson) signing for Wake.
Is anyone else concerned that our lack of movement on SPs, and a lack of an official retirement announcement by Wake is an indication that they are keeping him available as an option for 2012?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Add Melancon and Punto
What do you mean no one had Punto!?
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 14, 2011 3:55 PM EST reply actions
Well I guess I over valued Lowrie
I would have thought he was worth more than Melancon…
"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis
What
a poor defensive middle infielder for a hard-throwing, young relief pitcher who has game-closing experience
One year, Bob... just one year.
And RPs are the most volatile group out there.
I hope it works out, but if the counter move was to sign Punto, I’d have rather given Lowrie another year.
As was said in the other thread… think for a moment what the reaction in here would have been if we’d traded Ellsbury in December 2010 (after that disaster of a season) for a #4 SP or a starting C. A lot of people would have been pretty happy, right?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Really
Lowrie was going to be a substitute on the 2012 Sox and his time was running out – he arguably can’t do well what an infielder on the bench is supposed to do and that is excel defensively. He’s also pretty much useful at the plate only vs. lefties
Maybe you and I differ on bench construction
as for Melancon, yeah he’s only pitched one year in the majors, but he has minor league credentials to back up his performance (2.79 ERA across 216.1 IP with an 8.8 K/9) and he was what the team needed
You can look at it this way
which grouping would you rather have in 2012:
Lowrie, Weiland and Tek
or
Punto, Melancon, and Shoppach
I’d argue that the latter serves the current team better in numerous ways
to that I concur
I still do not get Shoppach – I guess that is insurance and Lavarnway starts the season in AAA?
"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis
it's insurance
Lavarnway can play in Pawtucket the first couple of months. If he’s doing great, Shoppach is such a small committment that he’s probably pretty easily tradeable. Unless someone gets hurt.
Also, Shoppach is just an absolutely filthy, awesome hitter against lefties, who Salty is awful against.
Query
If Lavarnway is tearing shit up in AAA, do we bring him up and trade Shoppach or Salty?
Salty knows the team better, but Shoppach has the good bat against lefties.
You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 15, 2011 12:32 AM EST up reply actions
Lavarnway is right handed like Kelly, I'd imagine it would Shoppach to go.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
I think it'd depend on the situation a couple of months into the season
I’d guess Shoppach just because I’d guess that they’d want whoever else was there besides Lavarnway to catch a decent amount of time to kind of wean him into learning the pitchers- and you really just can’t have Shoppach starting against righties
Would they really let Salty go?
Lavarnway and Shoppach are both lefties and Salty is a switch hitter. I don’t see any situation in which it’s Salty that gets let go.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
My apologies, they both HIT lefties.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
I wouldn't consider it a very strong replacement
Shoppach is likely gone part way through the year, eventually Lavarnway is going to take the job, maybe even the job Salty has. But I full expect Shoppach will be the one to go.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
Well he's better than Tek
Intangibles aside. So its a decent upgrade
And doesn't have the same fan base attachment...
… that would prevent us from cutting Tek in July if Lavarnway was mashing the ball in AAA.
So, probably another reason to make the move during the offseason… avoids the drama of doing it during the season.
Has Tek announced his retirement yet, or did I really see something that suggested we might still bring him back next year (nevermind whether some other team might give him a back up role to mentor a young catcher somewhere)?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
I think they want him back,
but only in a non-playing role. So if he doesn’t retire, he almost certainly will have to go somewhere else.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 15, 2011 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
Tek still wants to play
the Sox certainly won’t come out and say they have no interest in him directly, at least yet.
I guess what I was reading was sort of the other...
… that the Red Sox were interested in bringing him back, rather than not saying that they aren’t interested in him.
I understand why you wouldn’t start telling folks you don’t want him back, especially if they want him in the organization as a coach, for instance. However, I’m not sure I understand the rumor, after we signed Shoppach, that we still want Tek back.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Plus I was sad when they traded him years ago.
This makes it all better.
Hopefully, we'll say this about Lowrie in a few years...
… only without the horrible batting average and holes in his swing when he comes back.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
three
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 16, 2011 4:16 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think Tek is the adequate one to list there
We knew he wasn’t coming back whether we got Shoppach or not, it’s Lavarnway who isn’t going to play because of him.
Either way, I’m not too enamored with either group of players, Shoppach probably won’t be on the roster by July, I have a suspicion that either Punto or Aviles won’t be either, without Lowrie blocking, Iglesias will get his chance at one of their expense. Plus I think Melancon is only a good pick up if they use him as closer. If they sign another closer it was pretty much a worthless trade considering any one of our fringe back-end starters could probably convert to set-up fairly easily.
If this is all part of an elaborate plan to build a package around Iglesias and Lavarnway for a very good starting pitcher (read not Gio) fine, but so far it hasn’t really accomplished much at all I see it largely as a side step, especially if it’s true that the brass view Melancon as a set up guy.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
I don't believe at all that Iglesias will come up as a utility guy, or if so, not before the end of the year
next year, sure, but this year, I’d have to think they’d just as soon have him in AAA. This is, of course, barring an injury to one of those guys (if Scoot hits the DL, I’d expect that they’d make Iglesias the everyday starter over the other two)
Right, but I think that's what Rogue meant...
… before the Lowrie trade, if Scoot hit the DL, Lowrie becomes the everyday starter and blocks Iglesias’ call up. Obviously, Punto and Aviles are utility guys, so hopefully we don’t see either of them get the starting role for an extended amount of time (unlike Lowrie, who would have been given the chance).
So, therefore, without Lowrie blocking him, that opportunity should go to Iglesias, and we’ll see if he can learn how to hit at the major league level.
And I’m with Rogue on Melancon… as long as we don’t sign another closer, this was a good pick up (and I don’t care if Melancon closes, or ends up setting up for Bard).
Sure, I think we could have created another set up guy from one of our back end starter types… but if Melancon’s history of closing is what allows the front office to toy with Bard as a starter without signing Madson or trading for Bailey, then I’m okay with him in that role.
If we drop money or prospects on a closer instead of a starter, I’m going to like this deal less.
And, yes, since this thread was spun off my suggestion that a lot of folks in here would have been happy trading Ellsbury away in December 2010 due to his being “soft” and “injury prone” and a bad defensive CF; I’ll agree that he isn’t a perfect comparison for Lowrie, as he was starting for the 2011 Sox whether we wanted him to or not, and Lowrie wasn’t starting for the 2012 Sox.
However, my point was… if we had traded Ells for another starter in December 2010 (say a C that was better than Salty, or a #5 SP), I think a lot of folks in here would have cheered as much as they are cheering Lowrie being packaged for a set up guy. A lot of folks in here had given up on Ellsbury, who had only shown a few streaks of hot performance (late in 2007, and with an unsustainable BABIP in 2009), and then broke out in 2011 with an MVP type season.
Will Lowrie have an MVP type season? Of course not. Could he have a break out year as an everyday starter in Houston? You know, stay off the DL for a change and hit 20 HRs (in that bandbox) and 80 RBIs, with a .280/.370/.510 slash line? And if he does, would you be happy that he was traded in a package for Melancon?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
well he said he thought that one of Aviles or Punto wouldn't be on the roster,
in deference to Iglesias. But I mean, in the case you’ve said, Scoot would be on the DL and Iglesias would just take his spot.
And to answer your question, yes I would be fine with it- because in Boston, he isn’t going to have the opportunity to have that type of season. He just wouldn’t get the playing time here. I think Melancon will produce much more for the Red Sox than Lowrie would have, had we kept him (and is under control for a couple more years)
Good point.
I guess with Scutaro on the DL, we wouldn’t dump Punto or Aviles quite yet. I guess if Iglesias did well, when Scutaro came back we’d have to drop one of those two guys?
Yeah, I’m probably wrong on this one.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
maybe, if Iglesias suddenly learned to hit like crazy
but that’s highly unlikely, and more likely, he’d be sent down to Pawtucket. Maybe if it happened later in the year.
I mean
That I think eventually the Sox are going to give in and recognize that his bat won’t develop much better with an assignment in AAA than it will in MLB and that they’re paying him $2M this year and with his defense he’d be worth a shot in the utility role. They’ll get rid of either Aviles or Punto and welcome him onto the ML roster, regardless of Scutaro’s health who would still be the starter.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
I just don't get how
“one of our fringe back-end starters” can convert to setup easily. I mean has that happened before? Bowden has not worked and he’s a back-end starter type. We are talking about a prime setup guy (8th) inning. I’m not sure I trust that to some committee of Weiland/Albers types
I just don’t get this argument that anyone of our guys at AAA can just waltz right in an man important innings
Bard did pretty well moving into that role.
And I feel like a few teams out there have converted back end starters into set up guys or closers: Jon Rauch comes to mind.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
And if you're going to argue that Bard was a reliever in AAA...
… wasn’t Papelbon a starter before being used as our closer?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Yep
and he came up and put up some decent starts in the majors and showed that he could get ML hitters out
Weiland has not done that
Tazawa is coming off of a major injury
Doubront is coming off of a lost seaon
Bowden has never shown anything to be faithful over
I just don’t see guys there who could immediately fill in a role of setting up Bard. I mean they could – but its a big could and a big market team like the Sox can mitigate risk by making trades
True.
Just still wonder about the cost of the two guys we traded away.
Again, as long as we don’t sign a closer and we either use Melancon as our closer, or eventually as a set up guy for Bard closing (when the whole SP project is scrapped), then I think we got a very valuable piece for our bullpen.
I’m just not convinced that Lowrie was a piece to give up for Melancon, even if no one else would give us value for Lowrie. He’s had two very strong streaks in the last two years, and injuries derailed him. Something caused a huge drop off in his defense last year, so now he’s perceived to be a poor defender. I think I’d have kept him for a while longer to see whether he could actually turn in a full season.
If we had traded Aviles here, I’d be perfectly happy with this deal. I liked Lowrie… maybe it’s irrational, but I think he’s going to do well.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
True.
I’m just saying we traded that potential (Weiland) away for someone with one year of MLB service in the NL Central (and a strong minor league track record)… if the complimentary piece in that deal was Aviles, I’m fine with it.
I just think Lowrie has more value than that, and if he doesn’t to other teams, we should have kept him. We’ve suffered with him this long… what’s one more year?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
None of the guys we have/had
match Bard’s power arm and sure you can “find” setup guys to fill in roles but its still a fairly big risk
I think Bowden is a little different than these guys.
I think we ruined his confidence and any shot he had in the pros.
Plus, looking back at him, I think he was overrated, he wasn’t very consistent at all, his K rate fluctuated between 6 and 10, his walk rate between 1.5 to 3.
Doubront was a little more consistent, his walk rates have never been great but his control has appeared to be more steady. Tazawa was blowing guys away in his rehab from TJ surgery, I think he is worth a shot. Wilson may be more of a long shot but I think he can top out in the mid-high 90s as a reliever which is worth looking into.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
At least you aren't picking on his health
But I think it was the nerve injury that killed his defense last season. We’ve seen him before out there, I recall no one being uncomfortable going into last season as calling him an average fielder at worst. Defense usually remains pretty stable over these years and his dropped off a cliff, rationally I think it’s easier to believe his injury held back his fielding than to believe he is an atrocious fielder, he was fine out there before, maybe he got the yips but that would have been reported.
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
the question I think
is whether his defense sucked because of his nerve injury or because he was trying to be too cautious not to get hurt. The nerve thing wouldn’t be a huge deal- being too cautious would be, because that’s a mentality that probably won’t get shaken. But yeah, clearly something was not correct.
Ellsbury had a string of success prior to 2010
the power was the only real surprise last year and maybe the fielding) so I think your comparison is not very apt. Lowrie has had spurts of success but so have many others that have gone by the wayside
In this blog, in December 2010, everyone was arguing that Ellsbury sucked.
1. Poor defense. (Comparable to Lowrie, after an injury marred 2011.)
2. Streaky. (Writing off his 2007, due to SSS, much like Lowrie’s 2010 run and early 2011.
3. Soft. (Due to coming back too early from a misdiagnosed injury: Ells ribs/Lowrie’s wrist.
I don’t know… I see some comparisons there. I’m not saying equal level contributions: folks wanted Ells traded for a SP or a C last December; we just traded Lowrie for a set up guy with a single year of success in the NL Central. I don’t think that’s the value Lowrie should have had.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
yes, although
Ellsbury’s line through 2010:
.291/.344/.405 with 136 stolen bases, worth 7.8 WAR
Lowrie’s line through now:
.252/.324/.408 worth 3.5 WAR
Those are both leading up to the first arbitration year, so the same amount of team control. Of course, over that time, Lowrie managed a full season less plate appearances than Ellsbury. But one of those guys has more success than the other.
Also, no matter who’s fault it is or was, when Ellsbury came back, he was completely healthy. Jed hasn’t been the same hitter left-handed since his wrist injury- I’m still not convinced that it’s 100%, and I’m not convinced that it ever will be.
True...
… and it can be argued that Ells power in 2011 was directly attributed to the rehab he did in the offseason to fully recover from the injury.
However, 7.8 WAR to 3.5 WAR is still about the comparison I’m seeing from a value perspective. Ells was going to be the starter in 2011, and folks around here wanted to trade him for pitching, or a better C, or almost anything. (However, not a set up guy.)
So, my question is… even with Lowrie’s lower value to date (3.5 WAR to 7.8 WAR), there is value there, right? And similar knocks on why Lowrie hasn’t panned out or the Sox: poor defense, streaky, and soft/injury prone. So was that really worth the trade for a set up guy?
Now, I’ll agree with you… the wrist injury really does seem to be the factor here. Unlike Ells, who’s rehab generated more power, it’s hard to fully repair the wrist and get Lowrie back to full form… however, with his swing before the collision in 2011, didn’t he look like that wrist was working just fine??
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Again though Lowrie's value is only really value
if he’s getting playing time – which we would hope he was not (Youk, Scut, Pedroia are healthy) So to hold onto a middle infielder just because he “might” be good just seems like soemthing this team didn’t really need to do – the pen definitely needed an upgrade
Except that we turned around and spent $3 million on Punto for two years.
So, instead of keeping Lowrie for the bench position (yes, I know… his defense was so bad last year, and Punto is a better defensive replacement… but required a two year commitment at $3 million) and letting his arbitration number settle out between $1 million and maybe as much as $1.5 milion, we go get a no bat, defensive guy for the bench.
If we’d pulled this trade off with Aviles, I wouldn’t be complaining. However, let’s say Scutaro gets hurt again in April, or isn’t hitting well, and Jed goes on a tear like he did in 2011 (but doesn’t collide with Crawford, get a nerve bruise and disappear for the rest of the season)? He really wouldn’t get playing time over Scutaro if he started crushing the ball for a third time in his short career?
It’s done. I’m trying to like Melancon in our bullpen. I just don’t think he required the value that Lowrie’s potential offers.
And I still maintain that my original argument holds true: most of this blog would have been very happy if we’d traded Ellsbury away for a starting C or a starting pitcher in December 2010, and look how that turned out.
I think this deal is similar, at a lower level of value… both for giving away Lowrie instead of Ellsbury, but also because we got a set up guy with one strong year of MLB service and a strong minor league track record back instead of a starting SP/C.
I just see a parallel there. That’s all.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
I know & I see your points on Melancon
My point was the team has invested so much patience in him – I overvalued him. I thought he would be part of a larger package deal for a starter.
"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis
As if I needed another reason to root against a Madson signing.
(And yes, I realize that if Madson ends up as our 2012 closer, and we win the World Series on a year where he saves 40+ for the Red Sox, that I will be eating a lot of crow. And I will do so happily, too.)
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Feels like this article needs a couple Recs to keep it on the sidebar as the offseason progresses.
Added mine.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Yeah, let's space out the recs, so we don't all rec it at once.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 16, 2011 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
I think if it gets a few, it jumps to that "rec" space up top.
Where Rogue’s article on Japanese pitchers transitioning to MLB is.
So I don’t think they need to be spaced, but it needs at least 3 recs? Maybe more?
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Or not... guess my Rec put it up there already.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Yeah, two gets it up there
but it we put up another rec every week or so it will stay up there.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 16, 2011 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
they have to be spaced
because you can only rec once and if everyone who cares does it all at once it will be gone before long.
Yup, I follow the logic now.
Just thought it needed more than two to move up top, since it hadn’t moved on my screen until after I posted that comment.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Okay... time for another Rec.
It’s fallen off the main page.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
Darvish reportedly off the board
Rangers with a $ 51.7MM bid – I believe this precludes his being on the Sox 40-man.
The Year of Extreme Opinions
"It is so on that things have now become very much like Donkey Kong."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Dec 20, 2011 12:02 AM EST reply actions
It's worth pointing out
That we’re more than half way through the offseason, most of the big names are gone and the Yankees have yet to sign someone away from us that we might have found useful.
Can we stop with the yearly defeatist “I’d like CJ Wilson but the Yankees are gonna overpay him” lines?
Joe, the reason we shout "WE ARE" and the reason the answer will always be "PENN STATE"
No, because it's often times true.
Especially for big FAs. The Yankees are probably waiting to go crazy next year and sign Danks, Cain, and Greinke, leaving us with… Liriano.
Barf.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 20, 2011 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
Go crazy, you say?
Don’t mind if I do!

The Year of Extreme Opinions
"It is so on that things have now become very much like Donkey Kong."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Dec 20, 2011 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
Cain's probably not going to be available.
The Giants are working to extend him and Lincecum, and it sounds like they are optimistic they can get both done, more so with Cain than Lincecum. Danks if traded will probably sign an extension with the team he’s traded to, which could be the Yankees, or another team. And I don’t know if Greinke would want to go to New York, even if he said he would have last year. that was probably just a negotiating ploy from him and his agent to get him out Kansas City.
by aubatron2011 on Dec 20, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
Why would Danks be inclined to sign an extension?
It’s not too often that players traded at the deadline sign extensions. Maybe if he’s traded in the offseason, but even then it’s no guarantee
An encouraging piece of news.
Jerry Crasnick is reporting Roy Oswalt is now seeking a one year deal.
Sounds like a plan.
Harrison/Oswalt would make my pants unreasonably tight.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 20, 2011 2:55 PM EST up reply actions


























