MDC in danger of heading to DL??

[riverside sluggers]

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=150577

 

MDC will go see a hand specialist, his hand had been flaring up when he throws his curveball

[Cocos Disciples]

Another reason to get a 7th inning bridge guy with experience. Joe Borowski?

[a700hitter]

...and it is just this type of thing that keeps me from being giddy about the future with all the young talent. He's already had major arm issues at his young age. Anything can happen and often does to young pitchers. That's why good pitching at the major league level is at such a premium. Most of the young flamethrowers with electric stuff fall by the wayside for one reason or another. It was stupid of Theo to trade a proven young major league starter like Arroyo. He'd already done what 80% of our great prospects will never do-- make it to the big leagues and be successful in a starting rotation for a couple of years. Theo should have traded a prospect for WMP. I hope it is nothing serious for MDC, but if this guy is so delicate at this age, the FO should trade him while his stock and potential is very high.

[DUSTINMOHR4LIFE]

borowski isnt going to be traded according to BP's rumor mill

[riverside sluggers]

...and it is just this type of thing that keeps me from being giddy about the future with all the young talent. He's already had major arm issues at his young age. Anything can happen and often does to young pitchers. That's why good pitching at the major league level is at such a premium. Most of the young flamethrowers with electric stuff fall by the wayside for one reason or another. It was stupid of Theo to trade a proven young major league starter like Arroyo. He'd already done what 80% of our great prospects will never do-- make it to the big leagues and be successful in a starting rotation for a couple of years. Theo should have traded a prospect for WMP. I hope it is nothing serious for MDC, but if this guy is so delicate at this age, the FO should trade him while his stock and potential is very high.

 

Here this thread is about a setup man going to the DL, I didnt realize this thread is also concerning the Arroyo-WMP trade and how they need a proven starter. Just was curious about it

 

Trade Wily Mo Pena for a prospect? Thats its? From you I would be expecting to ask for a major league player since you dont pride yourself on any prospects. I am sure if they consider trading away Wily Mo they envisioned as the next right fielder would ask for more than a prospect.

[a700hitter]

Here this thread is about a setup man going to the DL, I didnt realize this thread is also concerning the Arroyo-WMP trade and how they need a proven starter. Just was curious about it

 

Trade Wily Mo Pena for a prospect? Thats its? From you I would be expecting to ask for a major league player since you dont pride yourself on any prospects. I am sure if they consider trading away Wily Mo they envisioned as the next right fielder would ask for more than a prospect.

Read the post again. I was advocating trading a prospect to get WMP instead of trading Arroyo, an established major league pitcher. Duh.

[riverside sluggers]

Read the post again. I was advocating trading a prospect to get WMP instead of trading Arroyo, an established major league pitcher. Duh.

 

"Duh." Insightful remark

 

The Reds wanted one thing for Wily Mo and one thing only, an established starting pitcher. The Sox tried to give them DoorMatt Clement but Boston wouldnt help for his ridiculous salary.

[Dana Kiecker]

A prospect? Which one?

 

For WMP?

 

Which one?

 

This deal would never have been made if Theo had any incling that Trot was actually gonna be injury free. I cant believe you are still beating the Arroyo Drum. Get over it.

[a700hitter]

"Duh." Insightful remark

 

The Reds wanted one thing for Wily Mo and one thing only, an established starting pitcher. The Sox tried to give them DoorMatt Clement but Boston wouldnt help for his ridiculous salary.

The "Duh" was a comment on your misreading of my post. It wasn't meant to be insightful. Duh. If they couldn't get WMP for prospects they should have looked elsewhere for a 4th OF. Established starters that take the ball every 5th day and win 10+ games a few years in a row are too valuable a commodity to trade for a project like WMP. We are paying the price for it now with 2 vacant stater slots that have basically been forfeit games. The 3rd slot is being held down by a rookie, who should be in the 5th slot.

[CrespoBlows]

The "Duh" was a comment on your misreading of my post. It wasn't meant to be insightful. Duh. If they couldn't get WMP for prospects they should have looked elsewhere for a 4th OF. Established starters that take the ball every 5th day and win 10+ games a few years in a row are too valuable a commodity to trade for a project like WMP. We are paying the price for it now with 2 vacant stater slots that have basically been forfeit games. The 3rd slot is being held down by a rookie, who should be in the 5th slot.

 

The Red Sox can't fill every single one of their holes with FA's. They don't have Yankee type money. You've got have some players come in, make the minimum, and produce at good level, so you can fill your other holes with better FA's.

 

Baseball has changed a lot since the early 90's. It's not finanically savvy to trade all of your prospects for veterans. I mean seriously, FOUR prospects for Smoltz? This isn't 1970 anymore.

[a700hitter]

The Red Sox can't fill every single one of their holes with FA's. They don't have Yankee type money. You've got have some players come in, make the minimum, and produce at good level, so you can fill your other holes with better FA's.

I am not an advocate of filling all of our holes with FA's. I am also not in favor of the FO creating holes by letting our stars walk away, e.g. Damon, Pedro, and Lowe. If we kept those guys, we'd have a kick-ass rotation, and we'd still have Marte as a future third baseman or hot trading chip to help fill holes. Also, let's not forget that the FO created a hole by not signing OC and turned around and threw 40% more $ at Rent-an-error. OC had proved that he could play in Boston, that he was a great uplifting personality in the clubhouse and dugout, and he was way cheaper than Rent-a-Wreck.

Baseball has changed a lot since the early 90's. It's not finanically savvy to trade all of your prospects for veterans. I mean seriously, FOUR prospects for Smoltz? This isn't 1970 anymore

I don't even understand the point of this statement. Are prospects any better today than the 70's? Are they more likely to make the majors and become stars? When the yankees got Cone for 3 highly touted prospects that never amounted to major league players, that wasn't the 70's. What about when the Cardinals got M Gwire for 3 prospects that never made it. That was the late 90's. I guess your answer would be that it's not the 90's anymore. Well the fact is that we need 5 or 10 years to elapse to get a perspective on a trade of prospects. About 2010, we'll have a much better idea if Crisp for Marte was a good trade. One thing is for certain, Pedro, Damon and Lowe for no one in return is a terrible deal.

[CrespoBlows]

I am not an advocate of filling all of our holes with FA's. I am also not in favor of the FO creating holes by letting our stars walk away, e.g. Damon, Pedro, and Lowe. If we kept those guys, we'd have a kick-ass rotation, and we'd still have Marte as a future third baseman or hot trading chip to help fill holes. Also, let's not forget that the FO created a hole by not signing OC and turned around and threw 40% more $ at Rent-an-error. OC had proved that he could play in Boston, that he was a great uplifting personality in the clubhouse and dugout, and he was way cheaper than Rent-a-Wreck.

 

And our payroll would be over $150 million dollars. You've got to understand that the Red Sox HAVE A BUDGET. If the luxury tax did not exist the Red Sox could very easily go to that threshold, but it's there. Remember, this wasn't about years one or two, the Red Sox feared that they would be stuck with albatrostic contracts in years three and four, severly inhibiting their ability to compete. Also, what if Pedro wasn't able to pitch in the AL? Would it be worth to pay him $13 million per, while he continues to decline? Damon's the same reason. No one doubted that he was going to be good his first year or two, but it's very possible that he could turn into a Bernie Williams at the tail end of his contract. Oh, as for Derek Lowe? He came off a 5.32 ERA season. No one was advocating re-signing him for the price he wanted.

 

Instant gratification kills teams. You've got to balance your team to win now, and win later. The Red Sox are doing an excellent job at that.

 

I don't even understand the point of this statement. Are prospects any better today than the 70's? Are they more likely to make the majors and become stars? When the yankees got Cone for 3 highly touted prospects that never amounted to major league players, that wasn't the 70's. What about when the Cardinals got M Gwire for 3 prospects that never made it. That was the late 90's. I guess your answer would be that it's not the 90's anymore. Well the fact is that we need 5 or 10 years to elapse to get a perspective on a trade of prospects. About 2010, we'll have a much better idea if Crisp for Marte was a good trade. One thing is for certain, Pedro, Damon and Lowe for no one in return is a terrible deal.

 

There's a lot of things you apparently don't understand. Look back in the 1970's. How much did the average ML player make, compared to a prospect? It's no longer possible to compile rosters full of veterans. The cost of veterans is simply too high. Nowadays, prospective talent is much more valuable then veterans. You can't trade FOUR players for one anymore. Especially, players like Murphy, Hansen, Delcarmen, and Pedroia. All four of those players for the next four years will make a combined $1.5 million dollars. Smoltz will pitch two months and leave. So you're stuck filling holes at the back end of the bullpen, 2B, and another outfield.

 

I guess you're right. It isn't the 90's anymore. The luxury tax system really hurts teams who want to raise payroll above the threshold. Do you really expect teams to pay 125% instead of 100%? If Beltran were to sign with the Red Sox in 2005, the Red Sox, on a $90 million dollar salary, would have to pay $110 million. Baseball is a business, throwing money at problems is a bad business decision.

 

(The McGwire trade was a salary dump, as was the Cone deal)

[ORS]

One thing is for certain, Pedro, Damon and Lowe for no one in return is a terrible deal.

Except they got people in return. They were directly compensated with extra draft picks. Usher in Bowden, Buccholz, Hansen, Lowrie, and Bard. Yeah, only Hansen is above A-ball right now, but not having those guys potentially impacts the strength of the team further down the road. And, they didn't pocket the money saved. Clement, Wells, and Crisp were brought in as replacements. Clement and Wells were roughly as valuable as Pedro and Lowe during the regular season (Pedro was obviously better than both, but Lowe was considerably worse). So, the balance sheet becomes all those minor leaguers plus Clement, Wells, and Crisp. Where the FO looks bad is the fact that Clement never recovered mentally from his beaning and Wells knees fell apart, but you only get to make that assessment with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Yes, Renteria turned out to be a mistake, but look at the year he had in '04 and look at OCab's '04. The money difference was justified.

[a700hitter]

And our payroll would be over $150 million dollars. You've got to understand that the Red Sox HAVE A BUDGET. If the luxury tax did not exist the Red Sox could very easily go to that threshold, but it's there. Remember, this wasn't about years one or two, the Red Sox feared that they would be stuck with albatrostic contracts in years three and four, severly inhibiting their ability to compete. Also, what if Pedro wasn't able to pitch in the AL? Would it be worth to pay him $13 million per, while he continues to decline? Damon's the same reason. No one doubted that he was going to be good his first year or two, but it's very possible that he could turn into a Bernie Williams at the tail end of his contract. Oh, as for Derek Lowe? He came off a 5.32 ERA season. No one was advocating re-signing him for the price he wanted.

 

Instant gratification kills teams. You've got to balance your team to win now, and win later. The Red Sox are doing an excellent job at that.

You are soooo wrong. If you want to label smart management as "instant gratification" go right ahead, but you are overgeneralizing and you are being an apologist for some horrendous management decisions since 2004. First of all, I really don't think the team saved much money by letting Pedro walk. They gave an obscenely large contract to Clement who couldn't even pitch in the NL nevermind the AL. They also threw money at a broken down horse like Wade Miller. They wasted money on Renteria when they could have saved about 3 to 4 million a year if they kept OC. Take the $4 million/year overpaid for Renteria and the $8 million/year wasted on Clement. That's $12 million. We could have had Pedro for an additional 1 or 2 million/year. That does not get the payroll up to $150 million. Next, what makes you think Pedro couldn't pitch in the AL anymore or that he'll be broken down in years 3 and 4? Pedro did just fine in the AL for 7 years. Are you saying that he was in the twighlight of a great career? Where have I heard that before? All I know is that he made the All Star team last year and this year, so if he doesn't break down next year the FO has made a miscalculation. As for Damon, we could have kept him too without driving the payroll to $150 million. They will be paying Coco an average of 4.5 to 5 million a year. That leaves $9.5 million/year to come up with to keep Damon. They saved 3.5 million/year by letting Millar walk. Over the life of his contract Damon would cost about an additional $6 million. That plus the 1 or 2 million to keep Pedro gets you nowhere near $150 million and the core of your team is intact and still in their prime.

 

 

 

There's a lot of things you apparently don't understand. Look back in the 1970's. How much did the average ML player make, compared to a prospect? It's no longer possible to compile rosters full of veterans. The cost of veterans is simply too high. Nowadays, prospective talent is much more valuable then veterans. You can't trade FOUR players for one anymore. Especially, players like Murphy, Hansen, Delcarmen, and Pedroia. All four of those players for the next four years will make a combined $1.5 million dollars. Smoltz will pitch two months and leave. So you're stuck filling holes at the back end of the bullpen, 2B, and another outfield.

Again you are so wrong. I am not going to do the research, because you made the assertion that prospects are so much more valuable today than in the 1970's because of the inflated prices for experienced players. You do the leg work and report back to me, but I'll tell you what you'll find. The average Fair Market Value of a major league franchise has skyrocketed since the 1970's despite today's high cost of labor. What did the Red Sox sell for in the 70's and what did they sell for this last time? Teams are making more money than ever before. There is good reason why MLB will not open its books to the players union. It's because they are making so much money that the players would scream that they are under paid. The balance sheets of teams today make those from the 70's look like what they were-- family owned businesses. Your theory holds no water. A player making $100 k in the 70's was a huge expense for those teams, and most teams couldn't afford it. The A's and other poor teams were always trading their stars for prospects.

 

(The McGwire trade was a salary dump, as was the Cone deal)

This is a total nonsensical statement. Are you saying that you would be willing to trade our prospects for a player being moved as a salary dump? What difference does the motivation of the other team make? Moving stars for prospects is almost always a salary dump. Otherwise why would a team trade a proven major league star for an unproven minor leaguer? Your response to my post should begin with a retraction of this idiotic statement.

[a700hitter]

Except they got people in return. They were directly compensated with extra draft picks. Usher in Bowden, Buccholz, Hansen, Lowrie, and Bard. Yeah, only Hansen is above A-ball right now, but not having those guys potentially impacts the strength of the team further down the road. And, they didn't pocket the money saved. Clement, Wells, and Crisp were brought in as replacements. Clement and Wells were roughly as valuable as Pedro and Lowe during the regular season (Pedro was obviously better than both, but Lowe was considerably worse). So, the balance sheet becomes all those minor leaguers plus Clement, Wells, and Crisp. Where the FO looks bad is the fact that Clement never recovered mentally from his beaning and Wells knees fell apart, but you only get to make that assessment with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Yes, Renteria turned out to be a mistake, but look at the year he had in '04 and look at OCab's '04. The money difference was justified.

Trading stars for highly rated prospects is bad enough, but prospects at least have a minor league track record. Letting your stars walk for draft picks? As I said in an earlier post, letting Pedro and Damon walk for draft picks makes Harry Frazee look like a genius. At least he got cold hard cash for the Babe. Getting picks? You can't be serious. That's like selling your house for 100,000 lottery tickets. You've got more tickets than you would ever buy, so you have a greater chance of winning the grand prize. The only problem is it is still a gamble a game of chance. You gave up a star for a lottery ticket or a bet. That's just assinine.

[ORS]

Trading stars for highly rated prospects is bad enough, but prospects at least have a minor league track record. Letting your stars walk for draft picks? As I said in an earlier post, letting Pedro and Damon walk for draft picks makes Harry Frazee look like a genius. At least he got cold hard cash for the Babe. Getting picks? You can't be serious. That's like selling your house for 100,000 lottery tickets. You've got more tickets than you would ever buy, so you have a greater chance of winning the grand prize. The only problem is it is still a gamble a game of chance. You gave up a star for a lottery ticket or a bet. That's just assinine.

No, it isn't like any of the hair brained scenarios you cook up. They didn't trade stars for draft picks, they traded them for FA replacements and draft picks. I'm not going to discuss this with someone who fails to recognize the reality of the situation.

[CrespoBlows]

Most of things you say are idiotic. Actually believing that is smart managing to trade EVERY SINGLE prospect for a bunch of two-month rentals.

 

Last time I checked, no GM's live by your strategy, unless you count the Steinbrenner run Yankees of the 80's.

 

Let's analyze every bit of your moronic statements.

 

First of all, I really don't think the team saved much money by letting Pedro walk.

 

4 years $52 million? That's a lot of money.

 

They gave an obscenely large contract to Clement who couldn't even pitch in the NL nevermind the AL.

 

But it was smaller in comparision to Pedro Martinez. Clement got three years, Martinez got four. In comparison, Clement got $24 million, Pedro got $52 million. Get your facts straight. (By the way, Clement had a 3.50 ERA for the Cubs. He was an all-star for the Red Sox, before he got hit in the head)

 

They also threw money at a broken down horse like Wade Miller.

 

They gave him $1.5 million.

 

Take the $4 million/year overpaid for Renteria and the $8 million/year wasted on Clement. That's $12 million. We could have had Pedro for an additional 1 or 2 million/year.

 

Oh, but you fail to mention that you wanted to sign Derek Lowe. That's an extra $6 million right there. Plus, you wanted to sign Damon. That's an extra $7 million. Also, you wanted to trade for John Smoltz. More money, plus the money you've got to shell out for replacement players. Let's assume you want to trade the four prospects you suggested.

 

Let's add $1 million for both relievers. $3 million for Loretta. Plus another $2 million for another outfielder. $7 million more toward the payroll.

 

Damon to Crisp - $7 million (factor in that last year at $12 million per)

Lowe to Wells - $6 million (then you factor in the two extra years at $8 million per)

Pedro to Clement - $5 million (factor in the last year at $13 million)

Cabrera to Renteria - +$2 million (save $8 million over course of deal)

 

The Red Sox are about $120 million right now. Factoring in all those salaries, the payroll is:

 

2006 -$142 million

2007 - $152 million (replacing the players who've been traded, and those who have left as FA's. RP, SP etc..)

 

Looking at 2008, and 2009, you're stuck with players who are almost certaintly going to decline. Is Martinez worth $13 million in '08? Is Damon? 34 years old is exactly "in their prime," but seeing as you suscribe to the Dusty Baker Manual of how to run a baseball team, I'm not surprised you believe it.

 

Pedro did just fine in the AL for 7 years. Are you saying that he was in the twighlight of a great career? Where have I heard that before?

 

Yeah, that was with a 90 mph fastball. Besides, what does it matter what he did? FA contracts are given out for what the players will do.

 

Your theory holds no water. A player making $100 k in the 70's was a huge expense for those teams, and most teams couldn't afford it. The A's and other poor teams were always trading their stars for prospects.

 

A player making $10 million dollars in the 2000's is a huge expense for low market teams. Most teams can't afford it. There's a massive difference from $5 million to $300,000, then there was $100,000 to $20,000. There's much greater chance to fail nowadays.

 

 

This is a total nonsensical statement. Are you saying that you would be willing to trade our prospects for a player being moved as a salary dump? What difference does the motivation of the other team make? Moving stars for prospects is almost always a salary dump. Otherwise why would a team trade a proven major league star for an unproven minor leaguer? Your response to my post should begin with a retraction of this idiotic statement.

 

The A's couldn't afford McGwire, so they traded him to the Cardinals with the purpose of shedding his salary. What's nonsensical about that? McGwire was a star, and they got some good prospects at the time of the trade. Why? Because McGwire's market value demanded that the A's get something quality back. Look at the Phillies. They just dumped Abreu because they couldn't afford to make any more moves with his contract on their hands.

 

You have no idea on what a business is do you? Not only do you completely miss the point, but your counter-point is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read.

 

Why would a team trade a star for an unproven minor-leaguer? Teams don't win every year. The Devil Rays traded Victor Zambrano back in 2004. Why? They couldn't afford his long-term contract, and they got a pitcher they though would help their team and do it for much less then Zambrano would. The pitcher they got was Scott Kazmir. He's making $350,000 dollars, and is an established star.

[a700hitter]

No, it isn't like any of the hair brained scenarios you cook up. They didn't trade stars for draft picks, they traded them for FA replacements and draft picks. I'm not going to discuss this with someone who fails to recognize the reality of the situation.

Please tell me what percentage of draft picks eventually have even a 5 year mediocre career in the Major leagues. What percentage become all-stars? and what percentage become Hall of Famers? I'll tell you that the answer to the last one is 0% in many draft years. There is a reason that stars make big $. It is because an incredibly small percentage of players become stars. You are not dealing with reality. The FO let go of a Hall of Famer and replaced him with a FA (Cement head) that couldn't carry Derek lowe's jock, and some lottery tickets. Good deal. Let me know when I can make my Cooperstown reservations to see any of them inducted.

[CrespoBlows]

Please tell me what percentage of draft picks eventually have even a 5 year mediocre career in the Major leagues. What percentage become all-stars? and what percentage become Hall of Famers? I'll tell you that the answer to the last one is 0% in many draft years. There is a reason that stars make big $. It is because an incredibly small percentage of players become stars. You are not dealing with reality. The FO let go of a Hall of Famer and replaced him with a FA (Cement head) that couldn't carry Derek lowe's jock, and some lottery tickets. Good deal. Let me know when I can make my Cooperstown reservations to see any of them inducted.

 

Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez are future HOF's and both of them were drafted. (Most ballplayers are prospects at one point)

 

Pedro is a HOF, but he won't put up the old Pedro numbers with the Mets. Thanks Pedro for being a dominant pitcher, go get your $50 million with the Mets. We don't have to pay that much money for a declining pitcher.

 

It would be great if the Red Sox could sign stars at every position. Truth is, they can't. The Red Sox can afford to make one or two mistakes, but if you're saddled with Damon and Martinez at their decline years. It's going to be extremely hard to construct a winning ball club, when those two combine to make $24 million dollars.

[ORS]

Hey, 700, check the calendar, we are 5 years removed from Pedro pitching like he was when he cemented his HOF status. That is reality.

 

An overwhelming majority of the games best players right now were early round draft picks -- the other majority were high $$ international FAs. In two years they managed to procure 7 extra early round picks, with one already contributing. Seven extra picks is 7 chances to get a very good ball player. That is reality.

 

Pedro and Lowe as a duo pitched 399.2 IP with a combined 4.59 ERA. Clement and Wells pitched 375 IP with a combined 4.51 ERA. That is reality.

[a700hitter]

4 years $52 million? That's a lot of money.

 

 

 

But it was smaller in comparision to Pedro Martinez. Clement got three years, Martinez got four. In comparison, Clement got $24 million, Pedro got $52 million. Get your facts straight. (By the way, Clement had a 3.50 ERA for the Cubs. He was an all-star for the Red Sox, before he got hit in the head)

I am sorry that you cannot follow the math, but some teams do a better job of this than the Red Sox. How is it that the Mets have taken our Pedro and signed LoDuca, Beltran, Glavine, and DelGado, but their payroll is $19 million less than the Red Sox. Are they using smoke and mirrors?

 

http://www.onestopbaseball.com/TeamPayroll.asp

Looking at 2008, and 2009, you're stuck with players who are almost certaintly going to decline. Is Martinez worth $13 million in '08? Is Damon? 34 years old is exactly "in their prime," but seeing as you suscribe to the Dusty Baker Manual of how to run a baseball team, I'm not surprised you believe it.

I have heard that they are in the twilight of their great careers. BTW Damon hit 2 HRs today and they were bombs.

A player making $10 million dollars in the 2000's is a huge expense for low market teams. Most teams can't afford it. There's a massive difference from $5 million to $300,000, then there was $100,000 to $20,000. There's much greater chance to fail nowadays.

Just like the whining owners, you are ignoring the fact that the owners are making more money than ever before. Keep sticking your head in the sand.

The A's couldn't afford McGwire, so they traded him to the Cardinals with the purpose of shedding his salary. What's nonsensical about that? McGwire was a star, and they got some good prospects at the time of the trade. Why? Because McGwire's market value demanded that the A's get something quality back. Look at the Phillies. They just dumped Abreu because they couldn't afford to make any more moves with his contract on their hands.

What's nonsensical about your statement is the following. I'll number the steps so you don't forget the sequence of events and you can see the break in your logic:

 

1. I have been advocating trading some of our prospects to plug the holes created by the FO.

2. You responded that it was no longer the 70's and prospects were too valuable.

3. I used the Cone and MG Wire trades for prospects in the mid to late 90's as examples that it is still doen successfully.

4. You responded that those were salary dumps.

 

How does your assertion in #4 make the acquisitions any less successful for the Yankees and the Cardinals? How is your assertion relevant to and how does it refute my argument in #1 that we should be looking for those deals to plug our holes? Please explain or I stand by my assertion that your statement about salary dumps is nonsense in the context of our discussion.

You have no idea on what a business is do you? Not only do you completely miss the point, but your counter-point is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read.

I am an attorney for a Fortune 100 Company, and I am directly responsible for benefit plans that are funded with more than $13 billion dollars in assets. Gee, that's more than the FMV of the Yankees and Red Sox combined. When you get your MBA and your law degree and a masters is tax law from a top Law School send me your resume.

Why would a team trade a star for an unproven minor-leaguer? Teams don't win every year. The Devil Rays traded Victor Zambrano back in 2004. Why? They couldn't afford his long-term contract, and they got a pitcher they though would help their team and do it for much less then Zambrano would. The pitcher they got was Scott Kazmir. He's making $350,000 dollars, and is an established star.

You can't be seriously comparing the Red Sox franchise to Tampa Bay. That's your second completely nonsensical remarks.

[a700hitter]

Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez are future HOF's and both of them were drafted. (Most ballplayers are prospects at one point)

...and this means that the percentage of draft picks that become HOF ers is greater than I think? You need to take a course in logic.

 

Pedro is a HOF, but he won't put up the old Pedro numbers with the Mets. Thanks Pedro for being a dominant pitcher, go get your $50 million with the Mets. We don't have to pay that much money for a declining pitcher.

 

It would be great if the Red Sox could sign stars at every position. Truth is, they can't. The Red Sox can afford to make one or two mistakes, but if you're saddled with Damon and Martinez at their decline years. It's going to be extremely hard to construct a winning ball club, when those two combine to make $24 million dollars.

Yes, Damon and Pedro are in the twighlight of their careers. Pedro has managed to make the All Star team in his first two years with the Mets and Damon already has 13 HRs with the Yankees befores August. How many guy do we have with more that are not named manny and Ortiz?

[CrespoBlows]

I am sorry that you cannot follow the math, but some teams do a better job of this than the Red Sox. How is it that the Mets have taken our Pedro and signed LoDuca, Beltran, Glavine, and DelGado, but their payroll is $19 million less than the Red Sox. Are they using smoke and mirrors?

 

13. Jose Valentin 912,500

14. Chris Woodward 825,000

15. Ramon Castro 800,000

16. Eli Marrero 750,000

17. Endy Chavez 500,000

18. Xavier Nady 427,000

19. Jose Reyes 401,500

20. Duaner Sanchez 399,500

21. David Wright 374,000

22. Aaron Heilman 359,000

23. Juan Padilla 333,000

24. Brian Bannister 327,000

 

That's why.

 

Damn those prospects. Trade them away. I'll bet if you were a Mets fan you'd probably have given the thumbs up for Zambrano, and probably would have advocated trading Wright for Schmidt.

 

I have heard that they are in the twilight of their great careers. BTW Damon hit 2 HRs today and they were bombs.What's nonsensical about your statement is the following. I'll number the steps so you don't forget the sequence of events and you can see the break in your logic:

 

1. I have been advocating trading some of our prospects to plug the holes created by the FO.

2. You responded that it was no longer the 70's and prospects were too valuable.

3. I used the Cone and MG Wire trades for prospects in the mid to late 90's as examples that it is still doen successfully.

4. You responded that those were salary dumps.

 

No one said Damon would fall off the table in 2006. It was 2008, and 2009 when they would began to fall apart.

 

1. You've advocated dismantling our franchise for a quick fix solution.

2. Salaries of players are much higher.

3. Cone and McGwire were before the luxury tax was in place.

 

How does your assertion in #4 make the acquisitions any less successful for the Yankees and the Cardinals? How is your assertion relevant to and how does it refute my argument in #1 that we should be looking for those deals to plug our holes? Please explain or I stand by my assertion that your statement about salary dumps is nonsense in the context of our discussion.

 

You want to trade our brightest prospects away for a two month rental. In fact, you want to trade ALL of the away. These players you want to trade away all have track records to succeed.

 

You can't be seriously comparing the Red Sox franchise to Tampa Bay. That's your second completely nonsensical remarks.

 

I didn't. I compared the '96 A's to the '04 Devil Rays. Where did you get that?

[a700hitter]

Pedro and Lowe as a duo pitched 399.2 IP with a combined 4.59 ERA. Clement and Wells pitched 375 IP with a combined 4.51 ERA. That is reality.

I would have preferred to keep Lowe, but as i have stated in prior posts my priority would have been Pedro. Keeping or losing Pedro should be addressed on it own merits. It bogus to tie his stats to Lowe's as a justification that the FO made the right decision about Pedro. If you want to play that game though:

2006:

 

Wells and Clement 5 wins

Pedro and Lowe 16 wins

[CrespoBlows]

I got a question.

 

When's the last time a team was successful trading away every single one of their prospects in exchange for veterans?

 

What team in MLB follows your strategy?

[example1]

I sense contentiousness in this talksox-locker room.

 

Perhaps its because it is the trade deadline and there are tonsof rumors floating about. Like check out this one that I just heard about (made up):

 

a700hitter and CrespoBlows to the Phillies boards for a future draft pick and Phillyphan51223. a700 will have to drop his no trade clause, but the finances of the deal should be enough to make the deal happen. CrespoBlows will probably have to battle for a 3rd posting spot with another one of the posters (Abreuisatraitor) but that poster was rumered to be heading out of town too. Here's the link:

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/showthread.php?p=179328#post179328 (notice the keen self-referencing!)

 

Sorry fellas, just trying to add some levity to this deep, deep conversation.

[a700hitter]

13. Jose Valentin 912,500

14. Chris Woodward 825,000

15. Ramon Castro 800,000

16. Eli Marrero 750,000

17. Endy Chavez 500,000

18. Xavier Nady 427,000

19. Jose Reyes 401,500

20. Duaner Sanchez 399,500

21. David Wright 374,000

22. Aaron Heilman 359,000

23. Juan Padilla 333,000

24. Brian Bannister 327,000

 

That's why.

 

Damn those prospects. Trade them away. I'll bet if you were a Mets fan you'd probably have given the thumbs up for Zambrano, and probably would have advocated trading Wright for Schmidt.

So, you are admitting that the Mets do a better job of balancing prospects with established stars? BTW: Nady was not from the Met system. He came in a trade.

No one said Damon would fall off the table in 2006. It was 2008, and 2009 when they would began to fall apart.

 

1. You've advocated dismantling our franchise for a quick fix solution.

2. Salaries of players are much higher.

3. Cone and McGwire were before the luxury tax was in place.

I know I am winning the argument when people resort to misrepresenting my position. Where have I advocated dismantling the franchise? Read my earlier posts. I have been critical that the FO has let our stars walk away. I have maintained that we could keep our core stars and built the farm simultaneously. If that is advocating any sort of dismantling, please explain. If there has been any dismantling it has been the FO that let the foundation of the 2004 team walk away for nothing.

You want to trade our brightest prospects away for a two month rental. In fact, you want to trade ALL of the away. These players you want to trade away all have track records to succeed.

Where have I advocated trading our brightest prospects for rentals? Again, you are misrepresenting my position. While I do advocate trading some prospects to fill the holes created by the FO's moves in letting Pedro go and trading Arroyo, I would hope that they would be smart enough to keep the best prospects. It's their job to figure out who will make it and who will not.

[a700hitter]

I got a question.

 

When's the last time a team was successful trading away every single one of their prospects in exchange for veterans?

 

What team in MLB follows your strategy?

I got a question, who has advocated such a thing? He or she should be flogged. What is it with you, if someone disagrees with you and the FO you feel compelled to address their arguments by misrepresenting their positions with absurdly extreme characterizations?

[a700hitter]

I sense contentiousness in this talksox-locker room.

 

Perhaps its because it is the trade deadline and there are tonsof rumors floating about. Like check out this one that I just heard about (made up):

 

a700hitter and CrespoBlows to the Phillies boards for a future draft pick and Phillyphan51223. a700 will have to drop his no trade clause, but the finances of the deal should be enough to make the deal happen. CrespoBlows will probably have to battle for a 3rd posting spot with another one of the posters (Abreuisatraitor) but that poster was rumered to be heading out of town too. Here's the link:

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/showthread.php?p=179328#post179328 (notice the keen self-referencing!)

 

Sorry fellas, just trying to add some levity to this deep, deep conversation.

CrespoBlows is a TalkSox star. I am adamantly opposed to moving him for prospects. We should take nothing less than an impact Starting Pitcher. If none is available, our financial structure can continue to support both CrespoBlows and 700. Afterall, how many new posters will ever get to their level? A very small percentage. Although CrespoBlows is clearly in the twighlight of a great posting career, I think there is a lot left in the tank.

[CrespoBlows]

So, you are admitting that the Mets do a better job of balancing prospects with established stars? BTW: Nady was not from the Met system. He came in a trade.

 

Seems like it. The Red Sox do too. Ortiz, Ramirez, Schilling... those aren't stars? Papelbon, Lester, Hansen, there's your balance.

 

BTW, the Mets traded an established big-leaguer for Nady. Count one for the Mets.

 

I know I am winning the argument when people resort to misrepresenting my position Where have I advocated dismantling the franchise? Read my earlier posts. I have been critical that the FO has let our stars walk away. I have maintained that we could keep our core stars and built the farm simultaneously. If that is advocating any sort of dismantling, please explain. If there has been any dismantling it has been the FO that let the foundation of the 2004 team walk away for nothing.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrespoBlows

Yes! I agree!

 

Hansen, Delcarmen, Pedoria, and Papelbon for Smoltz!

 

Replace Papelbon with Murphy and you got a deal! Any dissenters?

 

That's four players who the Red Sox envision being in their future. You said that we should trade all four of them for a two month rental. Do you see why that makes no sense? And why no GM in baseball would do that trade?

 

I'm not misrepesenting your position. You refuse to allow any of our prospect to prove themselves. You want an all-star at every position. It's not possible.

 

Where have I advocated trading our brightest prospects for rentals? Again, you are misrepresenting my position. While I do advocate trading some prospects to fill the holes created by the FO's moves in letting Pedro go and trading Arroyo, I would hope that they would be smart enough to keep the best prospects. It's their job to figure out who will make it and who will not.

 

I was all for signing Pedro, but for three years. I was all for signing Damon. Three years.

Players tend to decline. The Red Sox shouldn't take the risk for being on the hook $13 and $12 million dollars to watch Pedro go Greg Maddux on us, and Damon to pull a Bernie Williams.

 

You want to trade two Red Sox relief prospects plus Murphy plus Pedoria. Do you know what that does? You create a massive hole at the end of that bullpen. You then lose your 2B of '07 and beyond. You got to keep plugging holes, but with what? Let's trade more prospects. Then you fill the holes, probably with nothing special, seeing what's out on the market, you're left with a barren farm system.

 

Example: The Yankees badly paid for trading away their prospects in '04 and '05. They couldn't get Randy Johnson at the deadline. (BTW, the D-Backs were offered Arroyo and Lester for Johnson. Oops.) They couldn't upgrade their pitching staff in '05. They did get lucky though.