will red sox sign clemens and trade beckett?

[adam123]

i just read on fox sports that red sox offerd beckett for a closer if they sign clemens can this happen ...humm

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

uhhh link?

[jacksonianmarch]

yeah, will need linky

[riverside sluggers]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6270140

 

Ken Rosenthal just said "Its not inconceivable that the Sox could sign Clemens then trade Beckett for a closer, they didnt rule out the possibility when teams were asking for him at the Winter meetings". He then goes on to say "Still they do have him under control for the next 4 years"

 

Its not likely to happen

[adam123]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6270140

 

Ken Rosenthal just said "Its not inconceivable that the Sox could sign Clemens then trade Beckett for a closer, they didnt rule out the possibility when teams were asking for him at the Winter meetings". He then goes on to say "Still they do have him under control for the next 4 years"

 

Its not likely to happen

 

thanks man totally forgot to post link .. i hope that does not happen

[MANNYHOF24]

I dont want to sacrifice 5+ years of Beckett for one year of Clemens

[adam123]

but if we could bring in clemens ... that will be a great staff

[jacksonianmarch]

oh the folly of youth

[adam123]

man i think we could have one of best rotation in baseball d-mat ,schilling , beckett, paps,clemens,and good ole wake

[schillingouttheks]

...If we trade Beckett, he can't be in our rotation...

[adam123]

...If we trade Beckett' date=' he can't be in our rotation...[/quote']

 

ooppss ..sorry on that one

[EvilDonut]

Clemens will most likely want to join a team midway through the season. So you can either have 5 some seasons of Beckett or half of a season of Clemens. Its not that hard of a decision.

[Mr Crunchy]

ya but we dont need to trade for clemens

only pay him what??

20M for 3 months??

 

f*** him

hes october cancer

 

id sign him may thru september

[scaffolds]

Trading a 26yrs Beckett isn't just a bad move, but a move that the organization could be sorry for years.

[jacksonianmarch]

Trading a 26yrs Beckett isn't just a bad move' date=' but a move that the organization could be sorry for years.[/quote']

 

as it turns out, trading for a 26 yr old Beckett is a move an organization could regret for yrs as well.

[scaffolds]

as it turns out' date=' trading for a 26 yr old Beckett is a move an organization could regret for yrs as well.[/quote']

 

The chances for that are a lot slimer than the other way around.

[SchillingIsTheNatural]

Do not trade Josh Beckett. He had a decent first season in the AL East and has not hit his prime. He had some bumps in the road but with his talent and hitting his prime years....I only see him getting better and more comfortable.

 

Roger Clemens is overrated based on the fact he has been pitching in the NL the last couple seasons. Would I take him in the Red Sox rotation? Absolutly. Would I give up Josh Beckett and replace him with Clemens? Hell no.

 

Unless K-Rod, Houston Street, or Joel Zumaya is involved somehow....I'm real reluctant to trading a top of the rotation starter.

[scaffolds]

Josh Becketts is part of the Red Sox future, specially when more than likely Schillings and Clemens would retired after the 2007 season.

[jacksonianmarch]

decent first year? Wow, your expectations are LOW.

[edge4414]

There is no way Beckett gets traded. Rosenthal starts this because the Sox didn't say an absolute "no" to a team that asked about his availability. Why should they do that for any player. It doesn't hurt to listen.

Furthemore to really question Rosenthal and his info and opinions he just said on FSNE that "it would take an elite closer like Lidge to get Beckett". What is he drinking?

[scaffolds]

Jackson, by any chance do you who lead the Sox in victories in 2006?

[jacksonianmarch]

Jackson' date=' by any chance do you who lead the Sox in victories in 2006?[/quote']

 

victories are a team stat. His era was Randy Johnson like, and RJ had more victories. Is that to say RJ had the better yr or did each of them suck badly, but their teams bailed them out.

[a700hitter]

as it turns out' date=' trading for a 26 yr old Beckett is a move an organization could regret for yrs as well.[/quote']It's a move that the Yankee organization will regret for years.

[jacksonianmarch]

It's a move that the Yankee organization will regret for years.

 

the only regret is he wasnt dealt to the sox in 2003.

[a700hitter]

the only regret is he wasnt dealt to the sox in 2003.

His ERA was awful against the Yankees but the 2-2 record vs. the Yankees was not terrible-- the same as Wang's record vs. the Red Sox.

[ANiMAL]

decent first year? Wow' date=' your expectations are LOW.[/quote']

 

Beckett was hit ir miss last year. the only reason his ERA was so high was that he got pounded in a couple of games, its not like is ER was high consistantly. He pitched more games better than worse. Id say about 9 s*** games and 14 phenominal games scratched in with 10 middle-of-the-road games. Id say thats a decent start for a young pitcher in the AL east.

[jacksonianmarch]

Beckett was hit ir miss last year. the only reason his ERA was so high was that he got pounded in a couple of games' date=' its not like is ER was high consistantly. He pitched more games better than worse. Id say about 9 s*** games and 14 phenominal games scratched in with 10 middle-of-the-road games. Id say thats a decent start for a young pitcher in the AL east.[/quote']

 

his era was very high consistently. EVERY pitcher has bad stretches that f*** their ERA. He had 7 games that were awful, plus multiple other games that were pretty damn bad. The final numbers sucked, dont fool yourself. Yr 1 was a failure in all aspects aside from durability, which was actually a major success.

[a700hitter]

I'll take 5 awful starters that win 16 games apiece. f*** their ERA.

[ANiMAL]

his era was very high consistently. EVERY pitcher has bad stretches that f*** their ERA. He had 7 games that were awful' date=' plus multiple other games that were pretty damn bad. The final numbers sucked, dont fool yourself. Yr 1 was a failure in all aspects aside from durability, which was actually a major success.[/quote']

 

well, again, he had more superior games than s***** games... thats above .500, ill take it anyday from a first year transfer

[jacksonianmarch]

well' date=' again, he had more superior games than s***** games... thats above .500, ill take it anyday from a first year transfer[/quote']

 

Wakefield was over .500 2 yrs ago in good vs bad starts. Did you trade the NL rookie of the yr, a 10 win rookie power pitcher, and 2 bullpen power arms for the production equivalent of Wakefield and a cash dump in Lowell?