Mark Buehrle?

[example1]

If we could lock up Buerhle long term as part of the trade' date=' I 'd be willing to part with anyone in the minors other than Bucholz or Ellsbury. I just don't think they can get a long term deal signed. Who is Buerhle's agent?[/quote']

 

Are you drunk? You would hold onto two prospects in the face of potentially getting a #2 (a SOLID #2) a starter? What have you done with a700?!?! You bastards!!

 

(I would also hold onto those prospects, it's just shocking to see.)

[CrespoBlows]

Who is Buerhle's agent?

 

Jeff Berry.

[a700hitter]

Are you drunk? You would hold onto two prospects in the face of potentially getting a #2 (a SOLID #2) a starter? What have you done with a700?!?! You bastards!!

 

(I would also hold onto those prospects, it's just shocking to see.)

If push came to shove, and they wouldn't budge and we could sign Buehrle long term, I'd probably part with Bucholz, but not Ellsbury. I think he is a special talent.

[TheKilo]

http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

 

Hahahaha...I love it.

 

As for Buerhle...look. I started the thread. I'd love to see the guy on the Sox. Could a package of Bowden/Lowrie/WMP get it done? If they can do a 4 yr deal with an option for a 5th, (Buerhle is reportedly asking for a deal in the 5 yr/$70-75 million range), then I think you gotta get it done. Buerhle is a horse, eats innings, works quick...I really like the guy.

 

Just don't trade Buchholz or Ellsbury.

[seabeachfred]

Thorman sucks. And you would absolutely have to add more to get Konerko as well, not like we even need Konerko.

 

 

 

I don't have "better ideas", I'm just pointing out that yours are completely unrealistic.

 

 

 

It might take more than Crisp? Really? You think? Jarrod Saltalamacchia is nearly untouchable, I don't think they'll trade him for Crisp and change.

 

GAH

 

Faith, tell where the Braves are going to play Salatamacchia? If you say first base, then you are right and we have no chance in hell of getting him. However, they were very high on Thormon in ST and they project him as a good hitting first baseman with average power. Either way it doesn't hurt trying to see if he's available. We are going to need a catcher after 2008 and from the looks of things it seems that Kottreras is regressing if anything.

[schillingouttheks]

Hahahaha...I love it.

 

As for Buerhle...look. I started the thread. I'd love to see the guy on the Sox. Could a package of Bowden/Lowrie/WMP get it done? If they can do a 4 yr deal with an option for a 5th, (Buerhle is reportedly asking for a deal in the 5 yr/$70-75 million range), then I think you gotta get it done. Buerhle is a horse, eats innings, works quick...I really like the guy.

 

Just don't trade Buchholz or Ellsbury.

 

Some people on White Sox boards that I've been skimming through say they wouldn't part with Buehrle unless Buchholz was included. He's supposedly the "first and foremost piece."

 

... If they really think that the Sox are going to part with Buchholz, they're getting their hopes up.

[KeepTheFaith1229]

Faith' date=' tell where the Braves are going to play Salatamacchia? If you say first base, then you are right and we have no chance in hell of getting him. However, they were very high on Thormon in ST and they project him as a good hitting first baseman with average power. Either way it doesn't hurt trying to see if he's available. We are going to need a catcher after 2008 and from the looks of things it seems that Kottreras is regressing if anything.[/quote']

 

Yes we will need a catcher, but Salty would be very hard to get. He'll probably end up at first with them, if we were to get him a package would have to start out with Ellsbury to even get them thinking.

[schillingouttheks]

Yes we will need a catcher' date=' but Salty would be very hard to get. He'll probably end up at first with them, if we were to get him a package would have to start out with Ellsbury to even get them thinking.[/quote']

 

They'll ship him if Ellsbury is included in a package. They'd rather get their needs from dealing him as a C (much more value) than placing him at 1B. He's much more valuable as a C. He's a 25-homer guy. How often do you get that out of your catcher?

[KeepTheFaith1229]

Well I'm saying if he stays with the Braves his future is probably as a 1B.

[ksushi]

 

KSushi, I would add Bates to the list of Buchholz, and Anderson of untradeables. Although, for personal reasons I would add Ellsbury to that list (I live in Oregon and he was a star at Oregon state--I also love his style of play and htink he would be a crowd favorite/star for a decade). I think the Sox may decide between Anderson and Bates in the next year or two and then deal the other. They both have tremendous upsides and skills, and their difference in skills (with Anderson probably the higher prospect) is counteracted by the fact that Anderson could probably get you more in a trade. :dunno:

 

 

 

.

 

Anderson is 19 hits above .300 with good power and won the quality AB's award. AT 19. This guy is a stud. He will be a blue chip that will top all the charts for years to come. He is a beast. Bates and Anderson are not in the same class. Bates is 23 in single A doing things that Anderson is doing now at 19 at the same level.

 

 

19 years old! He's the man. He has Texiera/Morneau potential.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Bates is a decent prospect but hes not a deal-breaker. Lars Anderson on the other hand is a stud, keep him.

[ksushi]

It looks like the Mets are aiming for Contreras and not Buehrle and wouldn't be interested in a potential rental or a contract negotiation/extension thing.

 

The Braves have a bigger need for Buehrle but I'm of the opinion the Sox could put together a better package for the ChiSox. Bucholz and Ellsbury are going absolutely no where, but Lester, Bowden, Lowrie and others may be on the table.

[example1]

Anderson is 19 hits above .300 with good power and won the quality AB's award. AT 19. This guy is a stud. He will be a blue chip that will top all the charts for years to come. He is a beast. Bates and Anderson are not in the same class. Bates is 23 in single A doing things that Anderson is doing now at 19 at the same level.

 

 

19 years old! He's the man. He has Texiera/Morneau potential.

 

There is no question that Anderson is the better prospect. But if he can be used in a deal for, say Zambrano or Cabrera, AND the Sox felt that Bates had some major league potential, I could see using Anderson. The fact is that they will not co-exist on the Red Sox, so at Anderson's age and with the time it will take between now and when he is on the Sox, the Sox would have the time to compensate for a loss of a prospect of his caliber (gaining, of course, something significant by trading him) through FA or draft or Bates.

 

I understand how phenomenal Anderson is, however, and understand anyone's hesitance at even discussing moving him.

[KeepTheFaith1229]

If Julian's really injured, I think Theo makes Beurhle a Red Sox ASAP.

[jacksonianmarch]

Anderson is 19 hits above .300 with good power and won the quality AB's award. AT 19. This guy is a stud. He will be a blue chip that will top all the charts for years to come. He is a beast. Bates and Anderson are not in the same class. Bates is 23 in single A doing things that Anderson is doing now at 19 at the same level.

 

 

19 years old! He's the man. He has Texiera/Morneau potential.

 

hey, Lars Anderson, meet Eric Duncan. A power hitting 1b with a good eye who is being moved slowly through the system. He is so far from the bigs that he certainly cannot be viewed as untouchable, especially if you have the opportunity to land a top of the rotation pitcher.

[jacksonianmarch]

You have better trade ideas? Fine' date=' let me hear them. I'm all ears. I was throwing out my ideas of how we can improve the team. Youk can move to third base next year which he still can play very well as I saw this past Friday. The Boston papers and numerous boards, including this one have hinted that the Red Sox will not resign Lowell to a contract after this season. I would like him back but all I keep hearing is that the Red Sox are not interested in a long term contract for the guy.[/quote']

 

Thorman can play the OF and Salty can play 1b. He is a switch hitting catcher who is 23 and can hit the ball a mile. The Braves are experts at talent evaluation and getting the most out of their talent. If you think Schuerholtz would make that move, then I am getting a little concerned about your potential for senility, lol. I think they move Salty, but look at the teams out there with old catchers and backups too far away or non-existant (Yankees, Tigers, Red Sox, Blue Jays, A's just in the AL). Salty will be a major piece in a package likely for pitching as the Braves are going to need to reload on that end and I think they are coming to the conclusion that Davies isnt a future ace.

[BSN07]

Good article over at bostonherald.com

 

Basically says, ya it be nice to have Buherle, but we don't need him. Theo has the leverage of saying he doesn't really need to make an impact move at the deadline at this point. Which is completely true. If there has ever been a season where were not demanding some kind of move, it's this season. He also goes onto say that the Chisox will not be allowing a window for contract negotiations, and if this is reall the case then I'll pass. I don't want to see any of out top prospects shipped out to an AL rival for a 3 month rental. Because if he hits the FA market, he is most likely to go to St. Lous.

 

Let the some other team rape there farm system for a 3 month rental( I for one hope the Yanks do it). Let them send Chamberlin and Kennedy and whoever else. I hope they get desperate enough ther dumb enough to trade Hughes. I know this is unlikely, but a guy can dream right?

[jacksonianmarch]

Good article over at bostonherald.com

 

Basically says, ya it be nice to have Buherle, but we don't need him. Theo has the leverage of saying he doesn't really need to make an impact move at the deadline at this point. Which is completely true. If there has ever been a season where were not demanding some kind of move, it's this season. He also goes onto say that the Chisox will not be allowing a window for contract negotiations, and if this is reall the case then I'll pass. I don't want to see any of out top prospects shipped out to an AL rival for a 3 month rental. Because if he hits the FA market, he is most likely to go to St. Lous.

 

Let the some other team rape there farm system for a 3 month rental( I for one hope the Yanks do it). Let them send Chamberlin and Kennedy and whoever else. I hope they get desperate enough ther dumb enough to trade Hughes. I know this is unlikely, but a guy can dream right?

 

It all depends. I mean, right now the yankees arent even in your rear view. They are so far back that worrying about them is moot at this point, even if they get Buehrle. You have to look at your own team and see how they stack up in the postseason. With a healthy Schilling, a rotation of Beckett, DMats, and Schill in a 5 or 7 game series (with Wake thrown in for game 4 in a 7 gamer) is pretty tough. But if Schill is down and Tavarez truly is hurt, you will need to rely on Wakefield for 2 games of a 7 game series and DMats will have to be a consistent ace, which is something that he has shown flashes of, but not sustained success as. A deal for Buerhle makes Schilling's return moot and gives you a top 3 hammer that can face any team and stand up to it.

 

Also, if Schilling comes back throwing 87mph then you know he likely has some structural damage in that shoulder that is unseen on MRI and you'll have to brave the final 90 games of the season without him. Buehrle can help there too. Because having Gabbard as a spot guy is nice, but you dont want him in the 5 slot for the rest of the way and Lester is looking worse and worse of late. It bears watching. But if Theo thinks Schill is returning to form, then this article is correct. You dont need Buerhle. If the article is wrong, then assume that Theo thinks 38 pizzas is cooked.

[jacksonianmarch]

Steve Phillips is saying on XM that the deal being worked on is...

 

Gabbard, Lester and Ellsbury for Buehrle and MacDougal. The sticking point is the 72 hour window.

[MarkTaylor]

Steve Phillips is saying on XM that the deal being worked on is...

 

Gabbard, Lester and Ellsbury for Buehrle and MacDougal. The sticking point is the 72 hour window.

 

ouch....i guess if you want to win now, and continue to win you have to get rid of either Lester or Ellsbury...The trigger wouldn't be pulled on this one until Schilling is back from the DL (I'm assuming gabbard is called up and replaces Schill in the rotation, unless he absolutley stinks up the joint)

 

If Lester gets traded, put all your pitching eggs in the basket of Buchholtz

[rician blast]

Now that I think about it' date=' a rotation of Buerhle, DMats and Beckett [i']would f***ing suck on my end[/i].

 

"Suck on your 'end' "? That's disgusting, Jacko, keep your fantasies to yourself.

[Cityofchampions33]

ouch....i guess if you want to win now, and continue to win you have to get rid of either Lester or Ellsbury...The trigger wouldn't be pulled on this one until Schilling is back from the DL (I'm assuming gabbard is called up and replaces Schill in the rotation, unless he absolutley stinks up the joint)

 

If Lester gets traded, put all your pitching eggs in the basket of Buchholtz

 

That's probably why they're letting Gabbard have two starts instead of skipping his next start on the offday and sending him back. That's a lot to give up for Buehrle, and I would much rather ship off Lowrie than Ellsbury. I have no problem trading Lester, Lowrie, and Gabbard, but yeah, the ChiSox need to give us that 72 hour window, otherwise walk away.

[seabeachfred]

Again, we are going to need a leadoff man with speed very shortly, like next year, and Ellsbury must NOT be traded. That would be lunacy. If Williams is going to hold us up like that, then he can keep Buehrle and try to get what he can from the Yankees. Epstein must hold firm and say that Bucholz and Ellsbury are non-starters. Whether Crisp is starting to turn things around somewhat now is beside the point. He is not a good leadoff man and does not have the upside or potential that Ellsbury could give us. You don't trade talent like that away. The Red Sox have done a lot of that in the past and Theo said he would stop that when he became GM. Well, this is the time to STOP THAT in its tracks.

 

There are other quality people we could trade. Besides, the White Sox are the ones who want to sell. We should be the ones with the leverage. Of course, it would have been nice if Wakefield and Taverez hadn't looked so crappy in their last starts.

[seabeachfred]

Thorman can play the OF and Salty can play 1b. He is a switch hitting catcher who is 23 and can hit the ball a mile. The Braves are experts at talent evaluation and getting the most out of their talent. If you think Schuerholtz would make that move' date=' then I am getting a little concerned about your potential for senility, lol. I think they move Salty, but look at the teams out there with old catchers and backups too far away or non-existant (Yankees, Tigers, Red Sox, Blue Jays, A's just in the AL). Salty will be a major piece in a package likely for pitching as the Braves are going to need to reload on that end and I think they are coming to the conclusion that Davies isnt a future ace.[/quote']

 

Well thanks for worrying about my well being Jacko, and I'll tell you what. After last night no more Salty for awhile. We need to worry about the here and now and, frankly, I don't like what I'm hearing. If those rumors from Steve Philips are true Theo is about to go back on his word about not giving away the future if he decides to deal Jacoby Ellsbury to the White Sox. Why the hell are we allowing Williams to call the shots? He's the guy who wants to clean house; we ought to have some leverage of our own and Ellsbury and Bucholz should be non-starters in any trade talks. Bowden, Moss, Lester? Fine! And there are others like Bard and Murphy; maybe even Pena if we can fool the Sox GM. But there are players you just don't give up and the two I mentioned are in that group.

[Rdsxmbnt]

I highly doubt the Red Sox trade Ellsbury, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong but I have a very hard time seeing the Red Sox trading Ellsbury given the potential need in CF.

[seabeachfred]

I highly doubt the Red Sox trade Ellsbury' date=' I'll be the first to admit I was wrong but I have a very hard time seeing the Red Sox trading Ellsbury given the potential need in CF.[/quote']

 

All of us have made wrong predictions as to standings and personnel, but I was right on about Pedroia for the last two years and I would be the garage and half my house on Jacoby Ellsbury. He is too good a young player to even consider trading. He is also a very uncommon young man besides his tremendous talent. Devout, classy, and hard working have always attached themselves to this person and the guy can play baseball. There are certain players you do not let get away and he is one of them. There are now three players who must not be traded away---Ellsbury, Bucholz and Lowrie. The latter is making great strides and we can finally see the day when we replace Johnny Damon with a superior centerfielder and finally put the shortstop curse behind us with Jed Lowrie. Bucholz is going to be an outstanding ML pitcher; he has all the pitches and the moxie. I don't want to see these guys in another uniform because we would soon regret that. The Red Sox have disposed of good young talent before; we should cease and desist from doing that now. Besides, we have other young prospects we could trade to the White Sox if they are really interested in making a trade.

[yeszir]

The more I think about it, the More I want Buehrle on our team.

[inkman]

The more I think about it' date=' the More I want Buehrle on our team.[/quote']

 

No matter the cost?

[lasordas speed dial]

No matter the cost?

 

Would be a good move for the Sox. Keep him away from the Bronx and you'll have the East wrapped up.

[yeszir]

No matter the cost?

I didn't say that, but where I was previously opposed to giving up Ellsbury I'm starting to think that it may make sense now.