Why the youth movement is OVERRATED...

[Gom]

Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy and Clay Buchholz are 2-17 with a 7.52 ERA. They’ve thrown only 137.2 innings.

 

If either of our teams were willing to give up just ONE of these guys in a package, one of us would have Johan.

 

Thank you Cashman for costing us a playoff spot with your stupidity.

 

Red Sox fans can thank Theo for NOT winning the division and having to face the Angels in a best of 5.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

I wouldn't blame theo for not trading Bucholz. He was prmising, and still is once his s*** gets together. Only thing i would blame theo for is not improving this team around the deadline with better bullpen help. And even then that's not that serious. This team is doing fine, they just can't seem to be consistent with winning, and everyone wants to become injured apparently.

[Gom]

If you guys don't get out of the first round, I would blame Theo if I was you.

[26 to 6]

Damn Gom, the horse is dead already.

[BoSox21]

If you guys don't get out of the first round' date=' I would blame Theo if I was you.[/quote']

 

ill still blame the bullpen

[Paradisecity]

Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy and Clay Buchholz are 2-17 with a 7.52 ERA. They’ve thrown only 137.2 innings.

 

If either of our teams were willing to give up just ONE of these guys in a package, one of us would have Johan.

 

Red Sox fans can thank Theo for NOT winning the division and having to face the Angels in a best of 5.

 

One of these pitchers....

 

and Jed Lowrie.

and Masterson.

And 138 million dollars.

 

 

Tiny little facts being left out there.

[rician blast]

One of these pitchers....

 

and Jed Lowrie.

and Masterson.

And 138 million dollars.

 

 

Tiny little facts being left out there.

 

 

I was just going to comment on that. The risk associated with locking into an 8 year deal worth nearly $140m was as much a deterrent to making the deal as the loss of young talent.

 

BTW, anyone remember Mike Hampton? Kevin Brown? How 'bout Denny Neagle, Chan Ho Park, Matt Clement, and Barry Zito?

[Paradisecity]

for that 138 Million you can resign Beckett Long Term, Resign Youk long term, have a quality reliever in Masterson, have a quality infielder in Lowrie, and have a pitcher with MLB caliber stuff whose lost his location as a work in progress in the minors.

 

I'm not exactly sure how trading for Johan Santana is a no brainer. From a long term organizational standpoint the opposite seems like the no brainer.

[rician blast]

The Sox traded for Josh Beckett, moving top talent in Hanley Ramirez and perceived talent in Anibal Sanchez (ignoring Lowell for now). The difference between that and a potential Santana deal?

 

Beckett had already thrown a team on his back in winning the W.S. and was under contract at "only" (if I recall) $4m for '06, $6-7m for '07 and around $10m for '08.

 

HUGE difference.

[ORS]

I'm not exactly sure how trading for Johan Santana is a no brainer. From a long term organizational standpoint the opposite seems like the no brainer.

It isn't a no brainer for exactly the reason you mention. The long term benefit will be greatest for the team who gets the numerous players and youth.

 

What you are going to have a hard time doing is getting guys like Gom and a700 to buy into long term benefit over the immediate gratification of the "now" player. Their view is you worry about the future only once you get there. And then you have the other polar opposite in Jacko, who will assure that the 2012 Yankees will pull off a record breaking wire to wire championship season on the strength of guys they plan to draft in '09 (not to mention the supreme excellence of everyone else they've already drafted).

[Gom]

It isn't a no brainer for exactly the reason you mention. The long term benefit will be greatest for the team who gets the numerous players and youth.

 

What you are going to have a hard time doing is getting guys like Gom and a700 to buy into long term benefit over the immediate gratification of the "now" player. Their view is you worry about the future only once you get there. And then you have the other polar opposite in Jacko, who will assure that the 2012 Yankees will pull off a record breaking wire to wire championship season on the strength of guys they plan to draft in '09 (not to mention the supreme excellence of everyone else they've already drafted).

Jacko is lost, we all know that. The thing ORS, that you've never realized, which is ridiculously surprising is this: Why not do both? You can. You have money. We have more. I don't know your farm system, or ours in depth. Here are a few names I've heard Jacko talk about: Marquez, McCutchen, Austin Jackson, Betances, Melancon, Sanchez, Hilligoss. I really don't know much about them, nor do I really care. However, why not trade a few? That's what's great about the draft. You can replenish those guys. As much as he's an idiot, especially with not signing Cole, Cashman, according to the press, is doing a decent job of drafting young talent. Why not continue to draft according to plan [i know it's a crapshoot as well] while using the farm system to help you fill holes at the major league level? We are not the Minnesota Twins. We are the Yankees and Red Sox, respectively. No one has ever shown me a reason why neither team can do BOTH.

I was just going to comment on that. The risk associated with locking into an 8 year deal worth nearly $140m was as much a deterrent to making the deal as the loss of young talent.

 

BTW, anyone remember Mike Hampton? Kevin Brown? How 'bout Denny Neagle, Chan Ho Park, Matt Clement, and Barry Zito?

 

Mike Mussina, Jason Isringhausen, Greg Maddux, Andy Pettitte, Bartolo Colon. These were long-term contracts that worked out. Your point?

 

Here is what I don't understand about all of you guys, Sox and Yankee fans alike.

 

You would rather have a crappy player with a small contract than a good player with a huge contract.

 

I don't follow your Red Sox as in-depth as I do the Yankees, but here's what I mean. No is killing Jeter. He is one of the highest paid players in baseball, I believe 8th. However, because he's "Derek Jeter" and has, over the course of his career, gotten a big hit here or there, and is overall, an above average offensive player at his position, no one says anything. Would you rather have Reyes at 5.8 mil? Or Rollins at 7 mil? Or Hanley at 11.6 mil? Of course you would. However, I'd rather have Jeter at 18+ mil than Betemit at league minimum. That's what I don't get about you guys. You complain about the money like you're a small market team, both sides. You don't lose money in New York on a winner. I'm sure the same holds true in Boston. Buchholz, Ellsbury, Masterson, and Lowrie will never come close to being Santana. Same thing from our side.

 

Young DOES NOT EQUATE to good. Good equates to good.

 

Remember the debates during the off-season? Who was going to be better, Buchholz or Hughes? Kennedy was a Glavine-type clone. Who was the better CF, Melky or Jacoby? Instead, Santana is 11-7 with a 2.75 ERA and a 1.13 WHIP, while getting stronger over his last 10 starts. Rowand, a guy I advocated the Yankees signing, has a .797 OPS and is playing a great CF. He's also having an off year, and is still a better player than either of us have in CF. Fellas, don't believe the hype about young players. Joel Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus back in March, said this about Melky: "but he’s going to pop 80 extra-base hits and slug .500 in a season very, very soon." I laughed when I read this. He can't hit the changeup away as a righty, he has terrible baseball instincts, and he get's beat with fastballs away and up in the zone as a lefty. This is the part about watching the game I keep telling you. You have people like JHB and ORS here, among others, that believe it's an extreme. That watching the game is a useless endeavor in analysis. It's not. It's a package. Just watching the game is not enough. Analyzing the players statistically is not enough. Looking at both is the way to go. On another note, Tony Pena saw a flaw in Pudge's release point and how he was setting his feet in throwing, and this was the reason for the ball hooking to third on throws to second. He has made three great throws in a row. You don't see that in a stat sheet. Most of you aren't equipped to see this as you haven't played. I have, and I do. So does Thumper. Since he plays ball for a living, I assume he's much better at it than I could ever be. Baseball is a game of adjustments. I didn't see Melky adjusting, and now he's back in Scranton. His stats and his age predicted a completely different thing than what he ended up doing/being.

 

Young doesn't translate into good tomorrow. In fact, most young players never go anywhere. I hope this season has taught both sides that, when given the opportunity, trading prospects for established veterans, like maybe, one of the best pitchers on the planet, is something you shouldn't pass up and will benefit your team, not only in the short run, but in the long run, the majority of the time.

[BoSox21]

Here is what I don't understand about all of you guys, Sox and Yankee fans alike.

 

You would rather have a crappy player with a small contract than a good player with a huge contract.

 

The idea of every team in baseball is to get the best team possible using as little money as possible and to do that, you need good players who are cost-controlled for several years. This is the primary reason Kevin Youkilis wasn't traded for Mark Teixeira.

 

Granted, we often talk like the money an organization spends is our own money but Sox fans realize by now about how much the current ownership is willing to spend on the team's payroll so we get a bit upset when we see money wasted on long-term deals for big money when the guy most likely won't work out for the duration of the deal.

 

In the end, the idea is to get a good player with a small contract.

[Gom]

The idea of every team in baseball is to get the best team possible using as little money as possible and to do that, you need good players who are cost-controlled for several years. This is the primary reason Kevin Youkilis wasn't traded for Mark Teixeira.

 

Granted, we often talk like the money an organization spends is our own money but Sox fans realize by now about how much the current ownership is willing to spend on the team's payroll so we get a bit upset when we see money wasted on long-term deals for big money when the guy most likely won't work out for the duration of the deal.

 

In the end, the idea is to get a good player with a small contract.

Of course. No debating there. Saying that the idea is to get a good player with a small contract is like saying you want a hot girl who can cook. Kind of a no-brainer. The question remains...do you want a good player with a huge contract or a bad player with a small contract.

[BoSox21]

you obviously want a good player with a huge contract but the more Pedroias, Papelbons, Lesters, Youkilis' and Lowries a team has, the more huge contracts they can dish out

 

But its never about dishing out a huge contract just cause they can, the more money a free agent will demand, the more things a team has to take into account.

 

Sabathia will get a huge deal, but there are concerns about him in the playoffs and the amount of innings he's pitched in recent years

 

Sheets will get a huge deal, but there are concerns about his ability to stay healthy. Same with Harden

 

A team that will spend huge money on a guy who will flame out is financially handcuffed for years to come, only the Yankees and to a lesser extent, the Red Sox can reasonably eat some of that money.

[ORS]

Jacko is lost' date=' we all know that. The thing ORS, that you've never realized, which is ridiculously surprising is this: Why not do both? You can. You have money. We have more. I don't know your farm system, or ours in depth. Here are a few names I've heard Jacko talk about: Marquez, McCutchen, Austin Jackson, Betances, Melancon, Sanchez, Hilligoss. I really don't know much about them, nor do I really care. However, why not trade a few? That's what's great about the draft. You can replenish those guys. As much as he's an idiot, especially with not signing Cole, Cashman, according to the press, is doing a decent job of drafting young talent. Why not continue to draft according to plan [i know it's a crapshoot as well'] while using the farm system to help you fill holes at the major league level? We are not the Minnesota Twins. We are the Yankees and Red Sox, respectively. No one has ever shown me a reason why neither team can do BOTH.

One, I don't know that you can do both. It takes multiple years of drafts, or a uniquely special draft class like the Sox '05 draft, to get the number of players necessary to trade for elite talent. Two, don't trust Jacko and his ramblings about your system. There Sox prospects similar to almost everyone on that list (except Jackson) who you haven't heard about here because they really aren't worth mentioning. Am I saying these guys are garbage? No, but they don't generate much interest outside of Yankee circles are unlikely to get you a return of elite talent, no matter how many of them you throw together. Three, I was in favor of trading for Santana. Although, my caveat, based on what I'd seen to date, was do not trade Buchholz and make sure Lester is in the deal. Glad that didn't happen now.

 

And, given the benefit if hindsight, I'm glad they didn't even if Buchholz was in the deal. Masterson is looking like a good bet to at least be a quality mid-rotation starter or dominant MRP. Lowrie is looking like an all-star at SS, a position this team has had a hard time filling with a very good player since Nomar got hurt.

[Gom]

We all make mistakes, but I thought it was crazy for you to include Lester. Lester had a track record here, I thought Buchholz was a joke. Then again, I thought Kennedy was better then he was, so maybe, like you, I bought into the hype surrounding my players. As for both? Why not? Think about this. What do you figure the Twins spend? Or the Diamonbacks? Or the Marlins? Teams that do well in bringing up young players put a great majority of their money in the farm system and scouting. Why not spend the same, or even better, more? We still have money left over at the end of the day. Case in point with the Yankees. We have nearly 60 million coming off the books. So put 10 million in the draft, and 50 million in free agency. It's all about money anways, and when you realize the Yankees have no luxury tax this coming year, it's peanuts.

 

If you logically think about it, there is ZERO reason to not do both. It's actually good business. A solid farm system that feeds the team with talent and is used as trade bait while spending money to plug in the holes that your system doesn't fill from within. You will not only be better overall, but you will cut payroll as it will be unnecessary.

 

Think outside the box ORS. It makes sense for both organizations. Part of the problem I have in baseball is absolutes [which is the biggest thing I dispute with you and Jacko]. What I hate about Cashman is that he is so far skewed on the youth movement, he doesn't see that this isn't Franchise mode in MLB 08. There will be another "Kennedy" or "Hughes" at a much higher rate than a "Santana" or a "Sabathia". The old way of George in the 80's of buying aging free agents and poor scouting/development didn't go anywhere. The new way of Cashman in 2000's of eschewing veterans to hold onto below average prospects doesn't work.

 

The Gene Michael way, of careful [and lucky] scouting/development, coupled with good free agents such as Key, and trades, such as O'Neill and Wells and Justice, etc., is the way to go. A happy medium. Think about it. Manny as a free agent. Same as Foulke. Beckett and Lowell in trades. Paps and Youk and Pedrioa and Lester. You copied what we did, and to a high level of success.

 

When you fall in love with one facet, whether it is free agency, trading, or drafting, it doesn't work. You need all three in varying levels of success. Cashman, and it looks like Theo now as well, is falling in love way too much with player development.

 

GM of the year? Brewers GM. Even if Laporta develops into a superstar, he traded for arguably the best pitcher in baseball this year. He gets two picks when he leaves. So he traded a prospect for two prospects, and the best pitcher in the NL for 3 months, and quite possibly, now, the most dangerous team in the playoffs this side of the Angels. He also signed Gagne. Can't win them all, but he's done a better job than both of our GM's put together.

[BoSox21]

is this a debate about trading prospects for a supposed "sure thing" or signing free agents for big money long-term deals?

 

personally, I think Cashman is still gun-shy after the 2005 debacle of Johnson, Pavano & Wright

[Gom]

Debate on trading prospects. Other people wanted to change it about RSN's favorite topic, money.

[rician blast]

Mike Mussina' date=' Jason Isringhausen, Greg Maddux, Andy Pettitte, Bartolo Colon. These were long-term contracts that worked out. Your point?[/quote']

 

Good question. My point is simple...that for every big contract that worked out, there is one that didn't and that when the signing fails it is a very, very costly mistake.

 

Knowing the Sox FO philosophy (or thinking I at least understand it a bit), they try and balance today with tomorrow, winning with remaining fiscally responsible. To me that means a huge contract that doesn't work out is NOT going to be simply absorbed...there will be repercussions, examples of which might include (a) trying to get by on even less costly and, most likely, less experienced players or ( realizing that the team can not compete as currently assembled and conceding for a few years until the team is again in a position to contend.

 

Either way, I think what it means to the fan is that your team potentially will not be a viable contender as a result of the contract that did not pay off. So my own personal trepidation with these $100m+, 7-8 year deals is that if the player falls apart, healthwise or performance wise, it could result in the Sox not competing for several years as they try and recover, without strapping the organization finanially. Important point here...I'm not saying the Sox organization can't absorb a poor signing...I'm concerned they won't be willing to...and that they'll put a lesser quality/less costly product on the field in future years to compensate.

 

So it isn't, in my mind, an issue of rather having a "crappy player with a small contract than a good player with a huge contract" it is concern over what a failed big signing will do to the team long-term.

 

Seems to me that a couple of big signings like a Santana which fail could leave a team faced with the prospect of either rebuilding or, God forbid, ending up with a $200m payroll! (OK, judge my post on everything BUT the last line, please)

[ORS]

We all make mistakes, but I thought it was crazy for you to include Lester. Lester had a track record here, I thought Buchholz was a joke. Then again, I thought Kennedy was better then he was, so maybe, like you, I bought into the hype surrounding my players. As for both? Why not? Think about this. What do you figure the Twins spend? Or the Diamonbacks? Or the Marlins? Teams that do well in bringing up young players put a great majority of their money in the farm system and scouting. Why not spend the same, or even better, more? We still have money left over at the end of the day. Case in point with the Yankees. We have nearly 60 million coming off the books. So put 10 million in the draft, and 50 million in free agency. It's all about money anways, and when you realize the Yankees have no luxury tax this coming year, it's peanuts.

 

If you logically think about it, there is ZERO reason to not do both. It's actually good business. A solid farm system that feeds the team with talent and is used as trade bait while spending money to plug in the holes that your system doesn't fill from within. You will not only be better overall, but you will cut payroll as it will be unnecessary.

 

Think outside the box ORS. It makes sense for both organizations. Part of the problem I have in baseball is absolutes [which is the biggest thing I dispute with you and Jacko]. What I hate about Cashman is that he is so far skewed on the youth movement, he doesn't see that this isn't Franchise mode in MLB 08. There will be another "Kennedy" or "Hughes" at a much higher rate than a "Santana" or a "Sabathia". The old way of George in the 80's of buying aging free agents and poor scouting/development didn't go anywhere. The new way of Cashman in 2000's of eschewing veterans to hold onto below average prospects doesn't work.

 

The Gene Michael way, of careful [and lucky] scouting/development, coupled with good free agents such as Key, and trades, such as O'Neill and Wells and Justice, etc., is the way to go. A happy medium. Think about it. Manny as a free agent. Same as Foulke. Beckett and Lowell in trades. Paps and Youk and Pedrioa and Lester. You copied what we did, and to a high level of success.

 

When you fall in love with one facet, whether it is free agency, trading, or drafting, it doesn't work. You need all three in varying levels of success. Cashman, and it looks like Theo now as well, is falling in love way too much with player development.

 

GM of the year? Brewers GM. Even if Laporta develops into a superstar, he traded for arguably the best pitcher in baseball this year. He gets two picks when he leaves. So he traded a prospect for two prospects, and the best pitcher in the NL for 3 months, and quite possibly, now, the most dangerous team in the playoffs this side of the Angels. He also signed Gagne. Can't win them all, but he's done a better job than both of our GM's put together.

Gom, what you are talking about here is keeping the gems from the farm system and supplementing them with the talent on the FA market. Everyone is in favor of that.

 

What you originally posted was about taking 3 or 4 of those gems, and turning them into one superstar player. That muddies it up a bit. Now you are taking an area where the farm has produced and are creating even more holes to have to fill. This isn't doing both, it's robbing from one to pay the other. It's not so cut and dried.

[Gom]

Unless you're a braindead Yankee fan, in order for you to get superstar player, you're going to have to give up the gems. Once those gems come up to the big show, you need to replace them anyways. See, the thing is this...with a player like Youkilis....you don't need to worry about that position for 5 years at the minimum. It's not like you're expecting an impact player per year. Ok, look at guys the Red Sox gave up for Beckett and Lowell. The major jewel was Hanley. Was it worth it? Of course. Who's to say that when Hanley becomes a free agent, the Red Sox don't try to get him back?

 

It is easier to find gems than the finished product, ORS. Many of the so-called "gems" end up being nothing more than coal in your stockings. Not because I hate the Red Sox, but I hope the Sox miss the post-season by one game. Then I'll have all winter to tell you guys you f***ed up like we did.

 

Here's another way to look at it. The Yankees kept their crown jewels, and so did the Red Sox, when offered Santana. The Mets "bankrupted" their farm system to get Santana.

 

As of today, 8/22/08, the Yankees are a near-lock to miss the post-season for the first time since 1993. The Red Sox are battling it out with the White Sox/Twins for the right to lose to the Angels in the first round.

 

The Mets? With a depleted and decimated farm system?

 

First place.

[ORS]

Unless you're a braindead Yankee fan, in order for you to get superstar player, you're going to have to give up the gems. Once those gems come up to the big show, you need to replace them anyways. See, the thing is this...with a player like Youkilis....you don't need to worry about that position for 5 years at the minimum. It's not like you're expecting an impact player per year. Ok, look at guys the Red Sox gave up for Beckett and Lowell. The major jewel was Hanley. Was it worth it? Of course. Who's to say that when Hanley becomes a free agent, the Red Sox don't try to get him back?

 

It is easier to find gems than the finished product, ORS. Many of the so-called "gems" end up being nothing more than coal in your stockings. Not because I hate the Red Sox, but I hope the Sox miss the post-season by one game. Then I'll have all winter to tell you guys you f***ed up like we did.

 

Here's another way to look at it. The Yankees kept their crown jewels, and so did the Red Sox, when offered Santana. The Mets "bankrupted" their farm system to get Santana.

 

As of today, 8/22/08, the Yankees are a near-lock to miss the post-season for the first time since 1993. The Red Sox are battling it out with the White Sox/Twins for the right to lose to the Angels in the first round.

 

The Mets? With a depleted and decimated farm system?

 

First place.

That's just it, Gom. The mentality of trade 'em all now while they have some value doesn't get you a Kevin Youkilis who you can depend on to man a position for a sizeable window of time. Nope, he's gone two years ago to get an established player.

 

The last part brings this full circle back to my original point. For some guys it's all about where they end up this year, which is fine. But for other's, they don't want to see their team face the future the Mets have facing them. Seriously, think about that team in 2-3 years. They probably won't ever hit the bottom of that division because of their spending power, but I'll be shocked if they are in contention 3 years from now.

[BoSox21]

The Mets? With a depleted and decimated farm system?

 

First place.

 

Would the Mets be there if they had traded Reyes and Wright a few years ago for whatever hot shot pitcher was available at the time? And would they have even needed to go out and get Santana if they kept Kazmir instead of dealing him for Victor Zambrano?

 

Would the Sox had won last year if they dealt away Papelbon, Lester, Pedroia and Youkilis?

 

It's all about how an organization evaluates the talent in their farm system and decides which ones to trade and which ones to hold onto. Pavano and Armas for Petey was pretty good. Meredith and Bard for Mirabelli wasn't so good. Hanley and Anibal for Beckett and Lowell was good. Murphy, Gabbard and Beltre for Gagne wasn't so good.

[ORS]

I think the ideal strategy should be to draft and develop well, and where those efforts fall short, supplement the roster with hired guns. This means you will have to take your lumps. Some of those guys who look like they are going to be the next thing will fall on their faces. This is the price you pay to get the benefit of having young, talented players manning roster spots at a value. When / if you happen have an opportunity to trade for an established star, you should do with developing players at a position of redundancy. If that's not possible, then you face a tough decision, and you should trust your evaluation methods.

 

I find it funny that the Brewers' GM is being lauded for acquiring Sabathia. Don't get me wrong, it was good move, but it wasn't a particularly difficult one. LaPorta is a 1B/LF type player. In Milwaukee, he's more blocked than a preganant lady who just ate a wheel of cheese. And, to top it off, LaPorta is a stud prospect, one that would be very difficult for other teams to top. It was a perfect scenario. Good for the Tribe and Brewers, but no awards should come on the heels of that trade.

[rician blast]

The Mets? With a depleted and decimated farm system?

 

First place.

 

You mean the 71-57 Mets who hold a 2.5 game lead over the, gulp, Phillies over there in AAAA? Yeah, they're a juggernaut alright.

 

FWIW, ignoring for the time being WHIP and ERA and this and that Santana is currently 11-7...Lester is 12-4. Many trade rumors had the Sox giving up a combo of players that included Lester and Lowrie and either Crisp or Ellsbury. Is it your position that if Lester and some combo of these other players had been part of a Santana deal, that the Sox would definitely be at least one game better than they are now?

 

I'm not sold on this theory.

[Dojji]

You take Lester, Lowrie, and Masterson and Crisp off the Boston roster they probably have 4-5 fewer wins, a worse bullpen, a much weaker rotation, and Cora as a long-term SS down the stretch.

[Cocos Disciples]

You take Lester' date=' Lowrie, and Masterson and Crisp off the Boston roster they probably have 4-5 fewer wins, a worse bullpen, a much weaker rotation, and Cora as a long-term SS down the stretch.

 

Lester VORP: 44.8

Lowrie VORP: 13.3

Masterson VORP: 18.7

Crisp VORP: 2.7

 

Santana VORP: 48.7

 

Lester alone almost beats him.

[Gom]

They wanted Buchholz. Their final package would have included Buchholz and not Lester. Redo the numbers with Buchholz instead of Lester.

 

The Mets won't hit bottom due to their spending power? THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. My goodness, now that I know what a strawman is [i admit, I didn't know], I think I have a new name for you. It defeats the purpose if you can't stay in contention. Not only that, but they traded away Milledge for Church, and so far, that's a no-brainer as well. Church has outperformed Milledge in every sense of the game. You know what you don't see? That if they have a good draft this year and next, in three years, they're going to start to see those players having an effect on the majors! Am I destined to be surrounded by such tomfoolery?

 

Once again, because of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets significant advantages in money, they have the ability to do both, both build from within while using their financial advantage to compete in the free agent/trade market. Wherein drafting and scouting has more of an element of luck to it than with players at the major league level, the majority of the money should be allocated as such, while still having a final dollar value in scouting/development that should be higher than the rest of the competitors.

 

I'm not surprised you miss the point ORS. I'd be actually surprised had you gotten it.

 

The point is that the Brewers made the deal. The point is the Mets made the deal.

 

You really think you're a better team this year with Masterson, Buchholz, and Ellsbury than Santana?

[jacksonianmarch]

Gom is an idiot, once again, a tried and true idiot. That is all.

[ORS]

They wanted Buchholz. Their final package would have included Buchholz and not Lester. Redo the numbers with Buchholz instead of Lester.

 

The Mets won't hit bottom due to their spending power? THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. My goodness, now that I know what a strawman is [i admit, I didn't know], I think I have a new name for you. It defeats the purpose if you can't stay in contention. Not only that, but they traded away Milledge for Church, and so far, that's a no-brainer as well. Church has outperformed Milledge in every sense of the game. You know what you don't see? That if they have a good draft this year and next, in three years, they're going to start to see those players having an effect on the majors! Am I destined to be surrounded by such tomfoolery?

Just because they won't bottom out doesn't mean I think they'll be any good. The Mets are staring at a few years to "trying to find the right mix" IMO after this year. And nice try with Church over Milledge. Sure, if you only look at their rates, Church is better, but that better is kind of worthless if it's hurt all the time. Milledge has created 52 runs to Church's 40 this year. Oh, and Milledge is 23 and getting better by the month. He's realizing his talent. Church is 29 and at the peak of his career. Thank you for including this example of why you take your lumps and see what you've got with a kid. The Mets cornholed themselves in this trade in terms of future value, but they appear to be going for it now, so this is OK for them........if Church takes the field.

 

Once again, because of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mets significant advantages in money, they have the ability to do both, both build from within while using their financial advantage to compete in the free agent/trade market. Wherein drafting and scouting has more of an element of luck to it than with players at the major league level, the majority of the money should be allocated as such, while still having a final dollar value in scouting/development that should be higher than the rest of the competitors.

This is the $$ point again. Everyone agrees the larger market clubs should, and will, flex their financial muscle to fill gaps. Stop going off on this tangent, it doesn't address the core disagreement, which is the trading of multiple top-prospects and/or promising young players for an established star. Strawman special.

 

I'm not surprised you miss the point ORS. I'd be actually surprised had you gotten it.

 

The point is that the Brewers made the deal. The point is the Mets made the deal.

I'm pretty sure I acknoledged that they did it, how could I not while addressing the specifics? I also happened to look at more than what shows up on the transacation page at MLB.com. This move was a good move by the Brewers. They gave up a player with no spot to play. For other teams, it's a different calculus. Stop ignoring this.

 

You really think you're a better team this year with Masterson, Buchholz, and Ellsbury than Santana?

No. Why do I have to limit my consideration to this year only? If that's all you care about, fine, but don't expect me to agree.