Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[a700hitter]

You're talking about Melky's value but denying his, and that is absolutely hilarious.

Melky was being compare to Lowrie, not Lester, Pedroia, Papelbon and Ellsbury.

 

I don't think the Yanks trade Melky for Lowrie at this point.

[Dipre]

The amount of credibility here is amazing.

 

The fact that you two are absolutely ignorant about anything other than big league clubs (and even that is debatable) is shown perfectly in these last couple of posts.

 

Please, i beg you, if you have no idea what the f*** you're talking about, shut your f***ing mouth. Thanks.

[Dipre]

Melky was being compare to Lowrie, not Lester, Pedroia, Papelbon and Ellsbury.

 

I don't think the Yanks trade Melky for Lowrie at this point.

 

Replacement value was the subject. You don't even know what you were responding to. Jesus Christ.

[a700hitter]

Replacement value was the subject. You don't even know what you were responding to. Jesus Christ.

Here's the quote from the post that I was referencing:

 

I would argue that Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholz, Papelbon and Bard all represent guys who the Red Sox would be ill-advised to try to improve upon. Lowrie, on the other hand, fits the Melky/Gardner mold IMO.

[Gom]

The amount of credibility here is amazing.

 

The fact that you two are absolutely ignorant about anything other than big league clubs (and even that is debatable) is shown perfectly in these last couple of posts.

 

Please, i beg you, if you have no idea what the f*** you're talking about, shut your f***ing mouth. Thanks.

 

First of all, you have ZERO credibility...for lying and misrepresenting stats. That much is a given. I don't call anyone out for their opinions. You have your opinion on Holliday, I have mine. We both think the other is wrong. Everyone else thinks you're wrong, with one or two exceptions. When you start misrepresenting numbers and then calling other people for lying about their numbers, then...well....you're finished when it comes to being credible. You still don't see that. People bust Jacko, or me, or Kilo, or ORS, and others...but everyone respects the work they put into their posts, and no one EVER questions their numbers, just their opinions and occasionally, their sanity. You don't belong in this group....or any other, except with maybe BOY. The difference is you misrepresented stats, and lied. That's why I can't buy anything you say, and I'm sure more than a few here would feel the same way. Secondly, I choose not to follow the minor leagues. As for what I know about baseball, I've forgotten more than you'll ever know. So have the majority of the posters here. It's not me, it's you.

 

If you followed your own advice about knowing something before you post, you would still be waiting to write your own post. Unlike you, even though a700 and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, there is a mutual respect for opinions. Try it some time. Telling the truth that is. We are grown up to admit we may not know as much, nor care to know, about the minors. Have you ever admitted you didn't know...ANYTHING? Try again, dude. You'd be welcome at most of the Yankee sites I don't post at anymore. The only difference is that you support different teams.

 

Going back to the point...I doubt any of you have seen more than 1% of any minor league players. You read the reports that others give you. Then you quote it as the truth and swear by it. Have any of you seen Westemoreland, or whatever his name is, or Lars, or any of these others?

[example1]

Where did you get the idea that I thought it would be an easy upgrade?

 

I think about it as a spectrum or scale. Again, Buchholz is further on the "difficult to get better value" side of things than 99% of prospects or players his age.

 

It would also take more than Buchholz to get anyone of those guys, because his potential is greater than his accomplishments.

 

This is true. It is also why he probably won't be moved. In terms of dealing him right now would be a really bad time. His potential is likely to be realized (even if only as a sold mid-rotation starter) within the next season, yet teams will try to pretend that he's only a prospect.

 

The Sox would not consider trading Lester or Pedroia for any of those guys, because it would create another huge hole to fill. It would also be very questionable whether Halladay, Lee or Felix would be an upgrade over Lester.

 

Really? Has Lester ever won a Cy Young or finished in the top 3 of Cy Young voting? No. They're all better pitchers than Lester currently. However, Lester is younger than 2 of them and has a very (watch out, hard word for you to handle) projectable frame and repetoire. I would rather have Lester moving forward than 2 of them, and it is pretty close with Felix.

 

Buchholz is not yet close to having the status of Lester or Pedroia. That's a fact. This is what I am saying.

 

What you're saying is innane. It doesn't matter. Nobody deals in status.

 

The fact is that Buchholz would be hard to upgrade. So would Pedroia and Lester. The goal of this team should be to get as many players who are tough to upgrade as possible. When the team is filled with those players then Theo can kick up his feet and relax. Nobody who knows anything about Buchholz thinks that Theo should be excitedly calling around to see who he can deal him for, whether that return player has lots of "status" or not.

 

I am not saying that Buchholz stinks or that he would be an easy upgrade. Those are words and sentiments that you are trying to attribute to me. I reject those ideas. He is our biggest trading chip that could be moved in the off season in a very big deal. The other guys (Lester, Pedroia) are not trading chips. There is no chance they get moved.

 

I don't disagree. That doesn't mean that there are miles of difference between a pitcher like Buchholz and a pitcher like Lester or a starter like Pedroia. I agree that Lester and Pedroia would get a bigger return, but that's not the point and it certainly wasn't the point of my initial post that got you in such a tizzie. My original point was that all of them would be tough upgrades and that's a good thing... especiallly when you're talking about a 25 year old player.

 

Buchholz is the team's most valuable trade chip, but not for long. After a few months he will most likely be untouchable... he already largely is. Whether you like it or not, he will be an integral part of this rotation.

[Dipre]

First of all' date=' you have [b']ZERO[/b] credibility...for lying and misrepresenting stats. That much is a given. I don't call anyone out for their opinions. You have your opinion on Holliday, I have mine. We both think the other is wrong. Everyone else thinks you're wrong, with one or two exceptions.

 

The difference is you misrepresented stats, and lied. That's why I can't buy anything you say, and I'm sure more than a few here would feel the same way. Secondly, I choose not to follow the minor leagues. As for what I know about baseball, I've forgotten more than you'll ever know.

 

If you followed your own advice about knowing something before you post, you would still be waiting to write your own post. Unlike you, even though a700 and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, there is a mutual respect for opinions. Try it some time. Telling the truth that is. We are grown up to admit we may not know as much, nor care to know, about the minors. I doubt any of you have seen more than 1% of any minor league players. You read the reports that others give you. Then you quote it as the truth and swear by it.

 

Sheep.

 

Dipre, go make up some ******** and post it in the Anything Goes forum. You should not be allowed to post anywhere else.

 

The man who runs his mouth about things he doesn't have a clue about then defends himself by saying "But i don't know much about that!" is talking about credibility?

 

Hilarious.

 

Again, you know absolutely nothing about MiLB, so shut your mouth and stop talking about it.

 

Try to gain some of that credibility you talk so much about.

[Dipre]

Here's the quote from the post that I was referencing:

 

That means "players who can be easily replaced".

 

Is that so difficult to understand?

[example1]

Melky was being compare to Lowrie, not Lester, Pedroia, Papelbon and Ellsbury.

 

I don't think the Yanks trade Melky for Lowrie at this point.

 

I believe that Lowrie and Melky are both relatively expendable to their teams. They would both be pretty easy to upgrade. The Yankees don't need to upgrade Melky as much as the Sox need to upgrade Lowrie, but that's based on the team's composition rather than their actual value.

[a700hitter]

I think about it as a spectrum or scale. Again' date=' Buchholz is further on the "difficult to get better value" side of things than 99% of prospects or players his age.[/quote']... 100% of prospects don't deserve to be compared to lester, Papelbon, or Pedroia.

 

Really? Has Lester ever won a Cy Young or finished in the top 3 of Cy Young voting? No. They're all better pitchers than Lester currently. However' date=' Lester is younger than 2 of them and has a very (watch out, hard word for you to handle) [i']projectable[/i] frame and repetoire. I would rather have Lester moving forward than 2 of them, and it is pretty close with Felix.

I had already acknowledged that there were better players than Lester and Pedroia. I also acknowledged that it would be highly improbable to upgrade those guys, and it would certainly be impractical. Try to keep up.

 

What you're saying is innane. It doesn't matter. Nobody deals in status.

I never said that they did. Those are your words, which you love to put in other people's mouths. There are, however, different statuses, and Buchholz does not have the same status as Lester, Papelbon or Pedroia, and in your initial post, you put them on equal footing.

 

The fact is that Buchholz would be hard to upgrade. So would Pedroia and Lester.

I've already acknowledged that Buchholz would be a difficult upgrade. You do like to repeat yourself.

 

The goal of this team should be to get as many players who are tough to upgrade as possible. When the team is filled with those players then Theo can kick up his feet and relax.

Duh!

 

Nobody who knows anything about Buchholz thinks that Theo should be excitedly calling around to see who he can deal him for' date=' whether that return player has lots of "status" or not.[/quote']I never even came close to saying anything like this. Again your thoughts, not mine. You do that alot.

 

Buchholz is the team's most valuable trade chip' date=' but not for long. After a few months he will most likely be untouchable... he already largely is. Whether you like it or not, he will be an integral part of this rotation.[/quote']You are the one with the raging boner for Felix. You went on and on and on about getting him before the playoffs even started. Didn't you acknowledge that he would probably cost us Buchholz? If so, I guess you didn't think that he was untouchable.

[a700hitter]

That means "players who can be easily replaced".

 

Is that so difficult to understand?

Is it so hard to understand that Lowrie who can't play more than 30 games witout getting injured and who hits .150 would be easier to replace than Melky Cabrera?

[Dipre]

Is it so hard to understand that Lowrie who can't play more than 30 games witout getting injured and who hits .150 would be easier to replace than Melky Cabrera?

 

Jesus Christ.

[Dipre]

I believe that Lowrie and Melky are both relatively expendable to their teams. They would both be pretty easy to upgrade. The Yankees don't need to upgrade Melky as much as the Sox need to upgrade Lowrie' date=' but that's based on the team's composition rather than their actual value.[/b']

[Cocos Disciples]

Going back to the point...I doubt any of you have seen more than 1% of any minor league players. You read the reports that others give you. Then you quote it as the truth and swear by it. Have any of you seen Westemoreland, or whatever his name is, or Lars, or any of these others?

 

I have, but I don't think it matters as much as you think. Scouting reports are so advanced today that it's not necessary to see a player to get a good understanding of their skills. But maybe that's just me.

[Dipre]

I have' date=' but I don't think it matters as much as you think. Scouting reports are so advanced today that it's not necessary to see a player to get a good understanding of their skills. But maybe that's just me.[/quote']

 

But if you actually take the time to read up on the prospects and analyze them instead of talking about something you know absolutely nothing about, at least you won't look like an idiot.

[a700hitter]

I believe that Lowrie and Melky are both relatively expendable to their teams. They would both be pretty easy to upgrade. The Yankees don't need to upgrade Melky as much as the Sox need to upgrade Lowrie' date=' but that's based on the team's composition rather than their actual value.[/quote']Is there a valuable point to this statement? Some worthwhile information? It just seems like some random analysis of the relative value of two random players to their teams.

[a700hitter]

The amount of credibility here is amazing.

 

The fact that you two are absolutely ignorant about anything other than big league clubs (and even that is debatable) is shown perfectly in these last couple of posts.

 

Please, i beg you, if you have no idea what the f*** you're talking about, shut your f***ing mouth. Thanks.

I am glad to see that you have your anger under control, and that you are once again choosing to disregard the rules of this forum. Why don't you take some deep breaths and go for a nice walk and come back when you can act like an adult.

 

Here's a news flash. People who disagree with your opinions are not wrong. When discussing opinions there is seldom any right or wrong. You need to stop demeaning those who disagree with you. You need to stop.

[yankees228]

I don't think Melky is as expendable as E1 is making him out to be. The Yankees have probably reached their maximum amount of payroll, and Melky represents a cost controlled player in the starting lineup. At this point, I don't think they'd be willing to pay more money for a center fielder.

[Dipre]

I am glad to see that you have your anger under control, and that you are once again choosing to disregard the rules of this forum. Why don't you take some deep breaths and go for a nice walk and come back when you can act like an adult.

 

Here's a news flash. People who disagree with your opinions are not wrong. When discussing opinions there is seldom any right or wrong. You need to stop demeaning those who disagree with you. You need to stop.

 

People who disagree with my opinions can be right if they actually know the context or have a finished idea of what they're talking about.

 

You jumped on the conversation of E1 and took it out of context because you didn't take the time to find out what he actually meant.

 

All downhill from there.

[a700hitter]

People who disagree with my opinions can be right if they actually know the context or have a finished idea of what they're talking about.

 

You jumped on the conversation of E1 and took it out of context because you didn't take the time to find out what he actually meant.

 

All downhill from there.

... and he sought to explain what he meant with only minor sarcasm. This is not justification for breaking rules and being insulting and demeaning. You need to stop.

[Gom]

The man who runs his mouth about things he doesn't have a clue about then defends himself by saying "But i don't know much about that!" is talking about credibility?

 

Hilarious.

 

Again, you know absolutely nothing about MiLB, so shut your mouth and stop talking about it.

 

Try to gain some of that credibility you talk so much about.

 

I see....so if I lie and make up stats, I'll be credible. Got it. Guess I'll never be credible.

[example1]

... 100% of prospects don't deserve to be compared to lester' date=' Papelbon, or Pedroia. [/quote']

 

The only comparison I made is that Theo wasn't actively looking to upgrade any of them. That's it.

 

 

I had already acknowledged that there were better players than Lester and Pedroia. I also acknowledged that it would be highly improbable to upgrade those guys, and it would certainly be impractical. Try to keep up.

 

Here's where I can't keep up:

If there are

1. players who represent upgrades to Lester/Pedroia and

2. all players start out as prospects

 

then how is it possible that

 

3. no prospects can be compared to Lester/Pedroia (when we're talking about future plans for the Red Sox)?

 

That doesn't 'make sense.

 

The FO exists in a longitudinal world, where the decisions they make now directly impact their future.

 

Let me ask, if you hypothetically KNEW that Buchholz would be better than Lester, would you say his name could be uttered with Lester's as players that the FO isn't looking to upgrade? Or are you just so compartmentalized and rigid that you can't imagine such things?

 

I never even came close to saying anything like this. Again your thoughts, not mine. You do that alot.

 

Your best defense is to pretend that I totally misunderstand you, and then to make that appear to be my fault.

 

I made a BINARY distinction: players who could easily be upgraded vs. players who could not. That's the only way that I lumped Lester and Buchholz together. Other people got that... Dipre and BSN07 were both able to articulate my view, despite me never writing directly to them or talking to them privately about my views. They got it. You didn't. I blame your rigidity and compartmentalized thinking.

 

You agreed that Buchholz couldn't be easily upgraded, and thus agreed with me. Yet you continue to argue that the two can't be considered in the same status because Lester is accomplished and Buchholz is less-so. I never tried to make that separation, that's something you're brain added.

 

You don't agree that they are equally talented baseball players... which is fine, since nobody is arguing that. Merely that they are both good enough to be not worth striving to upgrade.

 

 

Buchholz potentially being involved in a deal for a franchise cornerstone is not the same as saying that Theo is actively seeking to upgrade him. You know that.

 

(cue: I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. etc.,)

[example1]

BTW, this might take the cake for stupidest on-going discussion yet.

 

EDIT: I took out a provokative paragraph that I should just delete. It was only provoking others, not thought.

[example1]

Please excuse the triple post. Yankees228 has always been respectful to me, so he deserves a response...

 

I don't think Melky is as expendable as E1 is making him out to be. The Yankees have probably reached their maximum amount of payroll' date=' and Melky represents a cost controlled player in the starting lineup. At this point, I don't think they'd be willing to pay more money for a center fielder.[/quote']

 

Really? Cause I keep hearing other Yankee fans talking about how they have payroll to burn this year, and I hear other people write about the Yankees interest in Granderson.

 

Melky has been pretty average the past few years. That's enough to keep your spot when the rest of the team around you is established and well above-average. However, when the team is in flux (i.e., no corner OFs) it seems entirely reasonable for the Yankees to want to upgrade Melky. He's not expendable until they find a better player to replace him and those aren't super difficult to find.

 

Don't take this the wrong way though y228. I think Melky has done an admirable job during his stint in CF, he's just clearly not up to Yankee standards (i.e., he's not an all-star).

[a700hitter]

Here's where I can't keep up:

If there are

1. players who represent upgrades to Lester/Pedroia and

2. all players start out as prospects

 

then how is it possible that

 

3. no prospects can be compared to Lester/Pedroia (when we're talking about future plans for the Red Sox)?

 

That doesn't 'make sense.

 

The FO exists in a longitudinal world, where the decisions they make now directly impact their future.

 

Let me ask, if you hypothetically KNEW that Buchholz would be better than Lester, would you say his name could be uttered with Lester's as players that the FO isn't looking to upgrade? Or are you just so compartmentalized and rigid that you can't imagine such things?

I have quite the imagination, but no matter what they are projected to become, the current value of the prospect does not approach that of major league established stars, because the projected value of a prospect has to be significantly discounted to allow for the very significant risk that the projection is incorrect. That's how it works.

 

Your best defense is to pretend that I totally misunderstand you' date=' and then to make that appear to be my fault.[/quote']I am not going to debate a point with you when you are attributing to me opinions that i do not hold. Why would I defend positions that I don't hold, but that you think I hold? I am not going to defend your misperception of my position. I'll continue to remind you of my position and reject your misperception.

 

I made a BINARY distinction: players who could easily be upgraded vs. players who could not. That's the only way that I lumped Lester and Buchholz together. Other people got that... Dipre and BSN07 were both able to articulate my view, despite me never writing directly to them or talking to them privately about my views. They got it. You didn't. I blame your rigidity and compartmentalized thinking.

 

You agreed that Buchholz couldn't be easily upgraded, and thus agreed with me. Yet you continue to argue that the two can't be considered in the same status because Lester is accomplished and Buchholz is less-so. I never tried to make that separation, that's something you're brain added.

I did add in that Buchholz should not be compared with the others when discussing replacement value, and I still stand by that. Their values are vastly different at this point in time. You have spent a lot of time trying to convince me otherwise.

 

You don't agree that they are equally talented baseball players... which is fine' date=' since nobody is arguing that. Merely that they are both good enough to be not worth striving to upgrade.[/quote']I think Buchholz could be traded for an offensive upgrade or a pitching upgrade.

 

Buchholz potentially being involved in a deal for a franchise cornerstone is not the same as saying that Theo is actively seeking to upgrade him. You know that.

If he is actively pursuing Felix (as you would like him to do), and he knows that it will probably cost him Buchholz, what position is he actively seeking to upgrade?

[yankees228]

Well, I think that extra payroll will be used to either resign the current free agents, or replace them at their respective positions, not upgrade at other positions. I don't want Granderson, but if they got him, that would be an upgrade via trade, not free agency.

 

I think Melky is part of the Yankees' long term plans because I believe they're in the process of making an attempt to get younger, part of the reason why they decided not to go after Santana, and the reason why I don't see them pulling off any big trades this winter (such as Halladay).

 

I think they view Melky's defense as adequate, especially his arm. I also think that they don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for his power numbers to improve (especially at NYS) and his patience to improve. Melky, for most of last year, was just going through the motions, and they sent him down. That seemed to have a positive effect on him, and I think the Yankees expect him to progress further next year.

 

*For the record, I understand that most of this is purely speculation, but considering we're talking about how a particular organization views a player, we really have no other choice then to resort to speculation.

 

EDIT: When I said last year, in relation to Melky, I meant 2008.

[TheKilo]

f*** something needs to happen I'm going to paint my walls with my brain if I have to keep reading this ********.

[Red Foreman]

Buchholz and Bard don't belong in the group with the others you mentioned. You demean their accomplishments by putting them in the same class. Lowrie doesn't deserve to be considered to be in Melky's class until he can play a full season or two. Right now he is a bit player-- a utility guy. Melky is much more than that.

 

I completely understand your suggesting Melky has accomplished more than Lowrie but really, he isn't much more than a 'bit player-- utility guy'. He's a fourth outfielder, if Gardner doesn't get hurt, Melky doesn't get nearly as many ABs. They are both place holders for Jackson. I look forward to the rush of offseason trade rumors involving Melky that don't come to pass.

[a700hitter]

I completely understand your suggesting Melky has accomplished more than Lowrie but really' date=' he isn't much more than a 'bit player-- utility guy'. He's a fourth outfielder, if Gardner doesn't get hurt, Melky doesn't get nearly as many ABs. They are both place holders for Jackson. I look forward to the rush of offseason trade rumors involving Melky that don't come to pass.[/quote']He's a solid 4th OF option, but he's more valuable at this point than Lowrie.

[example1]

I did add in that Buchholz should not be compared with the others when discussing replacement value, and I still stand by that. Their values are vastly different at this point in time. You have spent a lot of time trying to convince me otherwise.

 

Their values are definitely different. If the categories that I was talking about were "Lester level value" vs. "all other values" then your criticism would be appropriate. I'm not saying they have the same value. I'm saying they can be categorized the same way; namely, they can both be categorized as players who the FO is not looking to upgrade on.

 

When we talk about value I simply cannot think about it without refering to money. I know that the FO sees things that way, as does every other FO in baseball. The marginal value of the player has to be taken into account.

 

With more time on his initial contract, no escilating longterm deal, and his stuff, Buchholz gains value. I would argue that his youth/inexperience is exactly one of the things that makes him valuable. We probably differ on that.

 

I think Buchholz could be traded for an offensive upgrade or a pitching upgrade.

 

I think we agree on this. Of course, the return is really what makes it a good deal or not. The same would be true if they were thinking of trading Lester for Pujols.

 

If he is actively pursuing Felix (as you would like him to do), and he knows that it will probably cost him Buchholz, what position is he actively seeking to upgrade?

 

When you take into account Buchholz's likely value over the next 5 years and his cost, he may have a particularly high upside to a team like Seattle who is confronted with Felix being willing to resign there, or rebuilding a franchise through a trade of Gonzalez like in San Diego. Most teams hold onto guys like that for a long time. If another team is willing to deal a possible HOF pitcher in his early 20's, an MVP caliber 1B, or another player like that, yes, you seek to upgrade using that player. That's not a shot to Buchholz. There are players I would trade Lester for too.

 

Hell, I would definitely consider trading Pedroia for Utley if the situation presented itself, but I won't be mad if the Sox don't spend their time pursuing it. We don't see this happening with position players because there are generally other positions to upgrade. When there are 5 SPs on a team you may end up trading your young, super-high-potential #3 starter for an established #1 who will want $20m/yr much sooner but who is a better pitcher now and probably will be in the future.

 

I have advocated pretty consistently that I would prefer that they keep Buchholz. I think he will be a definite part of this rotation moving forward. However, if they have the chance to get Felix and have Felix and Lester through their 20's I think that is too much to pass up.