Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[BSN07]

Updating from the "Halladay would approve trade to New York". Buster Onley lists Halladay's preferred destinations: Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Phillies

 

I dont have a link because need subscription to "the Insider"

 

Those all make sense.

 

LAA rarely trades prospects, but now might not be a bad time to start for them.

 

Phillies traded a lot of chips to Cleveland for Lee. But if they will part with Happ/Drabek + Toronto could be motivated enough to move him there.

 

LAD have the pieces, but they have a lot of issues at the moment.

 

I really see The Rockies being a dark horse candidates in this. They have enough talent, and Doc lives in Denver in the off season. That could be a motivation for him. Plus the Rockies have shown they can contend in the NL West. They just really lack a #1 SP.

 

I think JJ will be more of a target for the Sox IMO. If the Sox happen to get him, I could see the Yanks trying to counter the move by getting Halladay. Although they did just win the WS, so they might not be as desperate to make such a counter move.

 

The Halladay/JJ talks should get pretty interesting.

[BSN07]

Bastian adds that Scutaro hasn't ruled out a return to Toronto, though the Jays will offer the Type-A free agent arbitration so they can receive two draft picks if he heads elsewhere. Baker mentions that the Mariners and Texas have contacted Scutaro about playing third, which makes you wonder what would happen with Michael Young.

 

He's got 16M annually due to him for the next 4 years. And Texas is in a financial bind. I doubt the prospect cost would be much considering it's a salary dump. Maybe a Lowell+ prospect exchange :dunno: Even if Texas takes on Lowell for one year, they are still saving 52M.

 

Just throwing it out for conversation sake.

[Dipre]

He's got 16M annually due to him for the next 4 years. And Texas is in a financial bind. I doubt the prospect cost would be much considering it's a salary dump. Maybe a Lowell+ prospect exchange :dunno: Even if Texas takes on Lowell for one year, they are still saving 52M.

 

Just throwing it out for conversation sake.

 

If they want salary relief, why would they take on Lowell?

 

The Sox wouldn't eat both Lowell's and Young's salary.

[BSN07]

If they want salary relief, why would they take on Lowell?

 

The Sox wouldn't eat both Lowell's and Young's salary.

 

Because they would still save 52M. I think Texas is going to have to take some sort of contract back from anyone they trade with. Lowell just seemed like the logical fit with Boston.

[BSN07]

Reports this week raised the realistic possibility that Lincecum could earn well beyond the record of $10 million for a player in his first year of arbitration eligibility, set by Ryan Howard in 2006. Having become the first player to win a Cy Young Award in two of his first three seasons, this is new territory.

 

"This is one I have not been through, nor one many in baseball have been through," Giants general manager Brian Sabean told the San Francisco Chronicle. "The union on their side will be very interested in how it turns out, and Major League Baseball will be very interested."

 

As Yahoo Sports first reported earlier in the week, the Lincecum camp could use a "special accomplishments" clause in the Basic Agreement that could supersede the normal process of comparing players to others with similar service time. Instead, Lincecum could be compared to the highest-paid starters in the game, such as CC Sabathia ($23 million) and Barry Zito ($18 million). That clause came into play in Howard negotiations in his first year of eligibility, which came after Howard won the NL MVP Award in his second season.

 

SF is going to be so screwed.

 

How long before the Vultures start circling?

 

If this isn't proof of how stupid contracts(Zito, Rowand) can come back to bite you in the ass, I don't know what is lol

[Dipre]

Because they would still save 52M. I think Texas is going to have to take some sort of contract back from anyone they trade with. Lowell just seemed like the logical fit with Boston.

 

It still makes no sense.

 

Young is a solid performer, they could look elsewhere and get the salary relief plus a cheap bat with upside who's under control for multiple years.

 

The rest of MLB is not a feeding tube for the Sox.

[BSN07]

It still makes no sense.

 

Young is a solid performer, they could look elsewhere and get the salary relief plus a cheap bat with upside who's under control for multiple years.

 

The rest of MLB is not a feeding tube for the Sox.

 

I'm not saying they are. There just aren't a lot of teams that can give up a good player and absorb 64M to boot.

[Dipre]

I'm not saying they are. There just aren't a lot of teams that can give up a good player and absorb 64M to boot.

 

Angels: Brandon Wood + Eat the salary.

 

Mariners: Send back prospects (Jhamirdy De Jesus +) eat part of the salary.

 

Phillies: Choose prospect + eat salary.

 

Saint Louis: Lose out on Holliday= Send prospects + eat part of the contract.

 

Cubs: If they get rid of Bradley= Send prospect + eat contract+ move him back to second.

 

All of those options sound more realistic than Lowell.

[TheMino007]

I remember last offseason I was reading about the Sox trying to get Texas' catching trio, well now that trio is just down to Salty and Teagarden since Laird was shipped out. The talks said Mike Young would be a part of a salary dump throw in. I wonder if we hear any of those rumors this offseason since the Sox are in the same position they were in last offseason, in having no catcher of the future. We had Exposito last offseason yet we pursued catchers. V-Mart isn't a long term solution at C either.

[SCM33]

Updating from the "Halladay would approve trade to New York". Buster Onley lists Halladay's preferred destinations: Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Phillies

 

I dont have a link because need subscription to "the Insider"

 

ESPN INSIDER ARTICLE FOR YA FREE OF CHARGE!!

 

According to ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney, the Doc does in fact have a list of places he'd prefer to go. His "preferred destinations are the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies or Angels," writes Olney today. Well, convenient, we'd say, since those are the teams most likely to be able to afford the Toronto ace. According to the New York Daily News, the Yankees would be a place the Toronto ace would waive his no-trade clause for. And a price?

 

What will it take to land Roy Halladay?

 

Jeremy Sandler of the National Post writes today that the Jays want "a major league-ready arm and bat, both young and affordable enough to stay in Toronto a while, plus prospects." That would be a high price for a player with just one year left on his contract, even an ace right-hander like Halladay.

 

One team that could pay that price is the Boston Red Sox. The hot rumor earlier this week had Boston spending the long Thanksgiving weekend in hot pursuit of a marquee pitcher.

 

The New York Daily News reported that the Red Sox are "putting a full-court press" to acquire Halladay and put him in a rotation with Josh Beckett and Jon Lester. To land Halladay, Boston would likely have to give up pitcher Clay Buchholz as well as pitcher/shortstop prospect Casey Kelly.

 

The Boston Herald reported Thursday that while the Red Sox are interested in Halladay, the Daily News overstated the team's urgency in pulling off the deal. The Herald says the Jays also are in no rush to deal Halladay.

 

Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe adds that the Red Sox could retreat on the deal if the Jays continue to insist on Kelly.

 

We asked Olney for his take on Wednesday, and he emailed: "In order for the Red Sox to trade for Halladay, they would almost certainly have to surrender Clay Buchholz and minor leaguer Casey Kelly," Buster says. "Buchholz has five seasons until he becomes a free agent, looks to be a very productive pitcher, and he might make $25 million over the next five seasons. Halladay will make $15 million next summer alone, and then be in line for an $60 million-$80 million type of deal as a free agent. And Kelly, like Austin Jackson, appears to have an excellent chance to have a high impact in the majors. In terms of cost-efficiency, it makes no sense for the Red Sox or the Yankees to pay a high double-barrelled cost in prospects and free-agent dollars to land Halladay."

[Lester82]

Bill Madden/NY Daily News says Florida is talking w/ Boston about a Hanley trade.

 

of course probably nothing happens. since teams talk all the time, not surprising

[Lester82]

The Florida Marlins president obviously has no shame. After finally succeeding in securing a new taxpayer-funded stadium for the Marlins in downtown Miami - supposedly enabling the Marlins to have the financial means to keep their star players - Samson demonstrated he has no intention of doing that when he refused to give his best pitcher, Josh Johnson, a four-year extension. Now it also looks as if Hanley Ramirez won't ever see that new stadium in a Marlins uniform as the Red Sox, who let incumbent Alex Gonzalez go, are reportedly engaged in talks with Florida about reacquiring the All-Star shortstop.

 

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/11/28/2009-11-28_top_ten_baseball_turkeys.html#ixzz0YEJIfQU1

[Keeper]

Getting Hanley back would be epic. I would give up Kelly and Westmoreland and pretty much anyone in the farm except Buccholz. Only because the Sox are going to need him next year penciled in every 5th day. Can't afford to lose him unless you replace him with Felix or Halladay or Lackey.

[Lester82]

the NY Daily News

 

(this time regarding Mr. Halladay):

 

Regardless of what happens with Halladay, there are some in baseball who believe there is pressure on both teams to make a splash this winter.

 

"They have to keep their reputation," a baseball executive said, referring to the Yankees. "Mr. Steinbrenner, he's back winning now and he doesn't want to stop. And if Boston wants to get back in it, they are going to have to get big guys this winter."

 

 

Translation: The Toronto g.m. is talkin' to the NY Daily News again...

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2009/11/29/2009-11-29_halladay_shopping_in_swing.html#ixzz0YFB7zzTH[/b]

 

 

Mr. Steinbrenner is "back to winning now and he doesn't want to stop".... Ahahahaha. Please tell me this quote doesn't refer to the Old Man. With all do respect to frail George Steinbrenner, he hardly knows what's going on these days -- this quote had to be referring to Hank or Hal.

[Lester82]

btw....

 

LOL @ John Henry being portrayed as being like Steinbrenner in one snippet from that NY Daily News piece.

 

They say George is like John Henry's "mentor" .

 

 

And Henry is pressuring Theo to give up the high prospects for winning now. Except the article also states that Theo wants to trade those high prospects for a bigtime hitter, so that implies Theo is not necessarily at odds with John Henry's alleged 'win now' thing. (And we don't know if John Henry is really like Steinbrenner.)

 

It simply seems Theo prefers to dangle his pieces for an Adrian Gonzalez, Miguel Cabrera and Hanley Ramirez rather than starting pitcher Roy Halladay.

[BSN07]

Angels: Brandon Wood + Eat the salary.

 

Mariners: Send back prospects (Jhamirdy De Jesus +) eat part of the salary.

 

Phillies: Choose prospect + eat salary.

 

Saint Louis: Lose out on Holliday= Send prospects + eat part of the contract.

 

Cubs: If they get rid of Bradley= Send prospect + eat contract+ move him back to second.

 

All of those options sound more realistic than Lowell.

 

Texas is trying to compete with LAA. Not funnel them talent.

 

They are also trying to stay ahead of Seattle, not help them catch up.

 

St. Louis may have the $, but they did just trade of a fair amount of prospects for Holliday and DeRosa. But I see your point.

 

The Phillies will be needing that $ to sign Lee. Besides there are a few options in the FA market that would be much cheaper then Young.

 

So there is St. Louis, Sox and the Cubs if they can manage to move Bradley. 3 teams out of 30. 5 if you want to think Texas will send Young within the division. And Again like I previously said, there aren't many teams that can absorb 64M. If anything you only proved my point. Are you just arguing for arguing sake?

[BSN07]

As unlikely as it may be, I'm still holding out for a trade the brings in a decent SS.

 

Just out of curiosity is Iglesias available to be traded? Not saying they should or anything, just if they get into any discussions for a SS, I was wondering if he could be a piece going the other way.

[BSN07]

Further squashing rumors of a potential Johnson trade, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports hears from two sources close to the situation that the Marlins have no intention of dealing their ace before Opening Day 2010.

 

Translation- JJ's press conference in Boston should be held sometime before the New Year

[Dipre]

Texas is trying to compete with LAA. Not funnel them talent.

 

They are also trying to stay ahead of Seattle, not help them catch up.

 

St. Louis may have the $, but they did just trade of a fair amount of prospects for Holliday and DeRosa. But I see your point.

 

The Phillies will be needing that $ to sign Lee. Besides there are a few options in the FA market that would be much cheaper then Young.

 

So there is St. Louis, Sox and the Cubs if they can manage to move Bradley. 3 teams out of 30. 5 if you want to think Texas will send Young within the division. And Again like I previously said, there aren't many teams that can absorb 64M. If anything you only proved my point. Are you just arguing for arguing sake?

 

If Texas is clearing payroll, whoever gives them the best offer for Young gets him, divisional position non-withstanding.

 

The Phillies gained financial flexibility this year with a couple expiring contracts (Adam Eaton, Geoff Jenkins among others), and will gain even more after '10. They have the money and prospects to pull it off, they are not a small-market team.

[BSN07]

If Texas is clearing payroll, whoever gives them the best offer for Young gets him, divisional position non-withstanding.

 

The Phillies gained financial flexibility this year with a couple expiring contracts (Adam Eaton, Geoff Jenkins among others), and will gain even more after '10. They have the money and prospects to pull it off, they are not a small-market team.

 

That's fine. I never said they were a small market team. But with Lee due an extension and I believe Howard needing one within the next couple of years, they could have a lot of money tied up. And if I'm the Phillies and Young could potentially keep me from extending either Lee or Howard, I'm not sure it's worth it.

[BSN07]

The Florida Marlins president obviously has no shame. After finally succeeding in securing a new taxpayer-funded stadium for the Marlins in downtown Miami - supposedly enabling the Marlins to have the financial means to keep their star players - Samson demonstrated he has no intention of doing that when he refused to give his best pitcher, Josh Johnson, a four-year extension. Now it also looks as if Hanley Ramirez won't ever see that new stadium in a Marlins uniform as the Red Sox, who let incumbent Alex Gonzalez go, are reportedly engaged in talks with Florida about reacquiring the All-Star shortstop.

 

Brought this from another thread.

[Gom]

Sorry, I've been away for the weekend. Lot's of fun...but back to debating..

 

Please explain why you believe this. What about the numbers I posted make them poor comparables through age 24? As a reminder' date=' here's what I said:[/quote']

I do not believe that they are comparable because at the same age, they pitched better and were already established major leaguers. They had lost their prospect status. Think of Felix Hernandez. Would you call him a prospect at this point? How about Greinke?

How is Schilling the only relevant comparison. If you can point out what it is about Schilling that makes his thru-24 stats so much more relevant than Halladay and Carpenter then perhaps I can find others that are more suited to your liking.

Mainly because you aren't thinking. Schilling is the only relevenat comparasion because at the same age, he had pitched relatively the same inningd pitched in his career, was still considered a prospect. Quite simple actually.

If you're admitting that you're too lazy to do the research then I will assume that you don't have good reasons to prefer Schilling over the other guys I listed, other than the fact that it makes your argument look worse and this is the lazy-man's way of avoiding that circumstance. Otherwise, explain yourself please.

See above.

 

1) If by 3 years you mean one year of eligibility, then you're right. However, the Red Sox have been smart enough not to waste his MLB time when he's struggling. Instead (I believe) he has roughly 5 years of cost-control left.

 

2) Buchholz also hasn't been injured. He had one 15-day DL stint due to a fingernail issue. That's it. He threw 134 total IP in 2008, and 191 in 2009.

 

Completely irrelevenat. He hasn't pitched in the majors at a consistent level or consistently. Why is irrelevant. Hasn't is.

Casey Kelly was the Sox first round pick in 2008. He is a SS/P (soon to be just pitcher) whose father is Pat Kelly (former major leaguer). He was prepared to be the QB at Tennessee until the Sox paid him a $3m bonus. He's been extrordinarily successful so far as a pitcher. He pitched in the 09 Futures Game and is very advanced for his age. Just FYI.

Thank you.

You laid down a challenge about 24 year olds and future success. I answered that challenge. Now I challenge you. Please find quotes of mine where I tout prospects who have not been successful. I imagine Craig Hansen will be one... others? Maybe Jed Lowrie...

Funniest part of any post in this thread. Seriously. You ask me to spend time finding quotes by you, and this could take HOURS...and in the next part you tell me the prospects that you touted that didn't pan out. Ok..you touted Hansen and Lowrie. I LOVE IT!

As of right now I can find something like 240 players (I lost count around there) listed as active prospects on the Red Sox farm teams. I think I tout about 1 or 2 at a time, maybe up to 5. That's a percentage of 2%. I hihgly tout about 2% of Red Sox prospects. My eyes are f***ing glazed over in rose colored lenses, huh?

Which would be about the major league average. Also, out of those 5, only say...one or two become consistent major leaguers? Maybe?

Let's pretend we're talking about Evan Longoria in 2006. If the consensus were correct that Evan Longoria were a franchise 3B, your thought is that he would be traded? How about Jon Lester, if the consensus in 2005 was that he was going to be an exceptional pitcher, then we should expect him to have been traded? That makes no sense. Please clarify.

You are actually comparing Longoria to Buchholz? Sure...and while I'm at it, I'll compare Cano to Pujols.

 

Longoria came up and in his FIRST SEASON had an OPS of .874. End of story.

Yet you have no definitive proof that I've been wrong about any of these prospects. Hell, the jury is still out on most of them because most of them are still in their early 20's.

 

Yet you haven't read anything about the Red Sox top prospect (Kelly), while telling those who have that he's likely to be a bust and that we're being sold a bill of goods? What kind of critical analysis went into this, other than an ingrained bias?

 

Sigh...you know, you'd be much smarter if you thought for yourself. First of all, I didn't say that Kelly would be a bust. I didn't even know he existed until this thread. What I am saying is that you ARE being sold a bill of goods. That's the Red Sox FO job. They are supposed to hype their prospects in the hopes of netting a higher return on trading. Don't put words in my mouth. You have trouble formulating ones for your own. Using your Longoria example...the Rays KNEW he would be something special. How they knew, I can't tell you. I am not part of their organization. They never even offered him to anyone. Ditto Jeter for the Yankees. Also, how they knew, I don't know. What is their rate of success, I don't know. It's a guessing game. I remember reading BJ Upton would be one of the top 5 players in the game. He was/is a true 5-tool player. He's definitely shown flashes of it, especially against you in the playoffs. He just hasn't put together all that talent. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The fact remains is that at 25, Buchholz is NOT an established major leaguer yet, and is still considered a prospect. His stats have been pedestrian.

 

I, personally, would trade that player for a veteran who would make my team the prohibitive favorite to win it all the next few years. You wouldn't. Agree to disagree.

[CoachC.]

Brought this from another thread.

 

As I said in that thread, I have a very hard time believing the Marlins have any interest in trading Hanley away before they get into that new stadium. He's one of the top 5 players in the game and has a very affordable contract considering his talent through 2014. I imagine we called but they are going to start at Jon Lester and to be honest they have every right to

[BSN07]

As I said in that thread' date=' I have a very hard time believing the Marlins have any interest in trading Hanley away before they get into that new stadium. He's one of the top 5 players in the game and has a very affordable contract considering his talent through 2014. I imagine we called but they are going to start at Jon Lester and to be honest they have every right to[/quote']

 

Lester makes too much money. If they trade Hanley, it will be for top prospects that make very little money.

 

I guess they would hope that by the time the stadium opened they have a fresh group of young talent to start with. I don't think JJ or Hanley will see the opening of the stadium, unless there in the visitors dugout.

 

They may not want to trade Hanley, who would at this point? But he is making 7M this season, and although it doesn't sound like much, it will probably make up 20% of the Marlins payroll. Throw that in with the issues in the clubhouse from the end of last season and they could very well be open to listening to offers.

[Dipre]

As I said in that thread' date=' I have a very hard time believing the Marlins have any interest in trading Hanley away before they get into that new stadium. He's one of the top 5 players in the game and has a very affordable contract considering his talent through 2014. I imagine we called but they are going to start at Jon Lester and to be honest they have every right to[/quote']

 

Miguel Cabrera.

[example1]

I do not believe that they are comparable because at the same age, they pitched better and were already established major leaguers. They had lost their prospect status. Think of Felix Hernandez. Would you call him a prospect at this point? How about Greinke?

 

 

 

What do you mean they pitched better? I think the stats speak for themselves. Please explain how Halladays numbers were better?

 

They pitched more? That's a function of the team they pitch on, not the quality of the player. Notice anything similar between Felix and Greinke? (hint: look at the rotations they started on at their young age). I can assure you that Buchholz would have hundreds of more innings if he played for a worse team.

 

Finally, I think it is VERY debatable whether Buchholz is a prospect. I don't think he is. He pitched 92 IP last year as a starter. He's got a set rotation spot for 2010. He's not eligible for ROY. He's not on prospect lists, he's on the 40 man roster.

 

He's a young pitcher with 1 year of experience, who is still cost controlled but who has pitched regularly in MLB.

 

Mainly because you aren't thinking. Schilling is the only relevenat comparasion because at the same age, he had pitched relatively the same inningd pitched in his career, was still considered a prospect. Quite simple actually.

 

Not simple if Buchholz isn't considered a prospect. I would say that pitchers who threw MORE and who put up worse numbers are even BETTER comparisons, because they had more innings to get their s*** straight and still hadn't at this point in their career. They defeat your argument even more, which is why I suspect you don't want to use them.

 

Completely irrelevenat. He hasn't pitched in the majors at a consistent level or consistently. Why is irrelevant. Hasn't is.

 

You were the one who said he had problems with injuries. You were wrong. I showed that. You call it irrelevant, and I suppose I do too.

 

What isn't irrelevant is that you have spoken out of your ass on a few occasions in this thread alone, so credibility is dropping like a stone in my eyes.

 

Funniest part of any post in this thread. Seriously. You ask me to spend time finding quotes by you, and this could take HOURS...and in the next part you tell me the prospects that you touted that didn't pan out. Ok..you touted Hansen and Lowrie. I LOVE IT!

 

At least I'm honest enough to admit it. I've been right a lot more than I've been wrong.

 

Also, out of those 5, only say...one or two become consistent major leaguers? Maybe?

 

Not lately. The Sox top prospects have been coming into the league pretty consistently since Theo took over... or perhaps you haven't noticed.

 

 

Sigh...you know, you'd be much smarter if you thought for yourself. First of all, I didn't say that Kelly would be a bust. I didn't even know he existed until this thread.

 

And yet you claim that people are looking through rosy colored glasses to be sold on the bill of goods. Again, I don't see Theo saying that Dustin Richardson is likely to become the next Joe Nathan, or that Josh Reddick projects to be Carlos Beltran. Casey Kelly--unlike most minor league pitchers--projects to grow into a big, athletic righty with plus-command and multiple plus-pitches. Buchholz has 3 widely-acknowledged plus-plus pitches. It makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge that the FO does, in fact, tout players at different levels. Some players are presented as future stars, many others are presented as probable everyday MLB players, not stars.

 

If you don't know about the prospects I am touting, how can you claim that I'm wrong?

 

 

What I am saying is that you ARE being sold a bill of goods. Because, although I've never heard of Casey Kelly, I'm confident that he's not good enough to be a really good MLB pitcher. (I added part of this)

 

Whatever Gom. You can think I'm being sold a bill of goods to believe that the Sox top prospects--like Kelly, Westmoreland, and previously Buchholz--are as good as the scouts say they are. Everyone else is wrong, you're right.

 

That's the Red Sox FO job. They are supposed to hype their prospects in the hopes of netting a higher return on trading.

 

Their job is to win. If their prospects give them the ability to do that then they aren't going to trade them for players who offer an equal but more expensive, or worse chance. With all the hyping they did about that useless Jon Lester and Dustin Pedroia and Jacoby Ellsbury we'd expect them to have been traded by now... unless you are wrong that their job is to hype and then trade them.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. You have trouble formulating ones for your own. Using your Longoria example...the Rays KNEW he would be something special. How they knew, I can't tell you.

 

Just as with Buchholz, there was a consensus view that Longoria would be an everyday, solid-MLB'er. Whether he would be a star or not was another issue and debatable. Nobody contests that Buchholz should at least be an MLB pitcher. Many people believe he will be a #1 or #2.

 

What you seem to misunderstand is that players who are cost-controlled are GOLD to every team other than the Yankees. Even if they only become regular MLB players. Players who become more than MLB regulars (i.e., stars) can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars over their salary over the course of their 6 years.

[CoachC.]

Lester makes too much money. If they trade Hanley, it will be for top prospects that make very little money.

 

I guess they would hope that by the time the stadium opened they have a fresh group of young talent to start with. I don't think JJ or Hanley will see the opening of the stadium, unless there in the visitors dugout.

 

They may not want to trade Hanley, who would at this point? But he is making 7M this season, and although it doesn't sound like much, it will probably make up 20% of the Marlins payroll. Throw that in with the issues in the clubhouse from the end of last season and they could very well be open to listening to offers.

 

Once you take off Hanleys contract off the books and replace it with Lesters they are still running way in the black. Lesters contract doesnt start paying real money until 2013. Lester is a must in this deal if I'm the Marlins. Plus make no mistake about it, its not a Lester for Hanley trade straight up. Its going to take Lester plus at least two blue chip prospects and some spare parts. Hanley is an MVP candidate at 25, putting up ridiculous offensive numbers at a traditionally defensive position, and is locked up at a more than reasonable rate for the next 4 years which also happen to be his prime years. He has the highest trade value of anyone in the majors IMO and is going to cost a lot to pry him out of there

 

I suppose you could get him out of there without Lester but the Red Sox would have to decide if they want there minor league system (including Clay B, Bard) completely ravaged because if the Marlins have shown one thing over the past decade is they know how to identify talent and they rarely if at all ever get the short end of any trade.

[Lester82]

Brought this from another thread.

 

it was already in this thread.

[Gom]

What do you mean they pitched better? I think the stats speak for themselves. Please explain how Halladays numbers were better?

Buchholz at age 24: 4.21 ERA, 92 IP, 1.38 WHIP, 6.7 K/9, 1.89 K/BB

Halladay at age 24: 3.16 ERA, 105.1 IP, 1.16 WHIP, 8.2K/9 3.84 K/BB

 

So...in EVERY f***ING CATEGORY, Halladay was better. Every one. So...is this explaination good enough for you? Significantly better in every category. Also, pitching in the height of the steroid era AGAINST the Yankees and Sox.

 

See, this is when you should concede. You ask a question that can be looked up in ten seconds on baseball reference and it makes you look like an idiot. You must be a graduate of Dipre's School of Debating Baseball. Graduated with honors, I see.

 

 

They pitched more? That's a function of the team they pitch on, not the quality of the player. Notice anything similar between Felix and Greinke? (hint: look at the rotations they started on at their young age). I can assure you that Buchholz would have hundreds of more innings if he played for a worse team.

Conjecture. No proof. He may or may not have pitched more this year with another team, I don't remember if he was injured or not. With the Red Sox injuries to the rotation, and trying Penny and Smoltz and totally s***ing the bed, I don't know the logic for NOT pitching Buchholz more. That's his organization's decision. However, when he pitched, he was average at best. Also, in 2008, he was dogshit. I don't know why he didn't pitch more, but one thing is for certain. He didn't pitch all that well. End of story.

Finally, I think it is VERY debatable whether Buchholz is a prospect. I don't think he is. He pitched 92 IP last year as a starter. He's got a set rotation spot for 2010. He's not eligible for ROY. He's not on prospect lists, he's on the 40 man roster.

Fine. Not a prospect. It's semantics anyways. The debate is whether he'll be the All-Star you believe or the above average pitcher I see...and that may be giving him too much.

He's a young pitcher with 1 year of experience, who is still cost controlled but who has pitched regularly in MLB.

 

This is Buchholz's biggest asset, I think. The fact that you may get average production, or even above average production at a bargain basement price.

Not simple if Buchholz isn't considered a prospect. I would say that pitchers who threw MORE and who put up worse numbers are even BETTER comparisons, because they had more innings to get their s*** straight and still hadn't at this point in their career. They defeat your argument even more, which is why I suspect you don't want to use them.

No, I just picked pitchers that I know have been around for a while and are recently young, as they would be better comparisons. I wonder if you should go back and look at Walter Johnson or Addie Joss. Maybe those numbers will fit your argument.

 

Honestly...this premise is simply retarded. You actually say that pitchers who pitch more but do worse are better comparisons to a player than pitchers who are of the same age. This quite possibly is the dumbest premise in the history of this board.

 

"Let's compare player A to other players. Who should we compare him to? Players of the same age with similar stats?"

 

"No way buddy...let's compare him to players who played more and did worse at the same age. Then we can get a more accurate picture of how to project him! Look...here comes the short bus to take us to school!"

You were the one who said he had problems with injuries. You were wrong. I showed that. You call it irrelevant, and I suppose I do too.

 

What isn't irrelevant is that you have spoken out of your ass on a few occasions in this thread alone, so credibility is dropping like a stone in my eyes.

Have I? I don't know if I spoke on Scutaro on this thread or not, but assume I did. I thought the Sox should sign him, Dipre pointed out he had a career year and it would be a bad idea. I agreed with him, for once. Dropped it. However, you've been up Buchholz's ass for years now, and you've been eating crow and still to dense to realize it.

At least I'm honest enough to admit it. I've been right a lot more than I've been wrong.

You've been wrong a lot more than I have. This thread being the latest example.

 

We've all been wrong before. No one is perfect. However, knowing when you're wrong and admitting it and moving on is what separates the men from the Dipre's.

Not lately. The Sox top prospects have been coming into the league pretty consistently since Theo took over... or perhaps you haven't noticed.

Sadly, I have noticed. He has done a good job, the organization has. For this very reason, I would advocate trading your prospects. Their scouting and development has been good, as well as their financial coffers, so they theoretically should be able to replace the players lost in relatively short order.

 

And yet you claim that people are looking through rosy colored glasses to be sold on the bill of goods. Again, I don't see Theo saying that Dustin Richardson is likely to become the next Joe Nathan, or that Josh Reddick projects to be Carlos Beltran. Casey Kelly--unlike most minor league pitchers--projects to grow into a big, athletic righty with plus-command and multiple plus-pitches. Buchholz has 3 widely-acknowledged plus-plus pitches. It makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge that the FO does, in fact, tout players at different levels. Some players are presented as future stars, many others are presented as probable everyday MLB players, not stars.

I don't know who any of these players are, nor do I care.

 

However, when you say that Buchholz has 3 widely-acknowledged plus-plus pitches, and then I look at his numbers...something doesn't jell buddy. Numbers don't lie....Dipre does, but not the numbers.

If you don't know about the prospects I am touting, how can you claim that I'm wrong?

Never said you were wrong. Just said don't believe everything you read.

Whatever Gom. You can think I'm being sold a bill of goods to believe that the Sox top prospects--like Kelly, Westmoreland, and previously Buchholz--are as good as the scouts say they are. Everyone else is wrong, you're right.

The book isn't closed on Buchholz, even in my eyes. Not by a long shot. Ditto Joba and Hughes. However, there are still MAJOR question marks about their effectiveness. Sorry if I don't believe what your front office or my front office says about their own prospects.

 

 

Their job is to win. If their prospects give them the ability to do that then they aren't going to trade them for players who offer an equal but more expensive, or worse chance. With all the hyping they did about that useless Jon Lester and Dustin Pedroia and Jacoby Ellsbury we'd expect them to have been traded by now... unless you are wrong that their job is to hype and then trade them.

What? What the f*** is this paragraph about? Dude, do you even know what you're talking about?

Just as with Buchholz, there was a consensus view that Longoria would be an everyday, solid-MLB'er. Whether he would be a star or not was another issue and debatable. Nobody contests that Buchholz should at least be an MLB pitcher. Many people believe he will be a #1 or #2.

Ok...except that Longoria hit the majors running, and Buchholz has s*** the bed, sent to the minors, been injured, gone back and forth...all the while, Longoria is one of the best thirdbasemen in baseball in his second season. Good comparison there, buddy.

What you seem to misunderstand is that players who are cost-controlled are GOLD to every team other than the Yankees. Even if they only become regular MLB players. Players who become more than MLB regulars (i.e., stars) can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars over their salary over the course of their 6 years.

 

You worry about cost-controlled players. I'll worry about championships.

[Lester82]

Gom, what championship have you won?

 

ahahaha