Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[CoachC.]

I think it would be a lot to give up Buchholz and Kelly or Westoreland. This would be creating a hole to fill a hole, which I don't love in theory. Yes, they could sign Lackey but he'll cost a lot and he doesn't have Buchholz's upside (let the freakout commense from those who say "If Buchholz can become Lackey then we're lucky".)

It sounds like the addition of Kelly and Westmoreland is actually the issue, less than Buchholz.

 

 

This is what I dont like. If you can get an all star first baseman just heading into the prime of his career, who is excellent in the field and at the plate in the best pitchers park in the majors. I think you have to do that deal.

 

Clay, Kelly/Westmoreland, and a spare part or two for Adrian is a fair deal. Like I said I think Theo is a little to in love with these prospects. Does Kelly look like a good prospect? Yes, but so was Homer Bailey and he's not exactly working out in Cincy. Kelly's value is very high right now and I think we should capitalize on it. If he doesnt want to trade them for Halladay thats fine he's 32 year old pitcher with a ton of mileage. I can see the reasoning. Adrian however is exactly what this team needs

[example1]

If you can't see that those two questions are what would be called argumentative' date=' then you are not as smart as I thought you were. Those questions would not be allowed on cross-examination, because they are objectionable as "argumentative." If Dipre were here, he could back me up on this point. They are in the vein of the textbook argumentative question that we learn in Law School: "When did you stop beating your wife?" Asking if I think Theo sits around and does nothing is argumentative and does not lend itself to a full discussion of any issues. Sorry that you can't see that. BTW I answered both of your argumentative questions several posts ago. The answers were no and no. So, as you can see that I answered those ridiculous questions and was not dodging anything. Here's one for you: Do you think Epstein wears a halo? Do you see how ridiculous that is? It's just as ridiculous as you asking me if I think that Theo sits and does nothing. [/quote']

 

1. This isn't a courtroom. Whether a question stands up in legal questioning doesn't matter for the purposes of baseball discussion.

2. You actually DID ask the ridiculous question you posed in jest here.

3. I didn't really care about the answer to the questions that I quoted to you before. I posed them because you hadn't answered them while saying that all those guys were doing was trying to goad you.

4. I agree with you that posts that start with insults don't usually lead to good discussion

5. I saw where you answered "no and no"; I read it, digested it, and moved on.

6. I merely called you on stating the Kilo asked both of those questions, when he didn't.

7. This is stupid. I'm done with this absurdly mind-numbing discussion .

 

So, about Lackey and Chapman and Gonzalez...

[example1]

This is what I dont like. If you can get an all star first baseman just heading into the prime of his career, who is excellent in the field and at the plate in the best pitchers park in the majors. I think you have to do that deal.

 

Clay, Kelly/Westmoreland, and a spare part or two for Adrian is a fair deal. Like I said I think Theo is a little to in love with these prospects. Does Kelly look like a good prospect? Yes, but so was Homer Bailey and he's not exactly working out in Cincy. Kelly's value is very high right now and I think we should capitalize on it. If he doesnt want to trade them for Halladay thats fine he's 32 year old pitcher with a ton of mileage. I can see the reasoning. Adrian however is exactly what this team needs

 

Assuming that by "spare part of two" you are talking about prospects, how can you then say its a fair deal? You don't know the value of the players you are proposing they trade.

 

I agree that getting AG would be great, but at any cost? No. Buchholz and Kelly would be a great return for SD. Just randomly throwing other good prospects ontop of that seems superfluous.

[a700hitter]

1. This isn't a courtroom. Whether a question stands up in legal questioning doesn't matter for the purposes of baseball discussion.

If a question is so bad that you are not allowed to ask them it on cross-examination when you are allowed to treat the witness as being hostile, then it is a pretty bad question. Although this is not a court of law, a question that can't pass the low bar of cross examination where hostility is acceptable, it shouldn't be asked in a civil discussion outside a courtroom.

 

I realized that you were calling me on the fact that Kilo only asked one of the questions, and I acknowledged it in my post, but since you brought it up, I took the opportunity to tell you what I though of those questions. You should have stopped the mind-numbing discussion several post ago, because just inflamed the situation without accomplishing anything.

 

.

[a700hitter]

This is what I dont like. If you can get an all star first baseman just heading into the prime of his career, who is excellent in the field and at the plate in the best pitchers park in the majors. I think you have to do that deal.

 

Clay, Kelly/Westmoreland, and a spare part or two for Adrian is a fair deal. Like I said I think Theo is a little to in love with these prospects.

... and Example is a little too much in love with Theo. He will not allow questioning of Theo's moves or motives.

[SoxSport]

If they bust on Bay and Holliday, they could pull the trigger on AdGon. But if Lackey is gone, who is Buchholz' replacement? There is life after Bay and Holliday.

[redsoxrules]

If they bust on Bay and Holliday' date=' they could pull the trigger on AdGon. But if Lackey is gone, who is Buchholz' replacement? There is life after Bay and Holliday.[/quote']

 

If they bust on Bay/Holliday then their f***ed because Theo will never part with Buchholz or Kelly , witch is what would be needed to land Gonzalez or anyone else

 

so IMO they should spend the money

[CoachC.]

Assuming that by "spare part of two" you are talking about prospects' date=' how can you then say its a fair deal? You don't know the value of the players you are proposing they trade. [/quote']

 

Couple of B level prospects outside our top 25, say Michael Almanzar and Caleb Clay

 

 

I agree that getting AG would be great, but at any cost? No. Buchholz and Kelly would be a great return for SD. Just randomly throwing other good prospects ontop of that seems superfluous.

 

I dont consider trading Kelly, Clay, and a couple B level prospects gutting our system. I consider using it to make this team better now and in the future being that Adrian is only 27 years old right now. Not all these prospects we have are going to be good and like I said sometimes I think Theo overvalues the players in our system and it makes it difficult to make the big trade.

 

If Theo isn't willing to give up those players, I'd be curious to know what the Red Sox are offering then because I'm not really seeing how they would plan on pulling off a trade for the caliber of player Adrian G is w/out going into it knowing your going to have to give up at least two top prospects for him

 

If this report is accurate I question how hard the Sox are really going after him

[jacksonianmarch]

Does it really make a lot of sense to pass on Bay and Holliday while spending 3 top prospects to get Gonzalez then pay him like Holliday plus. Doesnt make much sense

 

Player A- .277/.376/.529 for an OPS of .905 over the last 2 seasons

Player B- .325/.405/.555 for an OPS of .958 over the last 3 seasons

Player C- .279/.371/.519 for an OPS of .890 over the last 3 seasons

 

 

 

 

 

 

A is Bay

B is Holliday

C is AdGon

 

The reason why Bay's analysis is over 2 yrs is because his 2007 was a career low season that was completely uncharacteristic. The difference isnt much to be honest with you, and two of those guys could be had for money alone. The guy with the lowest OPS of the three would cost prospects and money. It doesnt make sense

[Dojji]

Adrian Gonzalez plays a different position, making your post an example of the the false choice fallacy.

[example1]

Couple of B level prospects outside our top 25' date=' say Michael Almanzar and Caleb Clay [/quote']

 

Fair enough. Almanzar and Clay. Not Pimentel and Rizzo.

 

I dont consider trading Kelly, Clay, and a couple B level prospects gutting our system. I consider using it to make this team better now and in the future being that Adrian is only 27 years old right now. Not all these prospects we have are going to be good and like I said sometimes I think Theo overvalues the players in our system and it makes it difficult to make the big trade.

 

You're right that not all these prospects we have are going to be good, but I'm not listing all the prospects we have. The players in dispute are Kelly, Westmoreland and Buchholz. Many people think they will be good.

 

If Theo isn't willing to give up those players, I'd be curious to know what the Red Sox are offering then because I'm not really seeing how they would plan on pulling off a trade for the caliber of player Adrian G is w/out going into it knowing your going to have to give up at least two top prospects for him

 

I think at this point Buchholz is less a prospect and more an MLB player. In that sense he comes with slightly less risk and will contribute more quickly. Theo may be offering Reddick and/or Kalish instead of Westmoreland; Bowden and/or Pimentel instead of Kelly.

 

Does it really make a lot of sense to pass on Bay and Holliday while spending 3 top prospects to get Gonzalez then pay him like Holliday plus. Doesnt make much sense

 

Player A- .277/.376/.529 for an OPS of .905 over the last 2 seasons

Player B- .325/.405/.555 for an OPS of .958 over the last 3 seasons

Player C- .279/.371/.519 for an OPS of .890 over the last 3 seasons

 

A is Bay

B is Holliday

C is AdGon

 

The reason why Bay's analysis is over 2 yrs is because his 2007 was a career low season that was completely uncharacteristic. The difference isnt much to be honest with you, and two of those guys could be had for money alone. The guy with the lowest OPS of the three would cost prospects and money. It doesnt make sense

 

Dojji was right that this is an odd comparison, but I appreciate where you're coming from with it. Different positions and diferent ages make the comparison questionable.

 

That said, I don't think many people are saying Bay/Holliday OR Adrian Gonzalez. Ideally it would be Bay/Holliday AND Gonzalez. That said, if they just got Adrian Gonzalez and found Bay or Holliday to be too expensive it would still be better to get Gonzalez even if their "big" LF answer doesn't come until later (in 2010 or 2011 even).

 

Having Gonzalez is better than not having him, regardless of their status in LF.

[ORS]

Why not look at it from a park neutral point of view. By OPS+ it's:

 

Gonzalez - 151

Holliday - 144

Bay - 134

 

I think Gonzalez is about average in the field, so Holliday gets up toward his overall run contribution when you consider both sides of the ball. So, I agree, and I've been an advocate of them signing Holliday all along. That said, if they can get him for Clay + Kelly/Westmoreland, then they should....along with signing Holliday. That's a dynamite lineup, and they can take a shot at replacing Buchholz with an injury flyer on Sheets.

[jacksonianmarch]

I see your point, but, think about it this way. It wont be park neutral for either of those players. Gonzalez will be going to one of the more difficult parks for a left hander by dimensions and Holliday or Bay would be playing in one of the best parks to hit as a right hander. Just a thought.

[example1]

Why not look at it from a park neutral point of view. By OPS+ it's:

 

Gonzalez - 151

Holliday - 144

Bay - 134

 

I think Gonzalez is about average in the field, so Holliday gets up toward his overall run contribution when you consider both sides of the ball. So, I agree, and I've been an advocate of them signing Holliday all along. That said, if they can get him for Clay + Kelly/Westmoreland, then they should....along with signing Holliday. That's a dynamite lineup, and they can take a shot at replacing Buchholz with an injury flyer on Sheets.

 

Beckett, Lester, Dice-K, Sheets and Wakefield, with no obvious replacements available? I think that's risky, thought I agree that the offensive upgrade would be worth it. I just think its worth really pushing this deal because any deal that can be had WITHOUT Clay or Kelly would greatly impact this franchise moving forward.

 

Of course, if they signed Chapman that would work too by givin gthem a AA or AAA arm with that MLB caliber upside.

[ORS]

I see your point' date=' but, think about it this way. It wont be park neutral for either of those players. Gonzalez will be going to one of the more difficult parks for a left hander by dimensions and Holliday or Bay would be playing in one of the best parks to hit as a right hander. Just a thought.[/quote']

This is true, but if you look at Gonzo's "all years" hit chart for PETCO and show HR and FO, you'll see he hits it out to all fields, so he'll feel the benefit of the monster. He's got more warning track flyouts to LF than RF at PETCO. Those are dingers in Fenway.

[a700hitter]

I see your point' date=' but, think about it this way. It wont be park neutral for either of those players. Gonzalez will be going to one of the more difficult parks for a left hander by dimensions and Holliday or Bay would be playing in one of the best parks to hit as a right hander. Just a thought.[/quote']Historically lefties have thrived in Fenway. If a lefty can take the outside pitch the other way, the wall turns plenty of outs into doubles and HRs. On the other hand, the wall has messed up some righties who get pull happy and change there swing. The opposite field is not a great place for righites at Fenway. There are no gifts in RF at Fenway for right handed hitters.

[Dojji]

.... other, of course, than the Pesky Pole.

[a700hitter]

.... other' date=' of course, than the Pesky Pole.[/quote']The way the wall breaks straight back from the Pesky Pole, there's not a lot of room to get a cheapie.

[a700hitter]

Wang being floated as an intriguing possibility.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/12/wang_would_be_a.html

 

Sure throw $5 million at him. Sounds like a low risk high reward opportunity. Not.

[jacksonianmarch]

In no way, shape or form should someone guarantee him $5 million. He was a very good pitcher. But he's status post major shoulder surgery AND was a guy who relied on one pitch's speed, sink and control. If anything is off at all, he's meat.

[yeszir]

It would be nice one year to see the sox interested in people who didn't bring significant injury risk with them. It's like a total crap shoot going into the season.

[a700hitter]

It would be nice one year to see the sox interested in people who didn't bring significant injury risk with them. It's like a total crap shoot going into the season.

In recent years (since 2004), the only year that I can think of where we didn't start the season with one or more of these retreads was 2007. Teams that enter the season in that crap shoot position don't win Championships. They just don't. The good news is that we don't have any of those yet that the FO is expecting to play a role on the major league team. If we start seeing those acquisitions, then it will be rough going.

[TheMino007]

Its not like we would be relying on Wang to be our number three starter or something. If he bombs, which he probably will, we have other guys who can pitch at the 5 spot. Then again, I'd much rather see a guy in the back end of the rotation who can put up 30 starts. I'm growing tired of these low risk-high reward deals where the reward never becomes anything and the Sox are forced to bring guys like Tazawa up to pitch from the number 5 spot b/c we have all the low risk guys bombing.

[yeszir]

To be fair, sometimes we as fans do overstate the injury risk/potential or how that weighs on the value of a player. All I remember hearing about in in 05/06 before we got Beckett was how his hand was one gigantic blister and how he'd be a humongous bust.

[TheMino007]

Beckett was a stud in the making, he was a young guy with ace like potential, and I always thought the blister issue was a minor thing. Guys like Penny, Smoltz, even as far back as Wade Miller were guys who were over 30 and coming off of serious shoulder or arm problems. Thats why its frustrating to hear the Sox linked to names like Justin Duchesere and not Jon Lackey etc.

[a700hitter]

Its not we would have to rely on him as the number three starter or something. I'd take the risk' date=' why not, we have other guys who can pitch if Wang turns into a dud.[/quote']If they have no expectation of a meaningful contribution from Wang in 2010, fine. However, if picking him up causes them to pass on acquiring a healthy pitcher who could contribute, because they think he will give us a mid-season shot in the arm like Smotlz, then that does hurt the team. Last year, they were counting on Smoltz to be the equivalent of a big mid-season acquistion. We know how well that worked out. There were plenty of healthy starters available on last year's FA market, but the Sox didn't bite on any of it thinking that Smoltz and Penny gave them depth in the rotation. The rotation turned out to be deep-- in deep s***.

[TheMino007]

This is true

[a700hitter]

To be fair' date=' sometimes we as fans do overstate the injury risk/potential or how that weighs on the value of a player. All I remember hearing about in in 05/06 before we got Beckett was how his hand was one gigantic blister and how he'd be a humongous bust.[/quote']Beckett was not a damaged retread. Nolan Ryan always had blister problems and he pitched until he was 46. Beckett was not a crap shoot. We knew we were getting a top of the rotation stud. The only question was whether he would be #1 or #2.

[example1]

Beckett was not a damaged retread. Nolan Ryan always had blister problems and he pitched until he was 46. Beckett was not a crap shoot. We knew we were getting a top of the rotation stud. The only question was whether he would be #1 or #2.

 

I don't think you felt this way after 2006 and I don't think most of the Nation did either.

 

He had top of rotation stuff, but he hadn't harnessed it and he looked concerning re: injury.

 

Now, I love Beckett and did when he was in FLA, but when his contract is done there will be no doubt who was more valuable: Hanley Ramirez. In that sense he absolutely was a crapshoot.

[a700hitter]

I don't think you felt this way after 2006 and I don't think most of the Nation did either.

 

He had top of rotation stuff, but he hadn't harnessed it and he looked concerning re: injury.

 

Now, I love Beckett and did when he was in FLA, but when his contract is done there will be no doubt who was more valuable: Hanley Ramirez. In that sense he absolutely was a crapshoot.

Again, you are going to tell me what I think. I was psyched about getting Beckett, and the only question I had was whether he was a # 1 or a #2. I felt that there was a good chance that he would be better than Schilling in 2006. He was a disappointment in 2006 because of the HR balls and his stubborn pitch selection.

 

I go to and watch lots of Mets games, so I had seen quite a bit of Beckett. He had the stuff and the attitude that I liked. He had a mean edge to him that I like too.

 

Edit: My brother and niece had Marlin season tickets at the time, so I used to hear a lot about him.

 

The issue being discussed in this regard was the issue of entering a season with injured retread pitchers and players like Wade Miller, Smoltz, Penny, etc. We were discussing this in the context of possibly getting Wang. Beckett's injury issues came up in the course of the discussion, but IMO Beckett wasn't the kind of crapshoot that those guys were. We knew he was going to be in the rotation from the beginning of the season and contributing. The questions about his health were long term not immediate.

 

We were not discussing the merits of the trade.