Would you do an Ellsbury for Lincecum trade?

[a700hitter]

Another good avenue to explore. I don' tknow if the A's have any truly Cy Young candidate starters in their group' date=' but they have some pretty intreguing arms. Perhaps they would be willing to move Gio Gonzalez for Lars Anderson. [/quote']Lars Anderson, a valuable trading chip at one point that is virtually worthless at this point. I'm all for hyping the prospects and trading them for real major leaguers. That is the highest and best use for 80% or more of any teams prospects. We missed the boat by holding onto Anderson. Sometimes organizations buy into their own hype. It's usually a mistake. Even the guys who turn out to be pretty good major leaguers take a significant time to develop. By the time they are really good major leaguers they are about ready for arbitration or free agency-- ripe for the plucking for the price of raw prospects from a wealthier team.

[a700hitter]

I wouldn't mind Cahill and/or Gonzalez. I'm just not too sure of their value. The A's recently said that they're open to trading anyone except Jemile Weeks.

Cahill was tremendously ineffective in the second half of last season. Either he had a physical problem or batters have adjusted to him. Neither possibility bodes well for the future.

[Laser Show]

Cahill was tremendously ineffective in the second half of last season. Either he had a physical problem or batters have adjusted to him. Neither possibility bodes well for the future.

 

We may be able to get him on the cheap and work with him. I can't see his 2012 being worse than any option we have in house after Beckett, Buchholz, and Lester.

[a700hitter]

We may be able to get him on the cheap and work with him. I can't see his 2012 being worse than any option we have in house after Beckett' date=' Buchholz, and Lester.[/quote']I doubt the A's will sell low on Cahill. They will take the chance that it was an off year.

[example1]

Lars Anderson' date=' a[/b'] valuable trading chip at one point that is virtually worthless at this point. I'm all for hyping the prospects and trading them for real major leaguers. That is the highest and best use for 80% or more of any teams prospects. We missed the boat by holding onto Anderson. Sometimes organizations buy into their own hype. It's usually a mistake. Even the guys who turn out to be pretty good major leaguers take a significant time to develop. By the time they are really good major leaguers they are about ready for arbitration or free agency-- ripe for the plucking for the price of raw prospects from a wealthier team.

 

After the bolded part you had spent to much time writing about Lars Anderson. Particularly since I included the at the end of my post.

[Palodios]

Another good avenue to explore. I don' tknow if the A's have any truly Cy Young candidate starters in their group' date=' but they have some pretty intreguing arms. Perhaps they would be willing to move Gio Gonzalez for Lars Anderson. [/quote']

 

Lars might be a little out of the Athletic's price range, but I could definitely see some possibilities. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at trading Lavarnway+ one or two other pieces for Cahill. The A's have so many holes in their offense right now that it would give the Red Sox a ton of flexibility in how to trade, and how to make it work.

[Spitball]

Just some red flag thoughts. Cahill has pitched about a run and a half better at home (pitchers' park) than on the road in his career. At Fenway, he has been hit with a .985 OPS. At Yankee Stadium, he has given up an OPS of 1.237.

[Palodios]

Just some red flag thoughts. Cahill has pitched about a run and a half better at home (pitchers' park) than on the road in his career. At Fenway' date=' he has been hit with a .985 OPS. At Yankee Stadium, he has given up an OPS of 1.237.[/quote']

 

Cahill's career has red flags written all over him, but he would be signed as a #3/4 starter not a #1/2. I'm not expecting him to pitch like its 2010, but if he does, it'll be a great trade.

[a700hitter]

After the bolded part you had spent to much time writing about Lars Anderson. Particularly since I included the at the end of my post.

It wasn't about Lars Anderson. It was just general commentary on prospects.

[seabeachfred]

I always believed that Theo Epstein was a very poor judge of talent and Anderson is a prime example of that. Any youn player who equates museums, operas and symphony orchestras with baseball is a well rounded individual but a red flag carrier in baseball---too cerebral for me. He oversold Reddick as well and Michael Bowden and maybe even Felix Doubrant. You keep the prospects like Ellsbury and Pedroia unless you get overwhelmed for them and trade off the rest for established players to teams who are lookin to cut salary or are fearful of losing them in free agency.

 

We could dwell on this for an eon but right now we all know what we need and my list is a solid starting pitcher, two relievers, a RH hitting outfielder with some sock and another back-up catcher not named Varitek. Some of you have similar lists as mine, some different but we all know that we need reinforcements if we are going to reverse this miserable season we just had. Here's hoping the front office sees what we're seeing and is not blind to reality.

[example1]

I always believed that Theo Epstein was a very poor judge of talent

 

Are you kidding me? You think Theo was a poor judge of talent? I suspect that makes you a poor judge of talent. There may have been mistakes with regard to some FA signings, but even those poor FA signings were talented players. Renteria was a key player on the Cardinals and widely acknowledged by all talent judges as one of the best SS in the game when signed. Every metric and observer of the game saw Crawford as at least talented. Even Lackey was the top starter on a yearly playoff team in Anaheim and was a first round pick for them. This is just silly. He may have been a poor judge of the future, but not of talent. His drafts were among the best in baseball year in and year out.

 

[...] and Anderson is a prime example of that. Any youn player who equates museums, operas and symphony orchestras with baseball is a well rounded individual but a red flag carrier in baseball---too cerebral for me.

 

WTF does being too cerebral for you have to do with whether a player is talented?

 

 

He oversold Reddick as well and Michael Bowden and maybe even Felix Doubrant.

 

Oversold? What does that even mean? Like, didn't sell them for a bucket of baseballs? Kept them because they were better than most same-aged players? Please explain.

 

You keep the prospects like Ellsbury and Pedroia unless you get overwhelmed for them and trade off the rest for established players to teams who are lookin to cut salary or are fearful of losing them in free agency.

 

Hilarious use of hindsight. You're a fan of keeping MVP caliber prospects, but not the rest? So, bye bye Papelbon? See ya Buchholz? Bard? You sucked as a starter when you were drafted, bye bye. Good thing they traded that Masterson guy, huh? He wasn't an MVP.

 

I'm sorry that I seem so snarky SBF. I'm just so tired of the anti-prospects position. It's like half the posters here want to go back to 2001.

 

You literally have no clue about which prospects are MVP and which are not. If a team has a group of 10 guys with the ceiling to be MVP caliber players, you don't just know the two who are going to be that good in 7 years and trade the rest for aging, overpriced, mediocre SPs and utility infielders. Hell, at worst some of those guys will become aging, overpriced, mediocre SPs and utility infielders.

 

More often than not, the odds say you should hold onto all 10 players, enjoy the benefits of an all-star or two and don't sweat the fact that some of the players don't turn into that.

 

Of course, that means that in the process the rest of the league sees that, say, Michael Bowden isn't as good as he could have been, but that's a small price to pay for literally winning on a lottery ticket ever 4-5 years.

 

 

Just for fun, can you tell us which of the as-of-yet "undefined" prospects in the Sox system are the MVP caliber ones and which ones to let go? Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, Coyle, Cecchini, Brentz, Head, and Swihart. Who is the MVP 8 years from now? Of course you can't. That doesn't make you a poor judge of talent.

[User Name]

I always believed that Theo Epstein was a very poor judge of talent and Anderson is a prime example of that. Any youn player who equates museums, operas and symphony orchestras with baseball is a well rounded individual but a red flag carrier in baseball---too cerebral for me. He oversold Reddick as well and Michael Bowden and maybe even Felix Doubrant. You keep the prospects like Ellsbury and Pedroia unless you get overwhelmed for them and trade off the rest for established players to teams who are lookin to cut salary or are fearful of losing them in free agency.

 

We could dwell on this for an eon but right now we all know what we need and my list is a solid starting pitcher, two relievers, a RH hitting outfielder with some sock and another back-up catcher not named Varitek. Some of you have similar lists as mine, some different but we all know that we need reinforcements if we are going to reverse this miserable season we just had. Here's hoping the front office sees what we're seeing and is not blind to reality.

 

This is the biggest load of crap i've ever read. No offense.