Where to Spend the Money Next Year

[sk7326]

Ellsbury going will be tough - you don't like to let go your arguably best player - but his age and projection is tough to make a long commitment to. Also Bradley can approximate most of his virtues with the one that he can't being the least important (the prodigious steal number).

 

The rotation is in solid shape - no aces but a lot of 2/3 caliber sorts. Now, if you WANT a difference making starter, it is not going to come from the FA pile. James Shields ain't it. However, King Felix is, and the Red Sox can easily put a prudent package together - yes it would hurt to lose some blue chippers but a guy like him is why you pile up minor league assets. (if HanRam and Sanchez were worthwhile for Beckett, Felix is a LOT better)

 

Otherwise you absolutely protect your assets - this team is good enough to be a pseudo contender/true contender for the next couple of years without doing anything crazy.

[Dojji]

We can put a prudent package together for King Felix, but the Mariners have no incentive to accept a merely prudent package.

[sk7326]

We can put a prudent package together for King Felix, but the Mariners have no incentive to accept a merely prudent package.

 

LOL ... let's put it this way, we say "no way" when all of those "some player for our best prospects (like the Boegarts-Cecchini-Owens)" deals come around - King Felix is the one where I'd listen. Age, resume, demonstrated durability. Otherwise, there's virtually nobody we'd have any sort of chance of landing (Trout, McCutchen and the like).

[User Name]

What is a "pseudo contender"? You're either a contender or you aren't. Whoever makes the playoffs has a very real shot to win it all.

[Dojji]

It would occur to me then that a pseudo contender are the kind that perennially hover just outside of the playoffs but never succeed in putting on the finishing touches.

[User Name]

Those aren't "pseudo" contenders. They're not contenders, period.

[sk7326]

Those aren't "pseudo" contenders. They're not contenders, period.

 

What I meant was that they might be actual contenders like they are this year or perhaps a step down like 2010 - which can be fixed with a move or two ... with the second wild card of course, you can make the playoffs without being at the level of the other teams, although of course this being baseball nothing prevents you from having the 3 good weeks needed to win the title.

[Dojji]

Those aren't "pseudo" contenders. They're not contenders, period.

 

Amusingly, you just contradicted yourself with the two sentences above.

 

Perhaps you need to refresh your etymology. "pseudo" implies falsehood -- a thing that resembles the real artlce but really isn't. So if they're not contenders, but trying to pretend they are, "pseudo-contenders" is bang on the dot to describe them.

[User Name]

I'm saying there is not something as a team that "resembles" a contender, a team either is or isn't. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

[Dojji]

Oh well you're just wrong there. The teams that are in the wild card hunt at the end of the year and are proclaiming themselves contenders would certainly fit any reasonable definition of pseudo-contender. Your determination to hold onto distinctions that I'm not obliged to acknowledge is neither relevant nor interesting.

[User Name]

If you're in the wild Card hunt at the end of the year with a true chance to make the playoffs, you are a contender. If you don't, then you're not. You're the one who's clearly wrong here.