Is the actual rotation the worst in the last 10 Y?

[mvp 78]

Because they are not civic? Haha

 

Not the word you're looking for.

[mvp 78]

Well pitchers and catchers show up in about ten days......and then we'll really have something to talk about......like I wonder what Cliff Lee would cost us NOW if we were to take a flyer on him and talk the Phils into trading him to us.

 

If anyone but Amaro was GM, Lee and Hamels would be traded by now and their embarassing farm system would be looking a lot better. We may all disagree, but at least we're not Philly fans!

[Bellhorn04]

If anyone but Amaro was GM, Lee and Hamels would be traded by now and their embarassing farm system would be looking a lot better. We may all disagree, but at least we're not Philly fans!

 

Papelbon too. Has to be the worst management in baseball right now.

[sk7326]

If anyone but Amaro was GM, Lee and Hamels would be traded by now and their embarassing farm system would be looking a lot better. We may all disagree, but at least we're not Philly fans!

 

I sympathize with them on Hamels ... a little. That's a lot of control at a good price for a good pitcher - he should be asking for a lot. Lee is a different animal. That they agreed to trade Rollins this year does speak to some level of reality on their behalf.

[mvp 78]

That team isn't going to compete until Hamels is done with this contract. To me, there is no reason to keep him around.

[iortiz]

When you say Porcello won't have an ERA below 4, but other posters point out his career trajectory which states otherwise, you are not being objective and are letting your personal feelings cloud your judgement. When you base a lot of your reasoning on the eyeball test, you are not being objective. When you refuse to even consider another person's beliefs, you are not being objective.

 

I think you have to reread the thing because I'm not talking about me, and even if you are talking about me, you are wrong either way.

[mvp 78]

I think you have to reread the thing because I'm not talking about me, and even if you are talking about me, you are wrong either way.

 

I read it just fine. You on the other hand...

[a700hitter]

I read it just fine. You on the other hand...

Necessary?

[User Name]

I sympathize with them on Hamels ... a little. That's a lot of control at a good price for a good pitcher - he should be asking for a lot. Lee is a different animal. That they agreed to trade Rollins this year does speak to some level of reality on their behalf.

 

That's what makes Lee so appealing IMO. If he's healthy, he's likely to be better than Hamels, who's gotten his ass kicked by the AL, as well.

[Spudboy]

So let's speculate what type of deal it would need to be to acquire Cliff Lee.

 

Do the Sox have to deal a Devers type? And what / who else?

[User Name]

So let's speculate what type of deal it would need to be to acquire Cliff Lee.

 

Do the Sox have to deal a Devers type? And what / who else?

 

I was about to ask the same thing.

[Spudboy]

It's interesting that Cliff Lee has been a target for Talsox posters for about 5 years.

 

Obviously he is not a young guy and maybe not able to do what he used to do.

 

For some reasons he remains a pitcher most of use would want on our team.

[User Name]

It's interesting that Cliff Lee has been a target for Talsox posters for about 5 years.

 

Obviously he is not a young guy and maybe not able to do what he used to do.

 

For some reasons he remains a pitcher most of use would want on our team.

 

All-world control, bulldog mentality, lots of innings, excellent results despite average velocity, success against the AL. If he's healthy, even 80% of his career averages would be a huge boon to this team.

[sk7326]

I was about to ask the same thing.

 

If I were them, I'd be targeting Devers or Margot.

 

If I were us, I'd give them any choice or three from the Barnes, Ball, Rodriguez (yes, I know), Johnson, Cecchini menu ... Devers and Margot are not untouchable. And Lee could be a guy good enough to push me in to the "ok, fine" with one of them.

 

But the way those guys have started, there is a real chance one of them (Devers in particular) will have an explosion, rocket into the industry Top 10 prospect lists and give me an ulcer, which the World Series might only partially address.

[User Name]

No thanks on Ball or Rodriguez. But i see where you're coming from.

[MJantomaso]

Isn't Cliff Lee like, 90?

[User Name]

If the results are there, does it matter if he is?

[sk7326]

No thanks on Ball or Rodriguez. But i see where you're coming from.

 

Rodriguez would hurt me too - but he is decidedly further away from the bigs than Owens or Barnes or Johnson. He showed some real improvement and serious skills - hence his high ranking. But you can make a case for Lee that the O's made for getting Miller (and Lee is obviously a better pitcher) ... if the kid is 2 years away in your heart (along with the added risk of pitchers generally healthwise), and you can help the team now, you have to consider it. While I am more amenable to Rodriguez moving than Margot and Devers, the conundrum is the similar - a guy whose potential you love but don't see making a contribution in the near term.

[User Name]

Yeah i'd do my best to not move position players for pitchers given the current run-suppressing environment.

[a700hitter]

Lee scares me off. If it is just a question of money... maybe? Amaro should be happy just to off-load his contract.

[mvp 78]

@PeteAbe: Typo there. Farrell was saying out of 1400 innings or so they need to get, the hope is starters get 800.

[mvp 78]

@nickcafardo: Clay Buchholz said it would be an honor to be Opening Day starter.

 

The words you're looking for is "mistake."

[User Name]

Buchholz is not the type to thrive under the pressure of increased expectations. I hope he proves me wrong.

[Palodios]

I am certain that it is a coincidence, but Buchholz has done well when put into the "leader of the staff" position in the past.

 

2010, Beckett and Lackey have awful years, Buchholz has his career best year.

2012, Beckett gets traded, Buchholz turns to a lights out starter afterwards.

2013, Lester and Lackey are coming off mediocre/injured years years, and there is pressure to succeed -- he starts the season lights out.

 

He was Beckett's caddy for so many years, and Lester's sidekick. Who knows, maybe it will be good for him to take over the staff.

[Bellhorn04]

I like Cliff Lee too. But if the Sox were unwilling to give Shields 75 million for 4 years, I can't see them giving up a prospect and 37.5-50 million for one or two years of Lee.

[User Name]

Except that that was the Sox' M.O when constructing their WS winning 2013 roster. Less years, more money. I believe they would bite if the prospect cost was low enough, meaning money would not be their issue.

[a700hitter]

I am certain that it is a coincidence, but Buchholz has done well when put into the "leader of the staff" position in the past.

 

2010, Beckett and Lackey have awful years, Buchholz has his career best year.

2012, Beckett gets traded, Buchholz turns to a lights out starter afterwards.

2013, Lester and Lackey are coming off mediocre/injured years years, and there is pressure to succeed -- he starts the season lights out.

 

He was Beckett's caddy for so many years, and Lester's sidekick. Who knows, maybe it will be good for him to take over the staff.

He's also in a contract year.

[iortiz]

I like Cliff Lee too. But if the Sox were unwilling to give Shields 75 million for 4 years, I can't see them giving up a prospect and 37.5-50 million for one or two years of Lee.

... exactly.

 

I wouldn't give up a top prospect for an old horse who would cost u money as well. In that case I would have signed Shields in the first place as you said.

[mvp 78]

As Lee gets older and older, I don't see the point in bringing him in.

[User Name]

In what universe would Lee cost a top prospect, and how is a one year deal (albeit at a possibly very high price) comparable to a 4-year deal? That makes no sense.