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

[Spudboy]

lol

[User Name]

Again, whether UN was here or not, my posting style wouldn't change. I disagree with UN a lot and don't carry his water. He can fight his own battles when he needs to.

 

I just think it's funny how you guys spend far more energy talking about him than he does of you.

 

It's like this is talksox university and i'm required reading to pass posting 101.

[iortiz]

Other than u and recently mvp, I never, ever have insulted anybody here. I have disagreed with a lot of people here but never went personal, never... ever. A700 has nothing against you.. in fact he has u on ignore to avoid problems but u insist in calling him out for some reason that I do not understand. If he irritates you, you shall put him on ignore and everything will be more calm. I shouldn't said that you suck BC ass (Although I tend to think that u support everything he says or does, I think your sig speak by itsef... but it's ok and I'll respect that) but u began all this s*** storm at page 20 or something and then I made that comment and the s*** storm started...you probably won't accept it... anyways... as long we talk about baseball we can disagree or agree but in a civil way....

[iortiz]

They frequently base their opinions not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. On the other hand you do not. Your love for Cherington do not let you see clearly.

 

Also, y'all need to learn the difference between an insult and refuting a post. I call out iortiz for not knowing what objectivity is (because he doesn't in this case) he calls me names and insults my baseball knowledge. If you don't understand the meaning of a word, well, you don't understand the meaning of a word. Two courses of action in that instance: A) Stop using the word. B ) Find out what it means and start using it correctly.

 

Again, no one here is objective. It's a fact. We're not reinventing the wheel here.

which part of the definition is wrong.

[mvp 78]

I think we can shake hands and move on... no big deal.

 

Just don't throw more shade my way please.

[User Name]

Other than u and recently mvp, I never, ever have insulted anybody here. I have disagreed with a lot of people here but never went personal, never... ever. A700 has nothing against you.. in fact he has u on ignore to avoid problems but u insist in calling him out for some reason that I do not understand. If he irritates you, you shall put him on ignore and everything will be more calm. I shouldn't said that you suck BC ass (Although I tend to think that u support everything he says or does, I think your sig speak by itsef... but it's ok and I'll respect that) but u began all this s*** storm at page 20 or something and then I made that comment and the s*** storm started...you probably won't accept it... anyways... as long we talk about baseball we can disagree or agree but in a civil way....

 

Lots of misconceptions here:

 

1) I said you were negative. You said i suck BC's ass. If you can't see the monumental difference between my observation and that flat out insult, well, that's your problem.

 

2) You insult people. Don't say that you don't. I will take the olive branch and we can ignore each other/disagree with civility, but let's be honest here.

 

3) I have a700 on ignore. When i call him out a significant amount of the time he's said something about me directly or indirectly and has been quoted.

 

4) I don't really care what you think about me, but let me clear something up: I've said this several times. I don't agree with everything the FO does. I didn't like the Panda signing, and i want Lee, which they will not get. The problem is that i think it's a massive waste of time to bitch and moan about things that i want and don't happen when we could be analyzing the current team or other scenarios. This is a site for the exchange of ideas about the Boston Red Sox and baseball in general, not an outlet to vent about everything people don't like about the team. It's a huge turn-off, and the reason why a lot of good posters have left this site.

 

5) Your definition of objective up there is correct, but your usage is not, because no one here is objective about the Red Sox. We all have inherent biases towards the team and its players/coaching staff/FO. If you want objectivity, go outside the Red Sox fandom. (Not to Yankee fandom of course)

 

6) About my sig: It's there because it's funny that people get riled up about it like you just did.

[seabeachfred]

I don't see myself as being defensive, but I'll think twice about future postings.

 

mvp----You're ok in my book. You might be a little caustic from time to time but I have some of those traits myself. Besides, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if you, User, irotiz, 700 Hitter and I ever by some chance wound up together at a Red Sox game I think we'd all find that we liked each other just fine. I've found through my trips to Boston over the years when I've met people who I knew only a board that they were not that way in person----and believe me, I've gotten that all the time. Besides, we're all Red Sox fans and there is no need to have any pissing contests at all. I think User and I have put some of our irritations into drydock and that's the way I like it.

[mvp 78]

It's like this is talksox university and i'm required reading to pass posting 101.

 

I'm an elective course that only lonely weirdos take. At least I'm tenured.

[iortiz]

Lots of misconceptions here:

 

1) I said you were negative. You said i suck BC's ass. If you can't see the monumental difference between my observation and that flat out insult, well, that's your problem.

 

2) You insult people. Don't say that you don't. I will take the olive branch and we can ignore each other/disagree with civility, but let's be honest here.

 

3) I have a700 on ignore. When i call him out a significant amount of the time he's said something about me directly or indirectly and has been quoted.

 

4) I don't really care what you think about me, but let me clear something up: I've said this several times. I don't agree with everything the FO does. I didn't like the Panda signing, and i want Lee, which they will not get. The problem is that i think it's a massive waste of time to bitch and moan about things that i want and don't happen when we could be analyzing the current team or other scenarios. This is a site for the exchange of ideas about the Boston Red Sox and baseball in general, not an outlet to vent about everything people don't like about the team. It's a huge turn-off, and the reason why a lot of good posters have left this site.

 

5) Your definition of objective up there is correct, but your usage is not, because no one here is objective about the Red Sox. We all have inherent biases towards the team and its players/coaching staff/FO. If you want objectivity, go outside the Red Sox fandom. (Not to Yankee fandom of course)

 

6) About my sig: It's there because it's funny that people get riled up about it like you just did.

 

There's not misconceptions at all and I'm not gonna make a looooong response of this because is worthless, but... you insist saying that I insult people... again, please prove this, because this is not true at all... Again I have never, ever insulted nobody here aside you and recently MVP.

Edited February 12, 2015 by iortiz

[User Name]

Well I'm the one i care about, and you just admitted to insulting me and MVP. The proof is right there.

 

Anyways, i'm not interested in continuing this back-and-forth unless it's about baseball.

[iortiz]

... And I'm not going to deny it, but your point 2 seemed or sounded like I had insulted other people aside you two, which is totally not true at all.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

It's a WWF tag-team match.

 

lmfao

[mvp 78]

Cecchini and Ball for Cliff Lee.

[sk7326]

Cecchini and Ball for Cliff Lee.

 

That is about what I'd be thinking. I'd be willing to talk a higher level arm (Barnes, Johnson - someone closer to the bigs) if Philadelphia wants to help with the contract.

[User Name]

Marrero and Johnsonn for Lee.

[sk7326]

Marrero and Johnsonn for Lee.

 

That might be harder to sell - I think Philly would want one likely solid starter. Cecchini fits that bill to me. He's blocked here both ways ... Sandoval at the big league level, and (I know this makes me sound like Dojji, sue me) the possibility of Devers gaining on him quickly.

[mvp 78]

See UN, told ya.

[User Name]

He's even more blocked in Philly with Asche/Franco and Howard's unmoveable contract at the corners. Their current SS is a decent 2B (Freddy Galvis). Marrero would cover a need and Johnson would replace Lee in their rotation. If they were to kick him some money, maybe then the deal could be sweetened.

[Bellhorn04]

I can't see how a trade for Lee would appeal to them more than signing Shields.

 

Assuming Lee is healthy you get 2 years for $50 million.

 

The delta between that and Shields's contract is 2 years and $25 million.

 

Shields was younger with no injury ? and didn't cost any prospects.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Bellhorn04

[Palodios]

Cliff Lee turns 37 this year? Is that right? 2/50 for him seems a lot more for him than I thought -- especially with prospects. My bet is that he goes to the Yankees for a no-name prospect midseason.

[sk7326]

I can't see how a trade for Lee would appeal to them more than signing Shields.

 

Assuming Lee is healthy you get 2 years for $50 million.

 

The delta between that and Shields's contract is 2 years and $25 million.

 

Shields was younger with no injury ? and didn't cost any prospects.

 

Shorter haul for a better pitcher who has pitched in more difficult places. The injury is worth noting, although he has been notable injury free aside from that - I don't know the answer there, but he is old and the risks that come with it.

 

If he could be had for a couple of prospects nobody will really miss (Merrero and Johnson qualify, Cecchini I think might, but I admit it is a minority view), I'd be ok with it.

[Bellhorn04]

Shorter haul for a better pitcher who has pitched in more difficult places. The injury is worth noting, although he has been notable injury free aside from that - I don't know the answer there, but he is old and the risks that come with it.

 

If he could be had for a couple of prospects nobody will really miss (Merrero and Johnson qualify, Cecchini I think might, but I admit it is a minority view), I'd be ok with it.

 

I thought Johnson was considered a decent pitching prospect.

[User Name]

I can't see how a trade for Lee would appeal to them more than signing Shields.

 

Assuming Lee is healthy you get 2 years for $50 million.

 

The delta between that and Shields's contract is 2 years and $25 million.

 

Shields was younger with no injury ? and didn't cost any prospects.

 

Better pitcher (if healthy), shorter commitment. As i've said several times before, more money for less years is usually much better than more money for a longer commitment. See: 2013 offseason.

[sk7326]

I thought Johnson was considered a decent pitching prospect.

 

He is - I was not expecting to land a guy like that for a "throw-in" ... but for a team with the Red Sox resources, I think Johnson firmly lands in the "trade currency" pile. For a team with the Red Sox resources and time horizon (in that management wants to contend every year), the number of prospects who aren't is very small.

[Bellhorn04]

Better pitcher (if healthy), shorter commitment. As i've said several times before, more money for less years is usually much better than more money for a longer commitment. See: 2013 offseason.

 

I see your point there. I'm just trying to think along with the Sox FO. They don't seem too high on older pitchers these days. And $50 million is not chump change, when you factor in the luxury tax implications and flexibility for 2016.

[User Name]

I see your point there. I'm just trying to think along with the Sox FO. They don't seem too high on older pitchers these days. And $50 million is not chump change, when you factor in the luxury tax implications and flexibility for 2016.

 

Tell that to Koji. It's not chump change, but it's a worthwhile risk if he's even close to his normal self.

[Spudboy]

Not that I am against getting Lee. I am wondering exactly how much he can help this team this year.

 

Can he be a stopper? Can he face the top pitchers in the AL and prevail?

 

I guess that his health and ability to "get back to normal" are key.

 

At 37 how likely is it for him to be Lee of old? Or even 80% of what he was.

[cp176]

Cecchini = blocked in boston for a few years at least

Marrero = blocked in boston forthe froseeable future

Johnson = back of the rotation kind of guy

 

Any combination of those 3 that brought back any type of dependable pitching would seem like a good deal to me. I would like to see Johnson stick around if possible because has has shown some solid ability and right now we have no idea what we will be getting from that top 5.

 

My feeling about prospects is that is does no one any good to keep them around forever if there is no obvious place for them to be on the roster.

[Spudboy]

I just read that the Sox are at or over $200. already.

 

How realistic is it to expect them to spend $25. mil more?

[iortiz]

I can't see how a trade for Lee would appeal to them more than signing Shields.

 

Assuming Lee is healthy you get 2 years for $50 million.

 

The delta between that and Shields's contract is 2 years and $25 million.

 

Shields was younger with no injury ? and didn't cost any prospects.

50? stay away.

To me would have made more sense a 33 YO who is durable and consistent and actually used to pitch in the ALE (even with those "friendly" enviroments) than an old horse with a recent injury issue. Shields is gone so... If Lee is producing it will mean that he is healthy hence he will cost at least a top prospect since I see several teams pushing for him and trying to grab at least a WC spot.

 

I see this posibility as a very long shot.