CrespoBlows

Seems like it. The Red Sox do too. Ortiz, Ramirez, Schilling... those aren't stars? Papelbon, Lester, Hansen, there's your balance. BTW, the Mets traded an established big-leaguer for Nady. Count one for the Mets. That's four players who the Red Sox envision being in their future. You said that we should trade all four of them for a two month rental. Do you see why that makes no sense? And why no GM in baseball would do that trade? I'm not misrepesenting your position. You refuse to allow any of our prospect to prove themselves. You want an all-star at every position. It's not possible. I was all for signing Pedro, but for three years. I was all for signing Damon. Three years. Players tend to decline. The Red Sox shouldn't take the risk for being on the hook $13 and $12 million dollars to watch Pedro go Greg Maddux on us, and Damon to pull a Bernie Williams. You want to trade two Red Sox relief prospects plus Murphy plus Pedoria. Do you know what that does? You create a massive hole at the end of that bullpen. You then lose your 2B of '07 and beyond. You got to keep plugging holes, but with what? Let's trade more prospects. Then you fill the holes, probably with nothing special, seeing what's out on the market, you're left with a barren farm system. Example: The Yankees badly paid for trading away their prospects in '04 and '05. They couldn't get Randy Johnson at the deadline. (BTW, the D-Backs were offered Arroyo and Lester for Johnson. Oops.) They couldn't upgrade their pitching staff in '05. They did get lucky though.

I got a question. When's the last time a team was successful trading away every single one of their prospects in exchange for veterans? What team in MLB follows your strategy?

13. Jose Valentin 912,500 14. Chris Woodward 825,000 15. Ramon Castro 800,000 16. Eli Marrero 750,000 17. Endy Chavez 500,000 18. Xavier Nady 427,000 19. Jose Reyes 401,500 20. Duaner Sanchez 399,500 21. David Wright 374,000 22. Aaron Heilman 359,000 23. Juan Padilla 333,000 24. Brian Bannister 327,000 That's why. Damn those prospects. Trade them away. I'll bet if you were a Mets fan you'd probably have given the thumbs up for Zambrano, and probably would have advocated trading Wright for Schmidt. No one said Damon would fall off the table in 2006. It was 2008, and 2009 when they would began to fall apart. 1. You've advocated dismantling our franchise for a quick fix solution. 2. Salaries of players are much higher. 3. Cone and McGwire were before the luxury tax was in place. You want to trade our brightest prospects away for a two month rental. In fact, you want to trade ALL of the away. These players you want to trade away all have track records to succeed. I didn't. I compared the '96 A's to the '04 Devil Rays. Where did you get that?

Coco Crisp should be flattered. The Red Sox only wanted Mark Burhele in return.

The Yankees fleeced the Phillies. The Yankees can sign another CF when Damon shows he can't do it anymore. BTW, who the f*** is Jesus Sanchez?

Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez are future HOF's and both of them were drafted. (Most ballplayers are prospects at one point) Pedro is a HOF, but he won't put up the old Pedro numbers with the Mets. Thanks Pedro for being a dominant pitcher, go get your $50 million with the Mets. We don't have to pay that much money for a declining pitcher. It would be great if the Red Sox could sign stars at every position. Truth is, they can't. The Red Sox can afford to make one or two mistakes, but if you're saddled with Damon and Martinez at their decline years. It's going to be extremely hard to construct a winning ball club, when those two combine to make $24 million dollars.

Lugo gets to about 100 more balls per year then Loretta does. Loretta does fine if the ball isn't hit far from him, but if he has to go get a ball hit toward the middle, he won't get it.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/player_locator_results.jsp?playerLocator=Crisp Crisp was the superior player last year. He's capable of hitting 20 HR's, plus he's 26 years old. Usually, players get better as the advance toward their prime. Just as players get worse as they hit 35. (Sacrificing 2006? We're in 1st place.) Maybe we should have traded Papelbon and Lester for Schmidt. At least he's proven.

At 2B? He's an upgrade.

Smith isn't very good. The sole purpose of this trade was a salary dump. The Yankees could afford it. Abreu will help the Yankees because he gets on base about 40% of the time.

Most of things you say are idiotic. Actually believing that is smart managing to trade EVERY SINGLE prospect for a bunch of two-month rentals. Last time I checked, no GM's live by your strategy, unless you count the Steinbrenner run Yankees of the 80's. Let's analyze every bit of your moronic statements. 4 years $52 million? That's a lot of money. But it was smaller in comparision to Pedro Martinez. Clement got three years, Martinez got four. In comparison, Clement got $24 million, Pedro got $52 million. Get your facts straight. (By the way, Clement had a 3.50 ERA for the Cubs. He was an all-star for the Red Sox, before he got hit in the head) They gave him $1.5 million. Oh, but you fail to mention that you wanted to sign Derek Lowe. That's an extra $6 million right there. Plus, you wanted to sign Damon. That's an extra $7 million. Also, you wanted to trade for John Smoltz. More money, plus the money you've got to shell out for replacement players. Let's assume you want to trade the four prospects you suggested. Let's add $1 million for both relievers. $3 million for Loretta. Plus another $2 million for another outfielder. $7 million more toward the payroll. Damon to Crisp - $7 million (factor in that last year at $12 million per) Lowe to Wells - $6 million (then you factor in the two extra years at $8 million per) Pedro to Clement - $5 million (factor in the last year at $13 million) Cabrera to Renteria - +$2 million (save $8 million over course of deal) The Red Sox are about $120 million right now. Factoring in all those salaries, the payroll is: 2006 -$142 million 2007 - $152 million (replacing the players who've been traded, and those who have left as FA's. RP, SP etc..) Looking at 2008, and 2009, you're stuck with players who are almost certaintly going to decline. Is Martinez worth $13 million in '08? Is Damon? 34 years old is exactly "in their prime," but seeing as you suscribe to the Dusty Baker Manual of how to run a baseball team, I'm not surprised you believe it. Yeah, that was with a 90 mph fastball. Besides, what does it matter what he did? FA contracts are given out for what the players will do. A player making $10 million dollars in the 2000's is a huge expense for low market teams. Most teams can't afford it. There's a massive difference from $5 million to $300,000, then there was $100,000 to $20,000. There's much greater chance to fail nowadays. The A's couldn't afford McGwire, so they traded him to the Cardinals with the purpose of shedding his salary. What's nonsensical about that? McGwire was a star, and they got some good prospects at the time of the trade. Why? Because McGwire's market value demanded that the A's get something quality back. Look at the Phillies. They just dumped Abreu because they couldn't afford to make any more moves with his contract on their hands. You have no idea on what a business is do you? Not only do you completely miss the point, but your counter-point is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. Why would a team trade a star for an unproven minor-leaguer? Teams don't win every year. The Devil Rays traded Victor Zambrano back in 2004. Why? They couldn't afford his long-term contract, and they got a pitcher they though would help their team and do it for much less then Zambrano would. The pitcher they got was Scott Kazmir. He's making $350,000 dollars, and is an established star.

per Will Carroll

And our payroll would be over $150 million dollars. You've got to understand that the Red Sox HAVE A BUDGET. If the luxury tax did not exist the Red Sox could very easily go to that threshold, but it's there. Remember, this wasn't about years one or two, the Red Sox feared that they would be stuck with albatrostic contracts in years three and four, severly inhibiting their ability to compete. Also, what if Pedro wasn't able to pitch in the AL? Would it be worth to pay him $13 million per, while he continues to decline? Damon's the same reason. No one doubted that he was going to be good his first year or two, but it's very possible that he could turn into a Bernie Williams at the tail end of his contract. Oh, as for Derek Lowe? He came off a 5.32 ERA season. No one was advocating re-signing him for the price he wanted. Instant gratification kills teams. You've got to balance your team to win now, and win later. The Red Sox are doing an excellent job at that. There's a lot of things you apparently don't understand. Look back in the 1970's. How much did the average ML player make, compared to a prospect? It's no longer possible to compile rosters full of veterans. The cost of veterans is simply too high. Nowadays, prospective talent is much more valuable then veterans. You can't trade FOUR players for one anymore. Especially, players like Murphy, Hansen, Delcarmen, and Pedroia. All four of those players for the next four years will make a combined $1.5 million dollars. Smoltz will pitch two months and leave. So you're stuck filling holes at the back end of the bullpen, 2B, and another outfield. I guess you're right. It isn't the 90's anymore. The luxury tax system really hurts teams who want to raise payroll above the threshold. Do you really expect teams to pay 125% instead of 100%? If Beltran were to sign with the Red Sox in 2005, the Red Sox, on a $90 million dollar salary, would have to pay $110 million. Baseball is a business, throwing money at problems is a bad business decision. (The McGwire trade was a salary dump, as was the Cone deal)

Barfield's played some 3B in the minors. They could probably shift him over there.

The Red Sox can't fill every single one of their holes with FA's. They don't have Yankee type money. You've got have some players come in, make the minimum, and produce at good level, so you can fill your other holes with better FA's. Baseball has changed a lot since the early 90's. It's not finanically savvy to trade all of your prospects for veterans. I mean seriously, FOUR prospects for Smoltz? This isn't 1970 anymore.

Because Lugo is better then Loretta both offensively and defensively.

Why? They're absolutely right. Young was wrong when he threw a bat at the umpire, but he's right on this one. This franchise is pathetic. Oh, but they have Ty Wigginton. (And Greg Norton!) MLB franchise? f*** no. Someone needs to call them out.

hah trade papelbon n lester 4 schmidt

haah trade lseter 4 liber!!!!!!!!!!!

You're basing this on what?

Boston - 557 runs 3rd in MLB LA - 498 runs 16th in MLB

First inning troubles......

Varitek's game calling skills seem to be overrated.

You do realize that this isn't Jeff Weaver.