a700hitter

He is in A ball.

The evidence that we do have is that we have equal or better prospects to what Phillie offered. That's it. The evidence is that a package including Buchholz plus other prospects would have been competitive with the Phillie package. The evidence is that you think giving up Buchholz would have been too much. Are you saying that the Indian GM would not be as familiar as you are regarding Buchholz's value and potential? Are you saying that the Indian GM is a dupe? Is that your argument? Or is your argument that the Sox never attempted to get Lee? If that is a fact, then that was a mistake. Lee should have been on their short list of trade targets.

Jeesh, your memory is terrible. When we argued about this a couple of weeks ago, I said that we could have gotten Lee for Buchholz + other prospects. Buchholz would have been the centerpiece. The Phillies did not give up a boat load of talent to get Lee. The Sox could have competed with their package. Are you changing your argument now? The last time you were insulting me for wanting to trade Buchholz in the package. Now, are you arguing that Buchholz + couldn't have done the trick?

We've been down this road before. I say we get Lee for Buchholz. You say I am nuts for wanting to trade Buchholz. I disagree. I'd rather have Lee. You say that I'm nuts. There we just saved repeating the same argument that we had during the World Series after Lee dominated the yanks in game 1.

I think you are right that the missed opportunity was Lee.

I think there would have been a very strong possibility that things could have ended very differently if we had landed a combination of Halladay and Felix. That would have been huge. You must not have much of an imagination if you can't see how that could have changed things. We would have played the little league team from Minnesota instead of the Angels in round 1.

There has to be "could" or "would" in the statement, because it didn't happen. We are left to speculate. Nothing can be stated with certainty when speculating. The FO must have believed that he or Felix could have helped put them over the top, because they kicked the tires pretty hard on both. They must have seen some possibilities. The 2009 Sox were a pretty good team. I don't find it difficult to believe that the acquisition of a CY Young caliber pitcher along with the acquisition of VMart would have pushed them to the next level. I think if VMart hadn't been acquired there was a real possibility that the Sox might have fallen out of a playoff spot. He was critical to the offense in the second half.

It could have been A or B. I think he could have given the Sox a chance at either. One player doesn't make a bad team a great team, but the 2009 Sox were a very good team. When we speculate about how Halladay would have changed the Red Sox season, we can't assume that that everything else would have stayed static. I'm not saying that his presence would improve the teams' offense, but his presence could have affected games beyond those that he pitched. His ability to go deep into games could have helped give the bullpen a shot in the arm at a time when it was running on fumes. I don't think it is a huge stretch to think Halladay could have won three games against the Yankees in the second half. That by itself would put the Sox 2 games back of the Yankees. I don't think its a stretch to think that Halladay or a more refreshed Pen could have picked up an additional couple or 3 games the rest of the way. If we didn't have enough to catch the Yankees, it's not a stretch to think that Halladay could have won game 3 against the Angels. Who knows what happens in game 4 at Fenway and game 5 with Lester and Beckett on the hill in those games. I think you would have to give the Sox a shot. Schilling used to talk about how the execution or 4 or 5 pitches in the course of 120 pitches usually was the difference between winning and losing. It doesn't take a lot to change the dynamic of a game to account for the difference between a win and a loss. Similarly, with a playoff team, it's not hard for me to believe that the presence of Halladay could have made a difference to the Red Sox season.

The Red Sox did make a run at Halladay and at the trading deadline the Sox were practically in a dead heat with the Yankees. The FO must have thought that Halladay could have helped them win the division.

Rosenthal claims that inside the Red Sox FO there is the sentiment that the Sox cannot field a good young team until 2012. Rosenthal is usually full of baloney, but if he is right about this, I hope the accent is on "young" and not "good". http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/10363914/Plenty-of-tough-choices-ahead-for-Epstein,-BoSox

So, you see no possibility that Halladay could have helped improve the Red Sox 2009 season?

...and Halladay could have changed a lot of that. When we rolled out the number 5 guy in the second half, it was like raising the white flag. We rolled out a steady diet of garbage in that spot.

I don't hate you for it. Everyone here trolls an issue once in awhile. Your trolling was apparently unwitting. No biggie.

Sure you did. Who the hell was talking about Halladay and the trading deadline until you brought him up. The discussion was about Wakefield. You've got to take accountability for that.

WIth a healthy Beckett, Halladay and Lester lined up, you don't give us a shot. You do remember that the Sox won the first 8 meetings this season... right?

I know. I just hate when the topic of a thread gets derailed by a trolling comment.

...and the attack machine of TalkSox kicks into gear with ORS and Destroyah joining in to take cheap shots over an issue that VA trolled. I was discussing Wakefield's limited utility as a starter for 2010 and beyond, but rather than debate that point feel free to take shots at me over an issue (Halladay) that has been over since the end of July. A bunch of maroons.

You are right. He clearly would not have helped the team at all in the second half. He probably could have won 3 games against the Yankees in the second half. Two that spring to mind were the Smoltz and Penny debacles. The Sox scored enough runs in those games to win. Change the outcome in three of those games aqnd it's a different race. Maybe we would've faced the Twins instead of the Angels.

Did I say who I was upset at? I was upset that we didn't get him.

Why are you getting nasty VA? I love Timmay, but it's time to cut bait with him. Branch Rickey used to say that it was better to trade a player one year too soon than to wait 1 year too long. Wakefield is 43 years old and he looked like an old warhorse out there at the end of the season. Recovering from back surgery at 43 to pitch effectively in the majors is tough enough. Added to that, he has had a torn labrum in his shoulder that has gone unrepaired for the last 2 years. Also, his durability has been waning over the last several years. This has nothing to do with liking the player. What's up with the Halladay remark? You wouldn't like to see him in the Red Sox rotation?

If they were willing to adjust their offer upward which they had indicated in the press, then the methodology was flawed. If you take them at their word that they would have moved the original offer up, that means that they had established that he was still a value at a higher price. The fact that they didn't get to communicate that to Damon and potentially retain him was bad methodology. The Monday Morning QBing shows that the value placed on him by the Yankees was too high, but it doesn't verify that the Red Sox properly valued him, because they never got to give him a final offer. The Yankees, with their take-it-or-leave-it approach probably saved the Red Sox from over-valuing him. If they gave him time to go back to the Sox, they would have upped the ante, and using 20-20 hindsight that would have been the wrong decision. You can't give the Sox credit because another team precluded them from making a mistake. Their right decision was merely fortuitous and not the result of good business acumen. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than to be good. The same could be said of the Jose Contreras debacle. The Yankees snatched him from under our noses. He ended up stinking, but that doesn't mean the Red Sox exercised good business judgment. They were looking to give him a hefty contract. The Yankees superior networking and negotiating saved the red Sox from a terrible waste of resources. Both teams had Contreras valued wrong. The Yankees executed their plan better. Contrearas stinking doesn't make the Red Sox the better organization, because they did a bad job of executing an ill-conceived plan for a player that they drastically over-valued.

I think you underestimate the clout that the Red Sox organization has. The Sox are much closer to the Yankees stature than the Royals or Marlins are to the Red Sox. I didn't say that the technique would work for everyone. In fact, my post addressed only the Yankees use of the technique, not the Red Sox and certainly not the Royals or Marlins. I discussed how the Yankees have been effectively employing this technique to keep the cost from spiraling too wildly upward. I do think that the Red Sox could effectively use this technique at times. You mention Teixeira as an example, but apparently from the information out there, the Red Sox were willing to go higher, but walked away before giving the final offer. What they did really was really confounding to me. (I realize that a lot of what is in the press has been distorted along the way, so it's hard to know the true facts). The Sox made an offer. Tex countered. Sox walked away and declared negotiations over in the press. Yet, in stories that came out later, they were willing to increase their offer. If you are going to employ the tactic of making the best and final offer that has to be accepted on the spot, then make the final offer. Don't expect that you will be able to get back to the table with the new offer. Competing with the Yankees for players is challenging, and overall, the FO does a good job. Good negotiation skills and techniques can help close the gap. I think at times they are penny wise and pound foolish. They'll miss out on a good player like Abreu because they wanted the Phillies to eat $2 or 3 million more than the Phillies wanted to, but then they throw $39 million at a useless dog like Lugo and they misjudge the market for Dice K by paying more than 25% more than any other team was willing to bid. The FO is a smart bunch. I think they are good at assessing and learning from there mistakes. While some of us give them a free pass when they screw up, I think they are quite a bit more self critical.