Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

a700hitter

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    70,398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospect Rankings

Boston Red Sox Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Boston Red Sox Fan Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Boston Red Sox News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by a700hitter

  1. Gom, can't you f***ing read. They'd do it because Buchholz is a proven star who is irreplaceable.
  2. Find me a single post where I called Buchholz "hyped" or even implied that sentiment. You might find a reactionary post in a 2008 GT when he was consistently s***ing the bed, but others were saying far worse about him in those GT's. I have never denied his big upside. Also, a "league average" pitcher has mixed results--- that's why they are average. This is what I have said about Buchholz. 1. In 2008, he sucked. 2. In 2009, he showed promise, but his results were mixed, i.e he was average. 3. In 2010, his career will be at a crossroads as big things will be expected from him. At 26, he is leaving his prospect status behind. With which of these 3 things to do you disagree?
  3. Throughout the past year, I believe that I have confined my discussions to trading him for Gonzalez, Halladay, Lee, or Felix. Where did you get the idea that I thought it would be an easy upgrade? It would also take more than Buchholz to get anyone of those guys, because his potential is greater than his accomplishments. The Sox would not consider trading Lester or Pedroia for any of those guys, because it would create another huge hole to fill. It would also be very questionable whether Halladay, Lee or Felix would be an upgrade over Lester. Buchholz is not yet close to having the status of Lester or Pedroia. That's a fact. This is what I am saying. I am not saying that Buchholz stinks or that he would be an easy upgrade. Those are words and sentiments that you are trying to attribute to me. I reject those ideas. He is our biggest trading chip that could be moved in the off season in a very big deal. The other guys (Lester, Pedroia) are not trading chips. There is no chance they get moved.
  4. There are players who are better than Lester and Pedroia, but there is no realistic chance of upgrading their positions, because they are big stars in their own rights. It just doesn't happen. There is a realistic chance that Buchholz gets traded to ugrade the pitching or another part of the team. He is nowhere near as hard to upgrade as the others. Maybe he will be their in a few years, but he is not close to the status of the others yet. It doesn't matter what his stuff is like.
  5. I'm not advocting trading Buchholz, but I am acknowledging his status as trading chip. I am advocating getting a stud like Gonzalez, and I am acknowledging that it might cost Buchholz. So if the difference between getting Gonzalez is Buchholz, I guess you would walk away.
  6. I wouldn't be surprised to see Buchholz in a package for Gonzalez.
  7. That would be more than offset by the improvement with Gonzalez. Buchholz and Bard are still major trading chips. They would only be traded for a big impact player(s), but they are still chips. Lester, Ellsbury, Papelbon and Pedroia are not trading chips at this point.
  8. Still a faulty premise. Are you saying that we would not be as good with a 23 man roster if Buchholz or bard was removed? I'd agree with that. Or are you saying that we couldn't replace Bard and Buchholz from within the organization and improve the team? I'd agree with that too. However, I think if we traded either or both of them, we could get back players that would improve the team.
  9. God, you must have a learning disability. I've told you time and again that I follow our prospects. I just don't get all excited about them until they make it to the majors when I can see them play. You are all wet with your groupings here. Bard and Buchholz are not comparable under any standard to Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester or Papelbon.
  10. How is criticizing a post that compares him to Lester, Papelbon, Pedroia and Lester a bashing of Buchholz? I don't bash him. I acknowledge his potential, but I am not going to declare him as a ML star like the others are you?
  11. If they deal Buchholz for Felix, it wouldn't be to improve on Buchholz? you also, included Bard in that grouping. I don't see him as comparable to Papelbon, Lester, Pedroia, and Ellsbury. You are right that I don't get your point.
  12. Buchholz and Bard don't belong in the group with the others you mentioned. You demean their accomplishments by putting them in the same class. Lowrie doesn't deserve to be considered to be in Melky's class until he can play a full season or two. Right now he is a bit player-- a utility guy. Melky is much more than that.
  13. A big nothing move by the Sox picking up a guy off waivers from Seattle. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/11/sox_claim_right.html
  14. Stanley was a much better hitter than Kottaras will ever be. Kottaras will have a career arc similar to Gary Allenson. He stunk too.
  15. My argument is this. Buchholz did not go through the league like a buzz saw. His performance was encouraging after he s*** the bed in 2008, but his 2009 performance was far from star caliber. 2010 will definitely be a crossroads year for him. If he doesn't breakout this coming season, we may have to reconsider his star potential.
  16. By the end, those terrible teams were mailing it in. You can't put too much stock in good performances against them in September when they were making golf and fishing plans..
  17. 17 runs above the league average for the #6 spot in the league. Their OBP was blow average, only 1 point better than the O's, who suck. The point is that he wasn't doing his best work against the top teams.
  18. ... and he still stinks.
  19. Russ Gibson and Mike Ryan to you.
×
×
  • Create New...