Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Dojji

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    18,632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Dojji

  1. In that case i wonder if picking up Michael Young from the cash-strapped Rangers might be a good move to follow up a Gonzalez acquisition. Young isn't a middle of the order bat but he's a huge measure above what we have right now and the cost in money is high enough that the cost in talent wouldn't be. He's got extensive experience at other infield positions as well, so if we found out later we could land Hanley, Young wouldn't really stand in the way.
  2. That's a tougher call. I'm not wild about your idea of a replacement though, especially if it involves a multi year commitment. Figgins is good, but he's a speedster on the wrong side of 30. Those don't tend to age well. If we think Reddick'd hit he might be able to replace Ells at center himself, but if we blow the farm for both Hanley and Adrian, he's gone too.
  3. I like Chone Figgins. But I'm not wild about signing a guy over 30 to be a light hitting speedster in CF, especially if he hasn't played that position that much in his career. The chances that you wind up paying for essentially Juan Pierre with infield flexibility are a little high for me to completely ignore. I think that at this stage of their respective careers, Ellsbury is pretty clearly the better option. I wouldn't mind going after Adrian Gonzalez but I think your chances of actually landing him are about the same as trading for Pujols. I think we have to wait and see if San Diego is interested in dangling him to restock with prospects before that line of discussion goes anywhere. I have much more confidence that the Marlins will part with Hanley than that the Padres will part with Gonzalez.
  4. I wouldn't say THAT. We're still in line for a playoff appearance after all. It doesn't look the greatest but tell me about "grim" when we're multiple games out of the wild card. It IS time to worry. It is NOT time to panic.
  5. Now it's time to seriously worry. I dunno about freaking out. But if any one here has fingernails left I'm going to call him or her a pink hatter.
  6. We've been through bad stretches before and will again. This one just happens to be conspicuously ill-timed. We got super cold just as the Yankees got super hot. I've got an open mind on Magadan's job though, since several key players are showing a conspicuous lack of power right now and Magadan's game eschews power in favor of OBP. He's done wonders with Youkilis but it may be time to find a guy who can get a few of our other bats back.
  7. Yeah, and now I'm going back to the second account theory.
  8. Uh-huh. Lemme tell you buddy, you aren't fooling anyone.
  9. Or maybe we actually have a Yankee troll. (well, two if you count Gom...) Would be about the right time to encounter one.
  10. Someone created a second account to vent their frustration. Full points for self-preservation..
  11. Sure, gimme a chance and I can post odes to futility over every ball and strike. But I don't give up on a season easily. Probably better than most people here you ought to know that when it comes to things Sox I'm often fanboyishly optimistic. Some of this may be an immediate response to the game, but most of it is a long time coming.
  12. I'd say at this point, 2010 needs to be the primary concern. This is a good team, but it's a flawed team and it needs more work than the waiver deadline can be reasonably counted on for. Also we need to get healthy, which the waiver wire can't help us with. Roster moves that are designed to prop this team up at the expense of the 2010 team are no longer as good of an idea. The moves that should be made for the remainder of this season are those that best strengthen us beyond this season.
  13. That it would. There is now officially mud in the water. The other fansites I still have access to are up in flames. Personally I don't think it'd surprise me either way. Taking on a heavy financial commitment for 2010 wasn't in character with what I thought Theo was up to however.
  14. Alright, Example, fair enough. I have a crazy idea however: Let's try and pretend that no one was really disputing that Guzman was better than Green and that the conversation of the afternoon centered around two questions: 1: Is the marginal upgrade of Guzman over Green worth the contract cost 2: Is the marginal upgrade of Guzman over Green worth the opportunity costs associated with going into the offseason still bound to a mediocre SS on top of the money we'd owe Lugo. The specific opportunity in question was the opportunity to acquire Hanley Ramirez in trade, which would be made more problematic by an acquisition of Guzman. Would this team, with Guzman, be better than the team that we would have plus Hanley and minus the king's ransom of prospects he'd cost?
  15. So in other words, you're a dyslexic horse. Good to know.
  16. I always thought it was a stallion with... you know... issues.
  17. You spent 80% of that post calling us all idiots and expect us to care what your opinion is?
  18. Really? The last time I looked at his numbers -- and I admit it was a while ago -- I got the impression that he was pretty Jeterish. If he's a competent defensive SS, then forget Guzman, suck it up through the bad times and go for the prize in the offseason.
  19. And even dealing for Hanley, you're sacrificing defense for offense -- even if it's a whole freakin' load of offense.
  20. Theo seems torn between what he wants. What he'd REALLY like is a SS with good defense and a solid bat, the question is which one is he prepared to sacrifice to maintain a long-term option at the position.
  21. I have to agree, that would indeed have been a superior move. I don't think anyone saw Lowrie going down again so soon though.
  22. You don't stick at SS by just hitting the ball either. Especially when you only hit it as well as Guzman does. he doesn't have the bat to carry both the bad glove and the bloated contract. One or the other might be fine, both makes him a walking franchise poison pill.
  23. So you're looking at this purely from the perspective of offense? At what point does "not being an automatic out" cancel out the fact that a routine G6 isn't an automatic out either?
×
×
  • Create New...