Dipre

That's where you're wrong. You think you were the only person in the universe advocating for the Crawford signing, when several other posters where doing the same thing, and trying to defend their position with stats and solid arguments, not "buzz" or "star power". And they're not acting like they're the pipeline for Theo's ideas. Get over yourself.

Fightin' words. *Grabs popcorn*

If only VA had been born in '88-'89 and was still single i'd be all over that like white on rice.

What did he do to Seattle? He played superb defense and hit 20-25 Homers per year with the exception of the year he was injured, and of course, there was the problem of that stadium cutting into his overall production. If he were to go to say, Texas, he could definitely come reasonably close to his production in Boston. The real problem isn't that sixth year, since given his body type and glove he's probably going to age well (but his OBP will decline fast) but rather the combination of the AAV plus the sixth year. 6-years at 18 mill is unrealistic even for Boras. Then again, the Nationals signed Werth for 7/126 so that may have emboldened Beltre to think he deserves something close to that.

Ok ok, i'll stop. But when you proclaim that you're always right when you're usually wrong makes you liable to getting called out . You know, like the whole "Beltre's a banjo hitter" which suddenly became just a way to troll me. Or re-sign Jason Bay. Or numerous other occasions. Now for once, because the Nationals gave Werth quite possibly the dumbest contract outside of Barry Zito-land and the Sox signed Crawford as a backup plan, he's suddenly the man who Theo goes to for advice. I'm just sayin'. You know who's always right? No one.

Willis for Pedroia and Lester. The always-right master of Zen who communicates telepathically with Theo wanted to trade our staff ace and one of the top 2nd basemen in the business for the all-time great Dontrelle Willis. And don't get me started on re-signing Jason Bay....

You can proudly use that as a sig, because a .697 OPS vs lefties for 20 million per is a shiny new toy being overpaid for. Maybe i'll put your idea to trade Jon f***ing Lester and Dusting Pedroia for Dontrelle "Holy s*** i can't throw strikes" Willis for a sig. As a matter of fact, i will.

Cot's baseball contracts is the accurate site to go to for player salaries. Pujols: 16 mill. King Felix: 6.5 mill.

Back to 2005? And the Sox were better off re-signing Bay, Papelbon would bounce back because "WHIP doesn't matter, Beltre was a banjo hitter, and Papelbon is still better than Bard. Also, quantify "talent" for me. "Talent" is in the numbers, and besides speed and 1.5 years, Werth is better at everything than Crawford. If he doesn't sign that stupid contract with the Nationals, he's preparing for ST with the Sox right now. Please.

Wait, what? This is the same Adrian Gonzales they've been attempting to trade for since before the start of the "bridge year" and everyone was certain they were going to sign one of the type-A FA outfielders, and a couple of relievers, so you weren't breaking new ground with the idea, but the OF they wanted (and who signed a ridiculously stupid deal) was Werth, opening up the door to a Crawford signing, specially since he was open to taking comparable money to Werth. I still don't like the contract, and with good reason. You were ridiculed because you ignored the facts about the way the players fir with the team because you "liked" Crawford better. That's not how you run a baseball team. You're taking information everybody knew and trying to spin it as a "groundbreaking" discovery by yourself. That is completely and utterly ridiculous.

Like trading Lester and Pedroia for "Established starter" Dontrelle Willis? That would've turned out great.

Then what's the point of waiting out the whole year if we're just going to use career stats? Injuries are part of the game, and should be addressed as such. Giving someone a cop-out in case of injury is unfair.

I think your FO hat is a bit too tight example. You came to the correct conclusion all by yourself. It's a direct player-to-player comparison (Lee is better than Beckett) nothing to do with future injury, possible signing or any other variable. "Lee is better than Beckett" period. Just like, say a "Gonzales is better than Horseface" (or vice-versa) comparison.

Rangers sign Brandon Webb. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/12/rangers-reach-agreement-with-webb.html There's no middle ground with this one. He's either going to be really good, or flat-out suck.

Which is why i made the comparison in this thread, got a ton of responses, and even got to troll a700 and his typical "I'm always right" victory chants for a bit. Now, even though you "technically" agree with me, i don't think you're fully convinced of just how wide the gap between them is right now.

Comparing two players straight up without the need of including "what's best for the Red Sox" is not strange or rare in this place, a baseball discussion forum. The straight up question of : "Is Lee better than Beckett?" is a simple one to answer using statistics, and the fact that Beckett plays for the Sox does not give him a 20% boost in statistics. I'll say it again, in a player-to-player comparison, regardless of team issues, who is the better pitcher? That is easy to answer without trying to cop-out from the discussion E1. The "potential signing" line is not part of the discussion, just a straight up comparison: Cliff Lee, 2007-2010: 109 GS, 764.2 IP, 3.40 ERA, 125 ERA+, 1.17 WHIP, 7.1 K/9, 1.5 BB/9, 4.60 SO/BB. Josh Beckett 2007-2010: 110 GS, 715 IP, 4.08 ERA, 114 ERA+, 1.23 WHIP, 8.6 K/9, 2.2 BB/9, 3.91 SO/BB. So in the discussion of "who's the better pitcher" it's clear that Lee is the better pitcher. It's really that simple. You can make the argument that when healthy, Beckett has the potential to pitch to a level similar to Lee for a fraction of the cost, you can make the argument that he's younger, so he has more prime years ahead of him, but regardless of salary or age, Cliff Lee is currently the better pitcher, and there's really no way to argue that.

First attempt was a failure. Apologies to Kilo for basically stealing his chart.

The actual question (and it's not a stupid question, mind you). Regardless of whether Lee was or wasn't an option for the Red Sox (let's maintain a neutral context here) is he or isn't he a superior pitcher to Josh Beckett? It's a question of people's abilities to remain objective in their assessments about players, and i clarified this in a post above by the way: You usually don't jump the gun and go around calling people stupid, so what changed here? Are we incapable of admitting that a player that doesn't play for our club is superior than a player that does play for our club, regardless what stats would indicate? I take offense to you calling my argument stupid without taking the time to put the core of the argument into context, by the way.

Now he would absolutely be a much better fit with the Yankees, since they can play him at DH full-time if they wanted to (he's much more productive than Posada, and Posada could be the "full-time catcher") but there are the usual concerns about his personality, his health (which should be questioned with the issues of past steroid use and age), and regression. I think Jacko's stance on it (and i'm grimacing as i say this) makes a lot sense. At his worst, they have themselves a mid-.850's hitting DH, which they didn't have before, unlike the Sox, who have a player at DH who murders righties, and alternatives to platoon him, therefore rendering a Manny acquisition useless to the Sox.

Hey, i just like calling a spade a spade. If you're right, you're right, if you're wrong, you're wrong. I was wrong in saying Beckett wouldn't take a hometown discount or that the Sox wouldn't sign Crawford. When you lower that "i'm always right" stuff to "i'm usually right" (whether you're joking or not) we can be at peace.

Ramirez has played 104 and 90 games the last two years, and his OPS has declined for three straight years, he's also 38, can't play the field, and is a known steroid user. He also looked done with the White Sox next year. No way you can sell that as the "winning ticket" to the World Series. I don't "hate him", but i don't see where he fits with the team. At all.

Actually, i don't have enough time in my hands, if i did, i'd find other threads where you're clearly wrong (usually saying trade prospect X for established star Y, like that Lester + Pedroia for Dontrelle Willis you once proposed). Being wrong is being wrong, no matter the "size" of the error, as statistics would show (i am a stats guy right?) therefore, 60% accuracy. You really need to enroll in a Supervisory Skills for Administrators class, since they always take a chapter to show you that: "You are not always right, and if you think you are, you either think too highly of yourself, or you're delusional". Work on improving that percentage.

First off, the core of the argument was "who was the superior pitcher". Cliff Lee is the superior pitcher. @a700: 100% right? o rly? Instance number one where you're wrong: Lee's 2010 and Beckett's 2010 numbers are clearly heaven-and-earth different. You've been complaining all offseason about how getting another bullpen piece catapults the Sox to the playoffs, but i bet trading for Lee would have gotten the Sox to the playoffs as well, because he was "hand-over fist" superior than the back three of our rotation. Another instance where you swung-and-missed and Dutchy wouldn't let it go. The percentage is dropping...... You were right in three things: 1) Assuming they would open their wallet to Beckett, 2) Noting that Clemens' early shoulder surgery never hindered his performance 3) Noting that Lee has been good to great throughout his whole career with the exception of one year. You were wrong in two things: 1) Failing to acknowledge that Clemens had early-career shoulder issues. 2) Saying that there wasn't a big upgrade to be had from Lee to Beckett. 60% accuracy, pretty far from 100%. Also, about the whole "The FO agrees with me" thing, they signed Carl Crawford, and you didn't predict any of the other players they signed, nor did they go with the bullpen construction model you thought they would, you never implied they would trade for Gonzales, and when they did, you thought it would fall through. In conclusion: You're not always right, hell, you're not usually right, so stop tooting your own horn. However, i'll give you "being right" over 50% of the time, even though that's much lower than my mark. Anyways, carry on.