Dipre

:lol: Well done, sir.

1) The bolded part proves my points. 2) Errors are not a good way to evaluate a player's defensive ability. Hulett simply lacks the range and arm to play SS.

For the love of God, don't trade Ellsbury!

Then you just like Hulett. Green is better than Hulett at SS, and he's the better, proven hitter too.

He'd also be an offensive weapon off the bench against LHP. He had an .831 OPS against them last year, which is pretty good.

You've watched Tejada on TV, and only a couple times. I see him working out here, and playing SS in intra-squad games. You're just talking for the sake of talking, and that's all i have to say about that.

I'll take Green over Hulett every time.

Gonzales is also a GG 1B. Youk is a massive improvement over Lowell at third, and visit this site: www.fangraphs.com Check out their defensive ratings for Youk at third, since errors are the absolutely worst way to measure the defensive ability of a ballplayer.

It wasn't going to happen because you can't deal Buch unless you have a pitcher of stature (Lackey) in the rotation besides Beckett and Lester. Besides, the centerpiece is Buch plus ONE of West/Kelly. I've provided the link several times.

Hoyer has every reason to trade A-Gon,he won't be able to retain him, and he can get maximum return on him now, it's also a given Hanley will command a similar package, so i don't see what you're getting at by mentioning him. Agree on the Cabrera front.

The problem is that Gonzo's a special, cheap, and young player. I believe that trading Buch will not be damaging to the organization so long as they get Chapman, but let me tell you one thing, a 3-4-5 of V-Mart, A-Gon and Youk would be a thing of beauty, and A-Gon solves our cleanup hitter spot for quite some time, while with Buch you hope he turns into the ace we all expect him to be.

It won't be done, because it's not a good idea. Three reasons: 1) Who leads off? 2) Ellsbury makes next to nothing and is under team control for the long term. 3) He has not reached his full potential. Theo knows this.

He explicitly acknowledged it.

An agreement with Cameron has been reached, there's over a 90% change the deal goes through. It's only pending a physical. http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091214&content_id=7810318&vkey=news_bos&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos

When a prospect is as coveted as Westmoreland, and has shown the tools he has shown, and the GM of a team who used to work specifically with this farm system asks for him in a trade for a player of A-Gon's caliber, you should re-evaluate the way you're valuing said prospect, which, by the way, seems to be done exclusively on opinion and not stats, following said player, or watching his tools in play. This is a mistake. It doesn't stand to logic, i'll explain why: It's not that they're rated above Buch, but that the organization views all three of them as integral parts of the future on equal grounds, like you said, although Buch has some experience,they can't be rated above, but they can't be rated below either, and none of us has a knowledge as refined about them as the organization, so if they value them on equal terms, there has to be a reason. You're both contradicting yourself and going on a tangent. Gonzales is far more proven than Bucholz, which is where you contradict yourself, and for the tangent, "pitching beats hitting" , i would concur with you if Buch wasn't the number five starter at this time, and they weren't hot on the heels of Aroldis Chapman. The bottom line is you need to give quality players to get quality players, specially in this case.

This would be the ideal scenario, but i doubt it happens while dealing with Hoyer.

While i agree that trading Ellsbury makes no sense, what evidence do you have to support your premise that Westmoreland will be a bust? Also, do you know enough about the Sox system to make the Bucholz claim? Number three, since you're talking about proven, then Bucholz in an Adrian Gonzales package makes total sense, so why wouldn't you want to trade him for the proven bat that makes our lineup nearly as deadly as the Yanks'?

This concept, in itself, makes no sense. UZR does not attempt to illustrate the defensive impact of the players per se, but the efficacy of a player when compared to what could be defined as the positional "average". As ORS said, it's a linear process, the reason the "impact" aspect of the formula was incorporated in the first place is to eliminate the variables that appear from the difference in sample sizes that appear from one position to the next.