Dipre

My ranking (I will assume it's about both regular season and playoffs, as in the entire baseball season): 25 Atchison 24 McDonald 23 Wakefield 22 Doubront 21 Varitek 20 Wheeler 19 Scutaro 18 Lowrie 17 Cameron 16 Matsuzaka 15 Salty 14 Drew 13 Jenks 12 Lackey 11 Ortiz Top 10 and their explanations: 10 Beckett: You need three reliable starters for the playoffs, and Beckett would be the #3. If he doesn't pull his s*** together, it could be a long season with a really short playoff for the Red Sox. 9 Crawford: He's one of the "slump-breakers" because speed doesn't slump. Along with his outstanding defense, he'd be heavily relied upon in both regular season and playoffs. 8 Ellsbury: Like Crawford, he'd make things happen come playoff time. No spark, no wins. He also patrols an up-the-middle position, so defense is also essential to team success. 7 Bucholz: Same reason as Beckett, come playoff time, no dependable pitching, no playoff advancement. But he's even more important due to his status as #2. 6 Bard: In today's game, a lot of ballgames are won or lost in the 8th and 9th innings, so a 1-2 back-end of the bullpen combo is absolutely essential, specially in the playoffs. 5 Papelbon: The other half of the equation. If Papelbon shits the bed and isn't replaced with a viable option, a long playoff run is unlikely. 4 Youkilis: Second-best hitter on the team, and an irreplaceable cog in the offense. 3 Gonzales: You need punch in the lineup, and this guy will be the main source of punch. Without him, the offense would look a lot different, and not in a good way. 2 Pedroia: Surprised eh? Pedroia is the best overall hitter on this team, he can hit for average, power, get on base and has an above-average speed game, he's arguably the most important piece of this lineup, and he plays an up-the-middle position at top-5 level. You can replace a two or three tool guy with relative ease, but a 5-tooler that is above average in every facet is next to impossible. 1 Lester: Come crunch time, no stopper, no ring. It's as simple as that.

Dojji, why are you banging the Reddick drum again? It's not that people aren't giving Reddick enough credit, it's that he's not displaying any sort of production that would warrant him even being a 4th OF on this team, specially with the projected 2012 OF (even if Ellsbury weren't to show much in the way of production, Reddick wouldn't supplant him given the fact that, well, Reddick is sucking ass) being predominantly left handed, raising the need for RHH backup OF's? I know you like the guy, but Christ, let's stick to reality here.

Well i will do my best to reciprocate Jacko's usual tactic of denying Red Sox fan any sort of hypothetical happiness (be it via trade or FA signing) of their team by providing reasons of why said move wouldn't happen, and demonstrate why the Yankees getting Liriano is very unlikely, stopping his mental masturbatory session in the process: This is from the TYU blog: The bolded part is very important. I'd just like to add that there's no indication that the Twins are actively shopping Liriano, and that , being legit contenders in the Central, can both wait out the best proposal, and it makes sense to try to deal him out of the AL (like the Jays did with Halladay) so they don't hurt their own post-season prospects unless, of course, the Yankees offer is substantially better than what any other team offers for Liriano's services, which would possibly be a problem in its own right.

Interesting article and points of view by Speier, may be TL: DR for some, but it's definitely worth it. I only disagree on the fact that they'll probably choose two lefties (instead of a lefty and a righty) and also. There's also the fact that Coello was designated for assignment, which may take him out of the running. Discuss.

It wasn't just wrong because it broke US Law (which consumption of marihuana does as well, but in the context of baseball doesn't constitute cheating per se, since it doesn't enhance your performance, but i digress) it was wrong because he cheated, which you stubbornly try to demonstrate he didn't, when it's as clear as the fact that the Phillies signed Cliff Lee, not the Yankees. ORS brought up an important piece of evidence, which i will not present in its entirety: Now i want you to tell me how Petitte's actions were not directly in contradiction to a provision set by an acting commissioner of MLB, and that, to the best of anyone's knowledge, was never reversed.

Well if anyone (given that they could dump LaRoche) seems like they'd be willing to overpay for Pujols given how they've chased FA's lately, Washington's the team. But does 10/300 get it done?

Oh, and depending on how their financial health projects for after 2011, the Dodgers could also be a fit, but no to the Mets and that mess of a franchise.

There's "potentially surprising" and "logically improbable". By your logic, basically every team in MLB could be a "potentially surprising" suitor. I also find highly amusing at how you say the ChiSox could "easily" pick up Pujols when their payroll has been as high as its ever been, and signing Pujols for 30 per and 8 years would lock up a guy for 30% of their total payroll when they have capable players at both positions Pujols plays. Meaning they would most likely have to get rid of one of them to fit Pujols into their not unlimited payroll, and he would still occupy at least 1/4th of the payroll. Let me put it this way, Albert Pujols is the best player in the planet, but he's not a $17 million upgrade over either Kornerko or Dunn, specially for a team that's not known for its financial might. If you think about it for a second, i doubt many small and mid-market teams wouldn't love to have Pujols, but would hesitate to sign him given the fact that he will cover around 30%, and possibly much more of their payroll for years after seeing how it absolutely handicapped the Rangers after they signed A-Rod, because that would be stupid. A team needs to have the perfect storm to sign Pujols, which is availability at the position, and the financial might to withstand his contract, and contender or near-contender status, and unless the Yankees and Red Sox want to get creative, only the Cubs, Angels (who could move Kendry to DH), Blue Jays (if they can muster up the money) and perhaps the Braves (depending on Freddie Freeman's production) kinda sorta fit the bill. I'd be all over ForSyth's mention of the Nationals, but they owe LaRoche 9 mill for 2011, which isn't chump-change, and with his skillset, he may be impossible to move in order to make space for Pujols, who may not want to play for them unless they make significant strides in 2011, which is very much a possibility. Sorry for thinking logically, it seems to annoy some people. On a side note, Pujols is the best player on the planet, but he also has a lot less leverage than A-Rod when A-Rod signed both his contracts, not only because he's a first baseman, but because now both of A-Rod's contracts look as albatrosses. He may get the 30 million he wants, but i doubt he'll sign for 10 years and be paid 30 million per into his 40's.

The White Sox are already contenders, and they have two premier bats at 1B (Konerko) and DH (Dunn), the Blue Jays could make sense, but they're rebuilding, and honestly may not have the resources, i seriously doubt Pujols would want to play for the Mariners (Death Valley) or Orioles (they suck). If i was a betting man, i'd say this is all ******** and he'll re-sign with the Cards for less than 10/300. He simply doesn't fit with anyone at that price. In the unlikely scenario that Pujols leaves the Cards i would have the Angels and Cubs as most probable destinations.

A guy who used to post here a lot more (TheKilo) used to say that "JD Drew is the litmus test for baseball fans" because there are people who don't believe in the importance of OBP and/or defense, and that a player shouldn't be paid based on those two factors, and that people who thought like that don't understand the way the game has evolved over the years. I agree with that sentiment. The reason why i asked what you meant is because you don't strike as an "OBP is overrated" kinda guy, so i wanted to make sure what you meant before engaging in typical Drew discussion. On the topic of sunk cost, i am of the idea that "sunk cost" as referencing to money you can't get back in an investment, is an incorrect term, because you usually (directly or indirectly) receive a ROI from invested revenue, so it's either "minimal" or "uncertain" ,however, i am in the minority of the people who think that way, and i have even used the term several times to describe why relievers shouldn't receive long-term contracts. And since i'm in the minority of the people who accept the alternate definition, chances are, i'm wrong about it. See? I admitted i was wrong. Now you can sleep better at night.

What does "being right or wrong" have to do with it? You made a statement, i asked what you meant. I'm not inside your head to know exactly what you mean, which is why i asked, instead of making an assumption, because the term has been used before to declare Drew a "bust". I would have used my mind-reading crystal ball, but it broke the last time i tried to read Mick Jagger's mind to know how many surgeries he's actually had.

In the final post, what i wanted to say was: "You don't know what he meant, but you know why i ask". And the reason i asked is because Drew is an oft-discussed topic in this board. Some people think he's the most overpaid player in Red Sox history; some people think he's a nice player, but way overpaid; some people, like me, actually like the guy. He's been referred to as a "sunk cost" before in more than one instance in what you may consider an incorrect manner (or correct, depending on who you ask, because some argue that sunk costs actually don't exist, and would rather call them "minimal return on investment"). So i wanted to know what you meant. But thanks for the rant.

Wait, what? All i asked was why you thought his contract was a "sunk cost". Because that's literally what you said: "To me, his contract is a sunk cost". There could have been multiple explanations as to why you could have said that, one being the literal definition of sunk cost, maybe you thought he didn't play enough, or didn't produce enough, maybe you don't like the fact that he doesn't have "grit" like Trot Nixon did. How would i know? That's all i asked. Way to be a drama queen.

You know what he meant and what i'm asking wise-ass.

Excuse me, but how is Drew a sunk cost? I would like to be enlightened as it pertains to this line of thinking.

By the way, i don't care what either you or Palodios think. Maybe if you took two seconds to think before you post i wouldn't call you out. Ooooh i made it personal! Oh, and your incessant baiting is getting annoying.

I actually agree with most of your points, save for two things. 1) With such a LH lineup, a Kalish-for-Cameron trade-off doesn't make much sense, because he's an important RH bat, whereas Kalish is a lefty. 2) Please please please please please stop beating the Nava drum.

Garcia was on the White Sox, he's going to the AL East and homerdome, with diminished stuff, and much higher FB tendencies than earlier in his career and Mitre was a reliever, not a starter. He only pitched 13 innings as a starter and got rocked. We're talking league average production as a SP.

It's Kenny Williams, and so? He's been known to make bold moves to improve the Major League roster, not trade established Major League talent for prospects. I'd like to see an example of a move similar to the one proposed here by Williams. @Y228: If what you mean is that you think Mitre/Garcia can provide the same quality of innings when compared directly to Wakefield, i'd disagree too, mainly based on the fact that i think Mitre is pretty much a reliever right now, and Garcia (who will likely be in the rotation) will likely be hurt very much by NYS. Wakefield's real question is health.

And why would the White Sox trade either Danks or Floyd for prospects when they're a legit contender?

Not for MLB, which is the context in which we're talking about it. See, the reason this argument is dumb (and it is) is because marijuana doesn't give a baseball player an unfair advantage over non-marijuana users. I don't see why this is so difficult to comprehend. It wasn't "what you may call cheating". It was cheating, period. The fact that it wasn't banned when he did it doesn't take the most important element out of the definition for cheating in a sports environment, which is gaining an unfair advantage. He cheated, and broke the law. Rationalize away.

We're all stupid (yes, i'm including myself) for arguing over this s***. Now everybody shut up about this stupid argument. It needs to die, now.

This, too, is rationalization ,leap in logic, plus a strawman. A winning trifecta. It's a strawman because your initial point was that "HGH wasn't banned in baseball" meaning that he didn't break any rule. I countered that by saying that while it wasn't banned by baseball, it was illegal to buy HGH, meaning he did break the rules. It's rationalization because the argument isn't about "what you're supposed to think" but about the facts. And the fact is that he used steroids and broke the law. It's a leap in logic because "you don't see it much worse than smoking marijuana", but marijuana isn't the performance-enhancing drug in the middle of a worldwide scandal and multi-million dollar investigation. And as i said before, i don't care whether or not players use steroids, but let's not pretend like he didn't cheat and break the rules just because he plays for the Yankees.

Damn double posts.