User Name

I'm willing to bet money he'll have that suspension reduced to the totality of the 2014 season and nothing else.

A-Rod got a hit on his first AB. A-Fraud chants followed.

This, along with your threat of "watching Lester pitch for another team while watching Myers play 19 time a year" is the point of contention. There wasn't "great speculation". It was mentioned, then the story died. The Red Sox were never players for Myers, and implying otherwise and stringing together all of these unsupported assumptions is quite silly if you ask me.

Gomes's beard is awesome. And besides, all three of those are full beards, not an Appalachian American goatee.

Right, because when a player has three straight years of declining velocity, overall control and pitch movement, it's normal for them to reverse the trend and go back to posting the numbers they had when they were at their best. I'm sorry, but you're ridiculous. Also, that was not the claim Palodios made. And it wasn't a "wash" at the time they made the deal. Lester was clearly declining, and Shields was pitching at ace level. Please stop being in denial.

Are you serious? Lackey's case is nothing like Lester's. This spits in the face of logic. Where's the logical connection here. Palodios himself admits Shields is the better pitcher right now and KC chose the right pitcher. What are you talking about?

He is, but he can't be counted on to provide middle-of-the-order production right off the bat like some here expect. He will struggle a bit eventually.

Yeah but you can't look at it that way. What Lester did in 2009 with a mid 90's fastball and control of his cutter has no bearing on what he was going to do in 2013 with a low 90's fastball and a fading cutter.

Yeah kind of a homer. Lester was (is?) on a noticeable downward trend in both velocity and performance, while Shields had just posted back-to-back excellent seasons with no noticeable decline in stuff, but rather scouts raving about the addition of a cutter to his repertoire and improved curveball. I mean, how long does Lester get to live on the strength of his torrid 2008-2010 stretch? Look at the results for both pitchers this season in terms of ERA and ERA+. It's clear KC chose the correct pitcher. Let's not fool ourselves.

Had KC contacted the Red Sox on a straight-up trade of Lester for Myers, we would probably have Myers in right field, and Victorino's money would have gone towards another pitcher.

Lackey's elbow was hanging by a thread. Apples to oranges.

It doesn't matter whether or not KC approached the Red Sox (by all reports, they didn't). Once Shields and Davis were in play, Lester-for-Myers was never happening.

Shields, however, is a better pitcher and was acquired before the season. So that gave the Royals two full seasons of control, instead of the one and a third we get for Peavy. Then again, the Peavy deal is still a steal for the Sox.

And doesn't spit like a drunken sailor.

By the way: Antonio Bastardo of the Phillies, Jordany Valdespin of the Mets and Sergio Escalona of the Astros also get smacked with 50-game suspensions.

Best of both worlds. Rodriguez gets his due, Yankees still on the hook for most of this season's salary (and can't recoup it via insurance claims) and everything after 2014.

Oh rearry? http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/mlb/players/full/28976.png&w=350&h=254

Yeah, and we won't care, because there was never even the framework of a Lester-for-Myers deal other than in the minds of Red Sox fans who wanted to dump Lester. Also, it doesn't matter if Shields at his best was "never as good as Lester at his best" (which is flat out false, because none of Lester's seasons even sniff Shields' 2.82 ERA, 1.04 WHIP, 249 IP 2011) because Shields had been much better than Lester in the immediate past. You are grasping at straws to form an argument where there is none.

Santana's been really helped by Kauffman stadium.

Based on what? Shields has been lights out better the past two years. Shields: 3.15 ERA, 121 ERA +, 477 IP. Lester: 4.17 ERA, 103 ERA+, 397 IP. Give me an actual reason why KC would have preferred Lester to Shields other than "because that'st what i really really really wanted to happen".

Thought number 1: Most of this is pure speculation. You "think" the Royals would have preferred Lester to Myers, but how does that make sense? Lester was coming off the worst season of his career, and Shields was coming off a vintage season. Thought number 2: Several other players (Evan Gattis immediately comes to mind) do not wear batting gloves.

The Sox did not trade for Crawford. They traded for Gonzales. Otherwise, your point is well taken.

He's not better than either, and he wouldn't be worth the aggregate value of the prospects it would take to obtain him + a monster extension.

If you go here: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45eidmk/1-new-york-yankees-5/ You'll find the operating income for each team (These are 2012 figures, since 2013 is under way). That's the true "revenue" that is earned from operating the team (after tax deductions, player expenses yada yada yada). The Red Sox had a 23.9 million operating income last year. This is inferior to the Cubs, Nationals, Astros, Orioles, Padres, Pirates and A's. The Yankees are a wild-card because no one knows exactly how much money they make from the YES network, but 2012 was not kind to them either way. The Angels and Dodgers join that team this year, and will certainly have a higher operating income than the Red Sox. Also, you can reasonably assume that the Red Sox' overall operating income was boosted by the Dodgers deal, and you'll notice that smaller market teams with more conservative payroll inclinations are making more money overall than some of the big spenders. The Red Sox don't have infinite money. That notion, and the notion that they are cheap, is flat out incorrect.

In fact, if you analyze the data presented in Forbes (which includes a pretty good estimate of tv rmoney) the Red Sox aren't even top five in revenue. Implying that the Red Sox have a "bottomless revenue stream" is a major fallacy. They would certainly drop to the bottom tier in terms of revenue if they decided to be idiots and incur luxury tax penalties. There is no "we're poor" narrative, what does exist are members of the fanbase waaaaay overvaluing how much money the team and its assets produce.