A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Now Beckett goes down.
    Lester threw 94-95 for the first time all year and he leaves a no-hitter in progress.
    The beat goes on and on.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    We need the rotation relatively intact to expect to go  all the way. Boston does have depth though. Theo does a great job with that.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Yes, they have excellent depth. Last year was a good teacher.
    But even in tact, this rotation has to find healthy form.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    m
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    With the bats performing so well we don't need a lot of pitching but can we expect Adrian to hit .350 all year? 

    I like our chances but I sure would prefer to see at least 3 starters putting up regular quality starts.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WE5NUTS. Show WE5NUTS's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

     RF: A dream scenario, because it has a 0.00000000001% chance of happening, but I would love to see Matt Kemp in Boston. It would likely require 1 of these two packages:
     Package 1: Kalish, Reddick, Su-Lin (or whatever his name is), Navarro, Anderson, Exposito, and Dubront.
     OR
     Package Softlaw: Ells, Anderson, Lowrie, Dubront, Kalish.
     
     Package 1 doesn't have any apparent problems, as all the outfielders would be blocked for the forseeable future, as would Navarro (Iggy), Anderson (Gonzo), Exposito (Larvenway/Salty), and we have quite a few young starters in the minors, so say good-bye to Prince Felix (LOL). However, I don't think Theo is willing to part with so many prospects, even if none of them will become a fixture in Boston.
     Package 2 is what Softlaw wants, and you have to dig deep to find the big problem. As much of Softy hating Ells has no sense to it, you'd have to be crazy to say that Ells is better than Kemp. Lowrie and Felix can go, Anderson is effectively blocked by Gonzo, and you do need to give up a Kalish-esque prospect to get someone like Kemp. The only thing wrong with this package is that since Kemp replaces Ells, you don't get any help for right field, you just upgrade center field. Even Softy has to admit that Ells is better than Reddick. And even Theo must admit that Reddick is better than Drew. However, if you can do this trade without giving up Kalish or Reddick, go for it! We improve the team and we don't have to listen to Softy go on his "Ells is bad" speech after every game where he doesn't go 4-for-3. (Yes, 4-for-3.) After all, Reddick can be the right fielder for the rest of the year, and then he competes with Kalish for right field in 2012. We also add a righthanded bat in the process. This is all moot, however, as Theo loves Ells more than Softy hates him (they are both extreme) and won't empty the farm for Kemp, which I get. I also get that he wants to keep Ells.
    SS- WE ARE FINE WITH SCUTARO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    C- Salty and V-Tek are producing fine compared to the league averages at catcher. Heck, Salty even has a higher average than Mauer.
    Pitching- I don't think Theo is going after pitching.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    There's a better chance of you admitting you were ever wrong than there is the Dodgers paying Jake's arbitration years.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Wrong, oh clueless guarantor of AGon starting the spring in San Diego. 1.2M is "Paying arbitration cost" for year 2011 4 to 6M is "Paying arbitration cost" for 2012 and 2013 Plus, the Dodgers get 2 or 3 more near zero cost young talents Kemp would cost about 10 to 12M for one more year, and 18 to 21M for the following years. Wrong again. Kemp will go for the best serious and lower cost offer. The only reason the Red Sox dont show up in the Kemp trade market will be because Theo wants to dumpster dive and ignore a problem since Manny.  Harness, you don't know what you are talking about.
    Posted by billbyboy[/QUOTE]

    Let me get this deal straight.

    1) We would swap 2.5 years of lower cost control for Ellsbury for 1/2 year of more expensive control on Matt Kemp.

    I wouldn't even do that deal. 5 times as much control, at a lower cost than Kemp. I wouldn't even trade Ellsbury straight up!

    2) Then you want to include several other decent players as well, as incentives to do the deal?

    If offered Ellsbury for Kemp straight up, given the contract situation, any of them ( EDIT: MLB GM ) would do it in a heartbeat. Softy, I don't understand how anyone here thinks you are a good analyst unless they are one of your multiple identities. You haven't got much of anything right in like 18 months.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    You want to throw in up to three of our top prospects? For example:

    Doubront ( arguably our #2 pitching prospect )
    Brentz ( arguably our #1 OF prospect )
    and Lowrie ( arguably our best SS at the mlb level ).

    Thank God you aren't working in the Redsox FO!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Kemp's career averages are what he is.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    You throw us immediately over the luxury tax threshhold and we do not even need a CF. Unbelievable. One thing is certain. If we trade for Kemp, Ellsbury would not be part of that deal. He would be our new RF. And BTW, it's not likely at all to happen.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Wrong, oh clueless guarantor of AGon starting the spring in San Diego. 1.2M is "Paying arbitration cost" for year 2011 4 to 6M is "Paying arbitration cost" for 2012 and 2013 Plus, the Dodgers get 2 or 3 more near zero cost young talents Kemp would cost about 10 to 12M for one more year, and 18 to 21M for the following years. Wrong again. Kemp will go for the best serious and lower cost offer. The only reason the Red Sox dont show up in the Kemp trade market will be because Theo wants to dumpster dive and ignore a problem since Manny.  Harness, you don't know what you are talking about.
    Posted by billbyboy[/QUOTE]

    You are truly out to lunch. Just as you were with Jake to SD.
    Jake to FLA.
    Now Jake to LA.
    Hall over Lowrie.
    Redsox won't pursue CC.

    Try to get this thru UR thick skull: The RedSox don't have the pieces or the desire to attain or over-pay for Kemp.
    The Dodgers have a commodity they will likely shop. They too would be foolish to pay for Kemp's services given their situation.

    Your logic, for the lack of a more suitable term, is motivated by UR desire to trade Jake and Kemp's appeal. And like UR other ludicrous trade scenarios, it's only plausible in UR warped thinking. The realities, like all realities, dance around the perimeter of your demented thought pattern.

    The few times you get anything right, it's a matter of 50/50 spineless lack of commitment - or constantly altering UR stance with percentage progression.

    Even sadder is your compulsion to be right, as it and your glaring bias rule what might otherwise be actual enjoyment.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Notable tonight was Drew hitting 8th, behind Salty. There's a clear message here.
    Like the one Lackey sent to Tito...
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Fantasy baseball run amuck.  The Sox currently have the best offense in MLB without Manny or any other power hitting outfielder.  So why does softy want to fix what isn't broken?  Me, I'm fine with Reddick in RF or McDonald or Navarro or even Drew. 

    The thing to worry about is starting pitching.  I have no deals to suggest and will admit the Sox just might muddle through without one.  But a starter is a bigger need by far than a righty-hitting outfielder. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Moving away from the improbable for a moment a few random thoughts...

    Rather remarkable that the RS will at worst be tied for the AL East lead at the all-start break having had 4 of the 5 starting pitchers hit the DL this year. And for that matter the relievers that have hit the DL too. When combined with a 2-10 start, it is quite extraordinary. The depth that Epstein built into the pitching side of this roster is partially to be credited and the shear force of the offense is equally responsible I think.

    For all he never has lived up to the RS Nation's expectations, every game Drew plays I am impressed either by one play he makes in the field or the jump he gets on almost anything hit his direction.

    I was not a fan of the Salty/Tek tandem but half way through the season it has worked out fine. One more reason for me not to give up my day job.

    And for all the denial, Jacoby Ellsbury just had a great first half. He has played like Crawford is supposed to but with a higher OBP. Whether he is this good or not, it has been just redemption. :)

    Just my takes
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Jake to FLA. (Not a prediction, but Hanley will be traded soon) Now Jake to LA. (Not a prediction, but I'll take Kemp over Jake) Hall over Lowrie. (Yes, Hall as the UIF/OF"er, Lowrie sold high before break down) Redsox won't pursue CC. (CC will remain with the Yankees or go back West, though I never said the Red Sox wouldnt "pursue him" because if it's absurd thinking on your part. CC has zero interest in the Red Sox and the Yankees always win on any player who wants top dollar)  Try to get this thru UR thick skull: The RedSox don't have the pieces or the desire to attain or over-pay for Kemp. The Red Sox most certainly do have the pieces to get Kemp, who is exactly the OF profile they have needed since 2008. As for the desire, they may be as stupid as you are and not have "the desire". Waiting until 2013 isn't a solution to a current and future void. It's not a prediction, it's a shot over the bow of our dumb GM. The Dodgers have a commodity they will likely shop. They too would be foolish to pay for Kemp's services given their situation. True. You guaranteed that AGon would be in San Diego this spring. The entire board refused to admit that it was a certainty that AGon would be fire sold this winter and the Red Sox had the parts to outbid the teams I listed who would bid. The only reason I said "at least 50/50" to the Red Sox was because of the extension demands which almost ended this deal and exposed Theo for waiting until weeks into the season to see if AGon was fit. AGon could have made him pay for his hedge on the risk, but AGon has better character than Theo. Theo failed to do anything about the young future RH OF"er, signing Crawford and keeping Ellsbury. He needs to do something about it. There are a few on here, Slomag and Burrito who see the writing on the wall on the void in the OF. To claim that "being right" is the motive belies the obvious reality of the Red Sox OF. The reality is that it should be clear that diving in dumpsters for Francouer is not a solution.
    Posted by billbyboy[/QUOTE]

    I give you credit on a well-stated baseball post.
    To specify, when I said the team would make an all-out bid on CC, you retorted they would not. But the posts are gone so there's no sense debating it.

    I only took my adamant position on AGONE after you wouldn't commit yourself. I mocked UR 50/50 stance. I did state the team is setting themselves up for a run at him, and said threre's a great chance he'll be in Boston by July 31st.
    Trying to nail down the time specifics with limited access to the actual information
    is guess work. I give you credit for being closer. But there were posters who felt a winter acquisition was very possible.

    As for the RedSox having the pieces to acquire Kemp, they don't have the moveable pieces (compared to what other teams could offer). Bard could sway a potential deal into the realm of possibility, but he's not realistically going anywhere.
    Jake is not a realistic option as the Dodgers will approach it as SD did: Solid low-cost prospects, at least one of which is "AAAA ready". They won't pay for Jake's walking years. No way.

    I do believe Theo will get a RH bat to replace CAM. The need is apparent. But it'll be more of a bridge commitment.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Softy roasts Jake for his career OBP and his 2011 OBP vs LHPs, but then wants CC to be our new leadoff guy. Proff, he doesn't bother to look at the numbers.

    It's not a "well-stated baseball post"; it is nonsense.

    If LA does choose to trade Kemp, it won't be for "Jake" for the same reasons that SD did not get "Jake".

    Other teams have what LA might want. We don't.

    (Side note: I'll be in Bar Harbor for 3 days and may not post much. Keep it "real".)
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Hope UR havin'a ball, Moony!
    I agree with the Kemp motivation on LA's part.

    My comment about Softy's post was directed toward tone and placement. He chose to have a legit baseball discussion over gutter talk. I admire anybody for that.
    I don't agree with the content as it addresses his wants over the realities.

    But I do think he's right in that the team's offense is hit or miss. The totals are deceptive, as they reflect run-away wins against weak pitching. It jives with your stance that the team is too susceptible to LH pitching.

    I don't see a major commitmant to a RH bat beyond a couple of months. Looking long term, I can see a credible RH bat in a RF platoon with Reddick, depending how Reddick continues to fare vs. southpaws. So far, he looks good, but the SS is short.
    Otherwise, if Papi walks, they will need a potent RH hitting DH/outfield-DH.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    I am not convinced yet by Reddick's bat, especially vs LHPs. I hope he keeps it up. He certainly has the potential.

    The guy could be the next "Ted Williams"!

    LOL.


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]1) We would swap 2.5 years of lower cost control for Ellsbury for 1/2 year of more expensive control on Matt Kemp. I wouldn't even do that deal. 5 times as much control, at a lower cost than Kemp. I wouldn't even trade Ellsbury straight up! Kemp has 1.5 years, not .5. But from someone who alway gets it wrong, and thought AGon over Beltre in 2010, then Beltre over AGon in 2011, that's not surprising. Kemp is a far superior baseball player, and one who fits now and the future. He would be traded for to be extended, dim bulb. And there is no way anyone but you would keep Ellsbury if the Dodgers agreed to deal Kemp, straight up (would never ever happen!)
    Posted by billbyboy[/QUOTE]

    Last I looked Softy, it's 2011:

    Matt Kemp of
    2 years/$10.95M (2010-11)
    • 2 years/$10.95M (2010-11)
      • re-signed by LA Dodgers 1/15/10 (avoided arbitration)
      • 10:$4M, 11:$6.95M
      • 2011 salary may increase based on 2010 PAs ($50,000 for 600 PAs, $0.1M for 650 PAs, $0.15M for 675 PAs)
    • 1 year/$0.467M (2009)
      • re-signed by LA Dodgers 3/6/09
    • 1 year/$0.406M (2008)
      • re-signed by LA Dodgers 2/23/08
    • 1 year/$0.383M (2007)
    • drafted 2003 (6-181) (Midwest City HS, Okla)
    • $0.13M signing bonus
    • agent: Dave Stewart
    • ML service: 4.049
    If that one isn't good enough maybe the LA TImes would do:


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share