AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ahhh yes... Hindsight will make this trade look better than it was.

    The biggest benefit the Sox got from this trade was the defense Iggy didn't have in the ALCS, and if Ben can predict things like THAT he's wasting his time being GM of a MLB team.

    [/QUOTE]

    Winning the championship might make the trade look better, but many of us have been defending it since day 1.  I disagree that Iggy's lack of defense is the biggest benefit the Sox got from this trade.  Give Ben a little more credit than that.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And many of us have been critical of it since Day 1. 

    This trade DID probably work out better for the Sox for 2013, because of that error.  I remarked afterward that I thought Iggy would help the Sox win the WS, but not THAT WAY!  I don't think you'll find many people who'll say that play wasn't the turning point of the ALCS. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to 2013champions' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Very important for Red Sox fans to minimize Iglesias. One of the best rookies of 2013, traded for Peavy. Notin will tell you why that was a good move and the 2013 rookie class was weak. 

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Gladly.

     

    It was a good move because the Red Sox won the World Series.  All claims that they could have won it without Peavy are unprovable, especially when you consider the trickle-down effect in the pitching staff.  Sure, Workman or Doubront could have taken his starts, but who took over for them in relief roles?   Those crickets I hear when this part of the question gets asked?

     

    A better move would have been to trade Middlebrooks straight up for Peavy.  Iglesias defense makes for a much brighter future, because at least part of his game is not in question.  (The Tigers did not need Middlebrooks but they also did not need to be in the deal.  The White Sox have not had a 3B since Joe Crede retired, and don’t have one anywhere on the horizon, either.)

     

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

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......


    And really, if we are going to pine for any former Sox prospect, it shouldn't be Iglesias.  Not that he is a bad player, but he is maybe the second or third best one we let go, depending on feelings about Masterson.  (I see arguments for both players.)

     

    But the guy we are going to miss is Anthony Rizzo. The Sox produce shortsops all the time.  Three of the 6 division winners last year had a shortstop fromthe sox farm system.  The only other MLB organization  to produce 3 starting SS's this year is Atlanta.  If Bogaerts is the Sox starting SS next year, there will be 4 from their system, most in the majors (barring some team settling for Tyler Pastornicky).

     

    Meanwhile, how many high OBP corner sluggers does this organization produce? Before Rizzo, we have to go back to who? Mo Vaughn and Jeff Bagwell?  Are there any on the horizon?  I see more SS's, besides just Bogaerts, as Deven Marrero is coming on strong.  Who are the sluggers who can get on base?  The system is so bereft of that type of hitter, fans here think Mark Trumbo is the answer.

     

    And at least we got a trophy when the Sox traded Iglesias.  I will take that over 15 Gold Gloves.  Staying up late in October to cheer for a World Series game is a heckuva lot more exciting that taking a brief respite at work to check msnbc.com to see who was awarded the Gold Glove.

     

    And that is also the worst part about the Rizzo trade.  Did it lead to anything exciting? No trophy, or even a single post-season game.  All Sox fans got was an epic collapse washed down with overblown chicken-and-beer drivel and more fuel for the then-increasingly pessimistic Boston sports media gloom machine. The only hope for the future from that trade is the ancillary deal that brought Webster and de la Rosa. 

     

    Let Iglesias go.  We have deealt outstanding defensive shortstops before. We have dealt slugging shortstops before.  We have given away starting shortstops who won multiple Workd Series rings.  And we got nothing for any of them except Hanley.

     

    And Iglesias...

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to notin's comment:

     

    It was a good move because the Red Sox won the World Series.  All claims that they could have won it without Peavy are unprovable, especially when you consider the trickle-down effect in the pitching staff.  Sure, Workman or Doubront could have taken his starts, but who took over for them in relief roles?   Those crickets I hear when this part of the question gets asked?

    There's a reason you get crickets when that's asked, and it's because most of us don't want to get into unprovables.  MAYBE RDLR and Thornton and Britton and Morales would have been able to hold down the fort in relief.... and maybe they wouldn't.  So why get into it?  What happened is what happened and it worked out for the Sox.

    A better move would have been to trade Middlebrooks straight up for Peavy.  Iglesias defense makes for a much brighter future, because at least part of his game is not in question.  (The Tigers did not need Middlebrooks but they also did not need to be in the deal.  The White Sox have not had a 3B since Joe Crede retired, and don’t have one anywhere on the horizon, either.)

    That in itself is interesting, and something I hadn't thought of.  I now have to wonder why DID the Tigers get involved in the trade.  When you put it that way it appears the Sox may have been somewhat fleeced in this trade.

    IMHO this trade worked out well for the Sox for 2013 and if that's what matters to anyone - then it is.  And don't get me wrong.  I like it too.

     Unfortunately losing him has produced a problem for 2014 and beyond of who's going to play SS.  The FO decided that Iggy wasn't a part of the future so they traded him and now they don't have a suitable replacement.  Which, I guess, was my argument against the trade all along. 

    It's a matter of perspective.  Which is better?:

    Short term pain for long term gain...or..

    Short term gain and long term pain? 




     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to J-BAY's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ben Cherington was named the 2013 Executive of the Year by The Sporting News.

     [/QUOTE]


    Your basic no brainer.

     

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

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE] 

     

    It was a good move because the Red Sox won the World Series.  All claims that they could have won it without Peavy are unprovable, especially when you consider the trickle-down effect in the pitching staff.  Sure, Workman or Doubront could have taken his starts, but who took over for them in relief roles?   Those crickets I hear when this part of the question gets asked?

    There's a reason you get crickets when that's asked, and it's because most of us don't want to get into unprovables.  MAYBE RDLR and Thornton and Britton and Morales would have been able to hold down the fort in relief.... and maybe they wouldn't.  So why get into it?  What happened is what happened and it worked out for the Sox.

    A better move would have been to trade Middlebrooks straight up for Peavy.  Iglesias defense makes for a much brighter future, because at least part of his game is not in question.  (The Tigers did not need Middlebrooks but they also did not need to be in the deal.  The White Sox have not had a 3B since Joe Crede retired, and don’t have one anywhere on the horizon, either.)

    That in itself is interesting, and something I hadn't thought of.  I now have to wonder why DID the Tigers get involved in the trade.  When you put it that way it appears the Sox may have been somewhat fleeced in this trade.

    IMHO this trade worked out well for the Sox for 2013 and if that's what matters to anyone - then it is.  And don't get me wrong.  I like it too.

     Unfortunately losing him has produced a problem for 2014 and beyond of who's going to play SS.  The FO decided that Iggy wasn't a part of the future so they traded him and now they don't have a suitable replacement.  Which, I guess, was my argument against the trade all along. 

    It's a matter of perspective.  Which is better?:

    Short term pain for long term gain...or..

    Short term gain and long term pain? 

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    [/QUOTE]


    If you make the surrender for short term, you're argument is a lot stronger if you make it worthwhile.

     

    Was it worthwhile giving up Hanley Ramirez?

     

    Was it worthwhile giving up Justin Masterson?

     

    Was it worthwhile giving up Anthony Rizzo?

     

    Or Freddy Sanchez? 

     

     

    The Sox will survive.   And I would not say they "fleeced" the Sox.  We got a pitcher and a trophy.  They gave up their #2 prospect (who plays a position they STILL need) in order to get a SS who might be the next Brendan Ryan, a great defender but history has shown he can be acquired for a ot less than anyone's #2 prospect.  I am a little hesitant to say they "fleeced" anyone.

     

    AS for whop plays SS, there are two obvious possibilities.

     

    1.  Bogaerts.  He is already here.

     

    2.  Drew.  It is possible Farrell told Cherington he wants Drew around because he thinks he can win with him.  And clearly he can.   Not sure if Cherington heeds Farrell's roster input.  All I do know is he does not email softy for any, despite his insistence that Cherington does.  Either way, if someone felt either player was the future, it certainly did not bode well for Iglesias' future in Boston...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 2013champions' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Very important for Red Sox fans to minimize Iglesias. One of the best rookies of 2013, traded for Peavy. Notin will tell you why that was a good move and the 2013 rookie class was weak. 

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Gladly.

     

    It was a good move because the Red Sox won the World Series.  All claims that they could have won it without Peavy are unprovable, especially when you consider the trickle-down effect in the pitching staff.  Sure, Workman or Doubront could have taken his starts, but who took over for them in relief roles?   Those crickets I hear when this part of the question gets asked?

     

    A better move would have been to trade Middlebrooks straight up for Peavy.  Iglesias defense makes for a much brighter future, because at least part of his game is not in question.  (The Tigers did not need Middlebrooks but they also did not need to be in the deal.  The White Sox have not had a 3B since Joe Crede retired, and don’t have one anywhere on the horizon, either.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe the Red Sox can still trade Middlebrooks to the White Sox.  Do they have any players the Red Sox could use whom they would be willing to part with?

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

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Mark Antony said that, not Nero.

    And no one would hold it against Antony if he traded away Bob Hamelin or Pat Listach..

     




    Actually, Shakespeare says Mark Antony said it. Wink

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, Shakespeare wrote that Mark Antony said it.  Wink

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Sox will survive.   And I would not say they "fleeced" the Sox.  We got a pitcher and a trophy.  They gave up their #2 prospect (who plays a position they STILL need) in order to get a SS who might be the next Brendan Ryan, a great defender but history has shown he can be acquired for a ot less than anyone's #2 prospect.  I am a little hesitant to say they "fleeced" anyone.

     

    AS for whop plays SS, there are two obvious possibilities.

     

    1.  Bogaerts.  He is already here.

     

    2.  Drew.  It is possible Farrell told Cherington he wants Drew around because he thinks he can win with him.  And clearly he can.   Not sure if Cherington heeds Farrell's roster input.  All I do know is he does not email softy for any, despite his insistence that Cherington does.  Either way, if someone felt either player was the future, it certainly did not bode well for Iglesias' future in Boston...

    [/QUOTE]

    My point about the Sox getting fleeced in the trade was based on something you said earlier - that the better trade would have been to trade Middlebrooks straight-up for Peavy. I'd even have thrown in a OF prospect or two if that's what it would take.  The Sox somehow got tangled up in what the Tigers needed - which wasn't our problem!

    The choices for SS are currently Bogarts and Drew. 

    Bogarts being there doesn't make him a good SS.  I've never questioned his offense but IMO his defense is still suspect. 

    As for Drew, if the Sox intend to stay below the LT level there's only a finite amount of money to be spent and signing drew will take a significant part of it.  That means there's less to spend on other players.  ...which brings me back to my original objections to the trade.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThefourBs' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Mark Antony said that, not Nero.

    And no one would hold it against Antony if he traded away Bob Hamelin or Pat Listach..

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually, Shakespeare says Mark Antony said it. Wink

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, Shakespeare wrote that Mark Antony said it.  Wink

    [/QUOTE]


    LOL

    Touche'

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to S5's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Sox will survive.   And I would not say they "fleeced" the Sox.  We got a pitcher and a trophy.  They gave up their #2 prospect (who plays a position they STILL need) in order to get a SS who might be the next Brendan Ryan, a great defender but history has shown he can be acquired for a ot less than anyone's #2 prospect.  I am a little hesitant to say they "fleeced" anyone.

     

    AS for whop plays SS, there are two obvious possibilities.

     

    1.  Bogaerts.  He is already here.

     

    2.  Drew.  It is possible Farrell told Cherington he wants Drew around because he thinks he can win with him.  And clearly he can.   Not sure if Cherington heeds Farrell's roster input.  All I do know is he does not email softy for any, despite his insistence that Cherington does.  Either way, if someone felt either player was the future, it certainly did not bode well for Iglesias' future in Boston...



    My point about the Sox getting fleeced in the trade was based on something you said earlier - that the better trade would have been to trade Middlebrooks straight-up for Peavy. I'd even have thrown in a OF prospect or two if that's what it would take.  The Sox somehow got tangled up in what the Tigers needed - which wasn't our problem!

    The choices for SS are currently Bogarts and Drew. 

    Bogarts being there doesn't make him a good SS.  I've never questioned his offense but IMO his defense is still suspect. 

    As for Drew, if the Sox intend to stay below the LT level there's only a finite amount of money to be spent and signing drew will take a significant part of it.  That means there's less to spend on other players.  ...which brings me back to my original objections to the trade.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If the price of making a bad trade is a WS championship, I hope the Sox make lousy trades every July.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to S5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Sox will survive.   And I would not say they "fleeced" the Sox.  We got a pitcher and a trophy.  They gave up their #2 prospect (who plays a position they STILL need) in order to get a SS who might be the next Brendan Ryan, a great defender but history has shown he can be acquired for a ot less than anyone's #2 prospect.  I am a little hesitant to say they "fleeced" anyone.

     

    AS for whop plays SS, there are two obvious possibilities.

     

    1.  Bogaerts.  He is already here.

     

    2.  Drew.  It is possible Farrell told Cherington he wants Drew around because he thinks he can win with him.  And clearly he can.   Not sure if Cherington heeds Farrell's roster input.  All I do know is he does not email softy for any, despite his insistence that Cherington does.  Either way, if someone felt either player was the future, it certainly did not bode well for Iglesias' future in Boston...

    [/QUOTE]

    My point about the Sox getting fleeced in the trade was based on something you said earlier - that the better trade would have been to trade Middlebrooks straight-up for Peavy. I'd even have thrown in a OF prospect or two if that's what it would take.  The Sox somehow got tangled up in what the Tigers needed - which wasn't our problem!

    The choices for SS are currently Bogarts and Drew. 

    Bogarts being there doesn't make him a good SS.  I've never questioned his offense but IMO his defense is still suspect. 

    As for Drew, if the Sox intend to stay below the LT level there's only a finite amount of money to be spent and signing drew will take a significant part of it.  That means there's less to spend on other players.  ...which brings me back to my original objections to the trade.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, there are 2 more likely possibilities. 

     

    1. The Sox value Middlebrooks more than I do and more than they valued Iglesias.

     

    2. The White Sox valued Garcia more than they valued Middlebrooks. 

     

    Or, I suppose both could be true...

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 2013champions' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Very important for Red Sox fans to minimize Iglesias. One of the best rookies of 2013, traded for Peavy. Notin will tell you why that was a good move and the 2013 rookie class was weak. 

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Gladly.

     

    It was a good move because the Red Sox won the World Series.  All claims that they could have won it without Peavy are unprovable, especially when you consider the trickle-down effect in the pitching staff.  Sure, Workman or Doubront could have taken his starts, but who took over for them in relief roles?   Those crickets I hear when this part of the question gets asked?

     

    A better move would have been to trade Middlebrooks straight up for Peavy.  Iglesias defense makes for a much brighter future, because at least part of his game is not in question.  (The Tigers did not need Middlebrooks but they also did not need to be in the deal.  The White Sox have not had a 3B since Joe Crede retired, and don’t have one anywhere on the horizon, either.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe the Red Sox can still trade Middlebrooks to the White Sox.  Do they have any players the Red Sox could use whom they would be willing to part with?

    [/QUOTE]

    Well  if the Sox want a catcher, SS, or CF I think a match with Chicago is not a good one.  They are not moving Abreu.  And their farm system is awful.

     

    Maybe SS Marcus Semien, but I think he is a gamble...

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR IS......

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 2013champions' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Very important for Red Sox fans to minimize Iglesias. One of the best rookies of 2013, traded for Peavy. Notin will tell you why that was a good move and the 2013 rookie class was weak. 

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Gladly.

     

    It was a good move because the Red Sox won the World Series.  All claims that they could have won it without Peavy are unprovable, especially when you consider the trickle-down effect in the pitching staff.  Sure, Workman or Doubront could have taken his starts, but who took over for them in relief roles?   Those crickets I hear when this part of the question gets asked?

     

    A better move would have been to trade Middlebrooks straight up for Peavy.  Iglesias defense makes for a much brighter future, because at least part of his game is not in question.  (The Tigers did not need Middlebrooks but they also did not need to be in the deal.  The White Sox have not had a 3B since Joe Crede retired, and don’t have one anywhere on the horizon, either.)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe the Red Sox can still trade Middlebrooks to the White Sox.  Do they have any players the Red Sox could use whom they would be willing to part with?

    [/QUOTE]

    Well  if the Sox want a catcher, SS, or CF I think a match with Chicago is not a good one.  They are not moving Abreu.  And their farm system is awful.

     

    Maybe SS Marcus Semien, but I think he is a gamble...

    [/QUOTE]

    And so is Middlebrooks.

    Thanks for your response, though.  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share