Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Why not respond to the obvious problem here which is the fact that the OP is full of lies / misquotes / speculation/ untruths? The OP is a crock, plain and simple. Aren't we supposed to respond to the content of the OP? The Reddick for Bailey trade has already been discussed already here in at least fifty threads.



    Because Ghost isn't rational when it comes to Reddick.  I think he would even admit that. he loves the guy.

    Reddick career is a 244 hitter with 42 homers and 233 strike outs in 986 at bats.

    He isn't a big deal.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Why am I responding to the OP? Because it is completely foreign to the news of the day. It misinterprets entirely what was said. If the author of the OP was on a jury and you were on trial, would you want him there? Heaven forbid that Schumpeter never is selected to a jury. Don't you agree Drewski?



    I try to give every poster the benefit of the doubt, and Schumpter does have an insightful post once every great while.  However, I agree that the OP was misleading and off-putting.

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

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Why am I responding to the OP? Because it is completely foreign to the news of the day. It misinterprets entirely what was said. If the author of the OP was on a jury and you were on trial, would you want him there? Heaven forbid that Schumpeter never is selected to a jury. Don't you agree Drewski?



    Pike, you have made an effort over the past week or so to talk baseball and put your past behind you....but you are slipping back.  Let people post what they want!

    I have given you bags of s41t over the years for your nonsense, but think you can make interesting baseball posts when you want to and make an effort to respond positively when you do.  Please save yourself from yourself!  :-)

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    It does look like a bad trade at this point.  Reddick did have a pretty bad second half, mind you, hitting 225/271/405.  He ended up with a 242 BA compared to 280 in 2011.  Case not totally closed yet.  Bailey is a young man and has had some very good seasons.



    Reddick is a platoon player.  If he wasnt , the As would not have brought in Chris Young.  Case not even close to closed.




    If the ghost was an A's fan, he'd be saying that by trading for Young, they were admitting the Reddick deal was a "bad" trade.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    big trade coming methinks

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to georom4's comment:

    big trade coming methinks



    One would think. They are weak at certain positions and in others (catcher, SS, bullpen) they seem to have more than they need.

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

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    How about we just try to take a realistic look at this situation , without prejudice or name calling ?No cherry picking segments of the season to make your point. The reality is :  Bailey missed most of 2012 and performed poorly when he did play. Now , it appears that , at least for the time being , he has lost the closer's job. Reddick hit 32 home runs , won a gold glove and finished 16th in the MVP voting. Things could change in 2013 , but for now , even the staunchest Cherington supporters should realize that this trade was lopsided in favor of Oakland. I would bet the farm ( if I had a farm ) that , if Ben called Billy Beane tomorrow and offered a straight trade of Bailey for Reddick , Beane would say no. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Why am I responding to the OP? Because it is completely foreign to the news of the day. It misinterprets entirely what was said. If the author of the OP was on a jury and you were on trial, would you want him there? Heaven forbid that Schumpeter never is selected to a jury. Don't you agree Drewski?



    I try to give every poster the benefit of the doubt, and Schumpter does have an insightful post once every great while.  However, I agree that the OP was misleading and off-putting.




    BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT? ARE YOU PUTTING ME ON? DO YOU KNOW SHUMPETER'S HISTORY OR MANTRA? DID YOU CAREFULLY READ THE OP? GIVE ME A BREAK. HE COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETATED TODAY'S NEWS. SHAME ON YOU DREWSKI. THE FORUM THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE INTELLIGENT.



    To be honest, I didnt carefully read the OP because I could tell from the onset that it wasnt worth careful attention.  Just now, I went back , reread , and completely agree that he misinterpretated today's news.

    I'm not going to hold it over the posters head; however, as I've had some pretty lousy posts myself.  I will judge every one of Shumpeter's future posts on the posts merits without consideration to who the poster is.

    I'll probably disagree with most of his future posts as well.  

    It really doesnt matter who Farrell calls the closer on 12/26, just like it really doesnt matter whether Doubront is our #3 or #5 starter.  The only that matters is that the Sox added a quality pitcher in Hanrahan.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    How about we just try to take a realistic look at this situation , without prejudice or name calling ?No cherry picking segments of the season to make your point. The reality is :  Bailey missed most of 2012 and performed poorly when he did play. Now , it appears that , at least for the time being , he has lost the closer's job. Reddick hit 32 home runs , won a gold glove and finished 16th in the MVP voting. Things could change in 2013 , but for now , even the staunchest Cherington supporters should realize that this trade was lopsided in favor of Oakland. I would bet the farm ( if I had a farm ) that , if Ben called Billy Beane tomorrow and offered a straight trade of Bailey for Reddick , Beane would say no. 



    It's one thing to think that Oakland got the better of the deal to date.  Its something else entirely to  irrationally trumpet the move as terrible.  Trade wasnt that bad.  We traded a good platoon player for an injury prone potential closer.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    How about we just try to take a realistic look at this situation , without prejudice or name calling ?No cherry picking segments of the season to make your point. The reality is :  Bailey missed most of 2012 and performed poorly when he did play. Now , it appears that , at least for the time being , he has lost the closer's job. Reddick hit 32 home runs , won a gold glove and finished 16th in the MVP voting. Things could change in 2013 , but for now , even the staunchest Cherington supporters should realize that this trade was lopsided in favor of Oakland. I would bet the farm ( if I had a farm ) that , if Ben called Billy Beane tomorrow and offered a straight trade of Bailey for Reddick , Beane would say no. 



    It's one thing to think that Oakland got the better of the deal to date.  Its something else entirely to  irrationally trumpet the move as terrible.  Trade wasnt that bad.  We traded a good platoon player for an injury prone potential closer.



    Drew , that does not change the fact that the good platoon player had a far , far better year than the potential closer. And , that there is no way that Beane would reverse the deal for 2013 . 

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Why am I responding to the OP? Because it is completely foreign to the news of the day. It misinterprets entirely what was said. If the author of the OP was on a jury and you were on trial, would you want him there? Heaven forbid that Schumpeter never is selected to a jury. Don't you agree Drewski?



    I try to give every poster the benefit of the doubt, and Schumpter does have an insightful post once every great while.  However, I agree that the OP was misleading and off-putting.




    BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT? ARE YOU PUTTING ME ON? DO YOU KNOW SHUMPETER'S HISTORY OR MANTRA? DID YOU CAREFULLY READ THE OP? GIVE ME A BREAK. HE COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETATED TODAY'S NEWS. SHAME ON YOU DREWSKI. THE FORUM THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE INTELLIGENT.



    To be honest, I didnt carefully read the OP because I could tell from the onset that it wasnt worth careful attention.  Just now, I went back , reread , and completely agree that he misinterpretated today's news.

    I'm not going to hold it over the posters head; however, as I've had some pretty lousy posts myself.  I will judge every one of Shumpeter's future posts on the posts merits without consideration to who the poster is.

    I'll probably disagree with most of his future posts as well.  

    It really doesnt matter who Farrell calls the closer on 12/26, just like it really doesnt matter whether Doubront is our #3 or #5 starter.  The only that matters is that the Sox added a quality pitcher in Hanrahan.




    I'm the opposite of you. Before coming to the forum I read today's news concerning the Red Sox, including what the Globe posted one hour ago. It this case it was what "Extra Bases" posted.  I read what what the latest news was and then I read what Schumpeter's reaction was. Isn't this NORMAL? It turned out that Shumpeter completely misinterpreted the news and quotes.

    On the other hand, if Schumpeter has an opinion then don't you research the validity of it before you agree or disagree with it? Isn't that a requirement in your mind or conscience? Shumpeter is a chronic complainer and everyone agrees with that. Some would call him a wet blanket, pretender, ond the most extreme would call him a troll. Take your pick.



    There are many different reasons why I come here.  Sometimes, work is slow.  Sometimes, I read something interesting in the sports section and want to see the board's reactions.

    Admittedly, when I read Schumpter's post, it was the first I heard of the news (Hanraham being named closer).  It's kind of irrelevant because I disagree with him that Farrell naming Hanraham the closer on 12/26 (probably for marketing reasons) "closes the case" on the Reddick/Bailey debate.

    I think that trades should be assessed at the time of the trade and without the benefit of hindsight.  I'm not going to run from the fact that I thought the trade was a very good one for the Sox when it occured.  I will agree w/ DGALE that to date, Oakland has gotten the better end of the deal.  Reddick was a 3 WAR player last year (mostly because of D); however, I disagree that this should be a black mark on Ben's resume.  Trade made sense at the time.  We received a lefty fourth OF who could play all 3 OF positions and a relief pitcher w/ great stuff.  Sure Bailey came w question marks; however, Reddick is far from a sure thing himself.  

    If Reddick was still on this team, he would not be a starting OF in 2013.  Our OF would be a platoon of Gomes/Reddick in LF, Ells in CF and Vic in RF.  So for the purposes of 2013, we downgrade from a Gomes/Reddick platoon to a Gomes/Nava platoon.  I estimate thats worth about 1 WAR.  Meh.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    How about we just try to take a realistic look at this situation , without prejudice or name calling ?No cherry picking segments of the season to make your point. The reality is :  Bailey missed most of 2012 and performed poorly when he did play. Now , it appears that , at least for the time being , he has lost the closer's job. Reddick hit 32 home runs , won a gold glove and finished 16th in the MVP voting. Things could change in 2013 , but for now , even the staunchest Cherington supporters should realize that this trade was lopsided in favor of Oakland. I would bet the farm ( if I had a farm ) that , if Ben called Billy Beane tomorrow and offered a straight trade of Bailey for Reddick , Beane would say no. 



    It's one thing to think that Oakland got the better of the deal to date.  Its something else entirely to  irrationally trumpet the move as terrible.  Trade wasnt that bad.  We traded a good platoon player for an injury prone potential closer.



    Drew , that does not change the fact that the good platoon player had a far , far better year than the potential closer. And , that there is no way that Beane would reverse the deal for 2013 . 



    Touche.

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

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade


    It's one thing to think that Oakland got the better of the deal to date.  Its something else entirely to  irrationally trumpet the move as terrible.  Trade wasnt that bad.  We traded a good platoon player for an injury prone potential closer.

    [/QUOTE]

    Drew , that does not change the fact that the good platoon player had a far , far better year than the potential closer. And , that there is no way that Beane would reverse the deal for 2013 . 

    [/QUOTE]

    Those points are correct.  But:

    1. A trade can't be evaluated until all the performances are delivered which can take years; and
    2. Sometimes "good" bets fail....knowing what I knew 12 months ago I definitely would trade thingy for Bailey again.  Can anyone here show evidence of their opposition last winter?

     I doubt it.

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Farrell has the last word on the Reddick-Bailey trade

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:

    Why am I responding to the OP? Because it is completely foreign to the news of the day. It misinterprets entirely what was said. If the author of the OP was on a jury and you were on trial, would you want him there? Heaven forbid that Schumpeter never is selected to a jury. Don't you agree Drewski?



    I try to give every poster the benefit of the doubt, and Schumpter does have an insightful post once every great while.  However, I agree that the OP was misleading and off-putting.




    BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT? ARE YOU PUTTING ME ON? DO YOU KNOW SHUMPETER'S HISTORY OR MANTRA? DID YOU CAREFULLY READ THE OP? GIVE ME A BREAK. HE COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETATED TODAY'S NEWS. SHAME ON YOU DREWSKI. THE FORUM THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE INTELLIGENT.



    To be honest, I didnt carefully read the OP because I could tell from the onset that it wasnt worth careful attention.  Just now, I went back , reread , and completely agree that he misinterpretated today's news.

    I'm not going to hold it over the posters head; however, as I've had some pretty lousy posts myself.  I will judge every one of Shumpeter's future posts on the posts merits without consideration to who the poster is.

    I'll probably disagree with most of his future posts as well.  

    It really doesnt matter who Farrell calls the closer on 12/26, just like it really doesnt matter whether Doubront is our #3 or #5 starter.  The only that matters is that the Sox added a quality pitcher in Hanrahan.




    I'm the opposite of you. Before coming to the forum I read today's news concerning the Red Sox, including what the Globe posted one hour ago. It this case it was what "Extra Bases" posted.  I read what what the latest news was and then I read what Schumpeter's reaction was. Isn't this NORMAL? It turned out that Shumpeter completely misinterpreted the news and quotes.

    On the other hand, if Schumpeter has an opinion then don't you research the validity of it before you agree or disagree with it? Isn't that a requirement in your mind or conscience? Shumpeter is a chronic complainer and everyone agrees with that. Some would call him a wet blanket, pretender, ond the most extreme would call him a troll. Take your pick.



    The constant complaining and overly simplified negative arguements bother me as well.  However, the frustration does not stay with me for very long.  Schumpter aggravated me for a total of 4 seconds, but I was already over it when you asked how I would feel w/ Schumpter on a jury.  That was the reason for my diplomatic response.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share