R.A. Dickey

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to donrd4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Actually, Dickey would not be a bad acquisition.  The real issue is matching up.  If the Mets would take Lavarnway and Kalish/Brentz, that might be as high as Boston can go.  It wuld not be surpreising if the Mets asked for Bradley.  Sands probably lacks any appeal, too..

    [/QUOTE]


    Well if Mets ask for Bradley ......Sox reply ..HA HA HA HA HA.... Very funny

    [/QUOTE]

    I do this in a heartbeat.  THere are 30 Jackie Bradleys throughout the minors.  DIckey is a reigning cy young, w / 3 straight quality years signed to 5M/yr.

    Man do we overrate our prospects in Boston.

    [/QUOTE]


    No one is a bigger prospect hugger than I.

    What a pick-up Dickey would be. Look at the longevity history of any knuckleballer.

    The cost would be prohibitive but consider the quality innings Tim Wakefield gave the Sox of course before his last couple of seasons.

    Any team looking to fill a hole in the rotation should pay up for Dickey.

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    A lot of the pitching problems would be solved if John Lackey returned to a 2009 form. Not saying he will, just saying it would simplify things if he did, and I wouldnt be shocked if he did somewhat at least.

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A lot of the pitching problems would be solved if John Lackey returned to a 2009 form. Not saying he will, just saying it would simplify things if he did, and I wouldnt be shocked if he did somewhat at least.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, just one of about 7 problems would be solved.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to djcbuffum's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Cannit trade Gomes and the Mets might want more for the reiging Cy Young winner.  "Trying to trade" does not always mean "ready to give away."

    [/QUOTE]

    What are the rules governing "flipping" newly signed players?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The biggest and most obvious rule is that tams do NOT trade reigning Cy Young winners for players they could have signed 2 weeks ago.  If the Mets had any interest in Gomes, Gomes would be a Met.   It is very doubtful their front office looked at gomes and thought "I'd love to have him, but no way are we signing this guy.  Let's just play the waiting game, and whoever signs him .. WHAM!! We give them the NL Cy Young winner!  What a plan!"

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to djcbuffum's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Cannit trade Gomes and the Mets might want more for the reiging Cy Young winner.  "Trying to trade" does not always mean "ready to give away."

    [/QUOTE]

    What are the rules governing "flipping" newly signed players?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The biggest and most obvious rule is that tams do NOT trade reigning Cy Young winners for players they could have signed 2 weeks ago.  If the Mets had any interest in Gomes, Gomes would be a Met.   It is very doubtful their front office looked at gomes and thought "I'd love to have him, but no way are we signing this guy.  Let's just play the waiting game, and whoever signs him .. WHAM!! We give them the NL Cy Young winner!  What a plan!"

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe we could get Verlander for D Ross.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    Hey Dickey is nealry 40 years old.... that falls right into Cherringtons wheelhouse.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A lot of the pitching problems would be solved if John Lackey returned to a 2009 form. Not saying he will, just saying it would simplify things if he did, and I wouldnt be shocked if he did somewhat at least.

    [/QUOTE]


    I am hoping the same that lackey's recovery will a positive impact for the rotation.

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to parhunter55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    And yet, he is in the last season of his contract.  The Mets cannot expect too much.  Salty and Nava or Lin, or Linares or Hassan.  If the Sox had not non-tendered Sweeney, then maybe Sweeney.  An established ML catcher with power and a 4th OFer is all I think the Mets should really get for a 39 year old pitcher in the last year of his contract and who is not willing, apparently, to sign for what the Mets want to offer.

    As for the Sox, I would love to see Dickey pitch for the Sox.  We, of all teams, know that knuckleballers do not pose an arm injury risk and can pitch well into their 40s.  But I would not want to see Brentz, and certainly not Bradley, traded for him.  Not even Kalish, who I am hopeful is finally healthy and ready to re-establish himself as the superior OFer to Josh Reddick.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Not every prospect will turn out to be good, and really it comes down to rolling the dice ad seeing who will be a washout elsewhere.   If the Sox traded Kalish or Brentz for Dickey, it will probably help the team more than hinder it. 

     

    Plus it would be fun to watch Schumpeter's Ghost have an apoplectic attack...

    [/QUOTE]

    Not to mention softlaw :)

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to donrd4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Actually, Dickey would not be a bad acquisition.  The real issue is matching up.  If the Mets would take Lavarnway and Kalish/Brentz, that might be as high as Boston can go.  It wuld not be surpreising if the Mets asked for Bradley.  Sands probably lacks any appeal, too..

    [/QUOTE]


    Well if Mets ask for Bradley ......Sox reply ..HA HA HA HA HA.... Very funny

    [/QUOTE]

    I do this in a heartbeat.  THere are 30 Jackie Bradleys throughout the minors.  DIckey is a reigning cy young, w / 3 straight quality years signed to 5M/yr.

    Man do we overrate our prospects in Boston.

    [/QUOTE]


    No one is a bigger prospect hugger than I.

    What a pick-up Dickey would be. Look at the longevity history of any knuckleballer.

    The cost would be prohibitive but consider the quality innings Tim Wakefield gave the Sox of course before his last couple of seasons.

    Any team looking to fill a hole in the rotation should pay up for Dickey.

    [/QUOTE]


    Unless it's me :)

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to parhunter55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If my offer is too low and another team wants to pay more, I say let them.  Dickey is not my first choice for anything as I just don't think a knuckleballer is a good choice to lead the top of a rotation.  And I would not pay too much for a #3 or 4 starter, 39 years of age, who is being traded because he could not reach agreement on an extension from the Mets.  At least Salty is not being paid as much and has not refused an extension.  The Mets could lock him up and still have money left over to pay at least part of the contract for the replacement starter for Dickey.  That and they would be getting OF help they need. 

    Like I said, they may get a better offer.  And they should take it.  But I would not offer Brentz, or Bradley.  They are too valuable to the way this team is shaping up.  Maybe neither makes it, but they are definitely part of a long-term plan.  Dickey is not (especially if he wants a big pay day at the end of 2013).

    [/QUOTE]

    Fair enough.  They will get a better offer though, but I see your point.  

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't see the point of trading top propsects for 1 year players.

    [/QUOTE]

    I see the point, if we are making other moves as well.  If we sign Naps, Swish, then I'd be happy trading for Dickey because we are fielding a competitive team in 2013.  If Dickey is your only add, then it makes no sense.  

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't see the point of trading top propsects for 1 year players.

    [/QUOTE]

    I see the point, if we are making other moves as well.  If we sign Naps, Swish, then I'd be happy trading for Dickey because we are fielding a competitive team in 2013.  If Dickey is your only add, then it makes no sense.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you really think last years August/September team can be favorites to make the palyoffs (let alone advance) by adding just Dickey, Gomes, D Ross, Naps and Swish?

    Remember, Swish is replacing some pretty decent numbers by C Ross.

    Yes, I know, with a bunch of what ifs and some better health, we can squeek into the playoffs, but I wouldn't be trading away our top youth to go from 60:1 odds to 20:1 odds.

    I'd prefer to make a trade for someone like Brett Anderson, who has 3 more years of team control. I know it will cost more, but we'd be improving our odds for 3 years not 1.

    By the way, wasn't it Ross who was not able to catch the knuckleball his first time in Boston? Salty struggled with Wake. Lava? Hmm...

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    From MLBTR:

    According to Joe McDonald of ESPN.com (via Twitter), the Red Sox talked to the Mets about a possible trade for Dickey, and the Mets wanted Xander Bogaerts and Jackie Bradley Jr. We heard earlier that the Sox didn't have interest in Dickey, so perhaps the Mets' exorbitant asking price is playing a part in that lack of interest.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to djcbuffum's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    From MLBTR:

    According to Joe McDonald of ESPN.com (via Twitter), the Red Sox talked to the Mets about a possible trade for Dickey, and the Mets wanted Xander Bogaerts and Jackie Bradley Jr. We heard earlier that the Sox didn't have interest in Dickey, so perhaps the Mets' exorbitant asking price is playing a part in that lack of interest.

    [/QUOTE]

    Way too high a price to pay.  Especially since R.A. only has one year left on his contract.  The Mets are not serious about dealing him if they're asking that kind of return.

    [/QUOTE]


    I think the mets thinking is that they wont be ready to contend by the time R.A's Career is over so there try to get something for him while they can. If they dont get an offering to thier liking i think they will just sign him to an extension and let him play out the rest of his career as a met.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    Dickey

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't see the point of trading top propsects for 1 year players.

    [/QUOTE]

    I see the point, if we are making other moves as well.  If we sign Naps, Swish, then I'd be happy trading for Dickey because we are fielding a competitive team in 2013.  If Dickey is your only add, then it makes no sense.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you really think last years August/September team can be favorites to make the palyoffs (let alone advance) by adding just Dickey, Gomes, D Ross, Naps and Swish?

    Remember, Swish is replacing some pretty decent numbers by C Ross.

    Yes, I know, with a bunch of what ifs and some better health, we can squeek into the playoffs, but I wouldn't be trading away our top youth to go from 60:1 odds to 20:1 odds.

    I'd prefer to make a trade for someone like Brett Anderson, who has 3 more years of team control. I know it will cost more, but we'd be improving our odds for 3 years not 1.

    By the way, wasn't it Ross who was not able to catch the knuckleball his first time in Boston? Salty struggled with Wake. Lava? Hmm...

    [/QUOTE]

    I do think we compete.  The Rays dont have any offense.  Oakland lost their best pitcher.  Reddick faded hard.  Baltimore isnt going to get any better.

    I see the top 4 AL teams next year:

    NYY, Det, LAA, Bos

    The teams that are usually there.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Dickey

    [/QUOTE]


    Is that kinda like Dink? Lol

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't see the point of trading top propsects for 1 year players.

    [/QUOTE]

    I see the point, if we are making other moves as well.  If we sign Naps, Swish, then I'd be happy trading for Dickey because we are fielding a competitive team in 2013.  If Dickey is your only add, then it makes no sense.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you really think last years August/September team can be favorites to make the palyoffs (let alone advance) by adding just Dickey, Gomes, D Ross, Naps and Swish?

    Remember, Swish is replacing some pretty decent numbers by C Ross.

    Yes, I know, with a bunch of what ifs and some better health, we can squeek into the playoffs, but I wouldn't be trading away our top youth to go from 60:1 odds to 20:1 odds.

    I'd prefer to make a trade for someone like Brett Anderson, who has 3 more years of team control. I know it will cost more, but we'd be improving our odds for 3 years not 1.

    By the way, wasn't it Ross who was not able to catch the knuckleball his first time in Boston? Salty struggled with Wake. Lava? Hmm...

    [/QUOTE]

    I do think we compete.  The Rays dont have any offense.  Oakland lost their best pitcher.  Reddick faded hard.  Baltimore isnt going to get any better.

    I see the top 4 AL teams next year:

    NYY, Det, LAA, Bos

    The teams that are usually there.

    [/QUOTE]
    Disagree; Baltimore is a rising force.

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

     Not trying o bad mouth Dickey but he just had a career year at 37, he ain't exactly hitting his prime.  Yes I know he is a knuckleballer, but we also know hey are vercoup and down.  Mets are looking to sell high and the Sox would be suckers to bite. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    I do not want Boston to give up top prospects for a 38-year-old pitcher. 

    Why not get McCarthy and Marcum?  I think I mentioned both of their names at least 100 times.  LOL

     

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    The Rays dont have any offense

    ...and how long have you (and others) been saying this?

    It's pitching, man- pitching!

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    Not trying o bad mouth Dickey but he just had a career year at 37, he ain't exactly hitting his prime.  Yes I know he is a knuckleballer, but we also know hey are vercoup and down.  Mets are looking to sell high and the Sox would be suckers to bite. 

    I'm not for trading top prospects for any 1 year pitcher.

    However, Dickey had 2 fine seasons before 2012. The very good to great seasons in a row is no fluke.

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

    Re: R.A. Dickey

    I think Dickey is more than a one year pitcher as well, but he did have a career year this year by far.  But it's not as if he hasn't been good before 2012, because he has.  But I'm just not willing to bet a Xander Bogaerts or a Jackie Bradley Jr over him.  Now if the asking price were to drop I think Dickey would be a great addition to this staff.

     

Share