Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

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

    Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    The Red Sox approached the Phillies about a trade of Jacoby Ellsbury for Cliff Lee, but the Phillies said that Lee wasn't available.  I can't blame the Phils for turning that offer down; even if they did want to move Lee, he would fetch far more on the trade market than just one year of Ellsbury, who hits free agency next winter.

    Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#SjfTmiO8KRCW5bV7.99

    Well, I guess that kills that story.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    It would have been nice if Philly took Ellsbury, Lackey and maybe a non-top 5 prospect for Lee (maybe add a not top 10 prospect as well or a guy like Breslow, Miller, Melancon, or Bard).

    That would knock off about $40M from the cost of Lee ($87.5M/3 or $102.5M/4), making his actual cost about $47.5M/3 or $62.5M/4.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    "As bad as the Red Sox need to get rid of goldbicking albatross Ellspuff, paying last two playoff series bum Lee 24M a year for 3 years is totally incompetent. "

    Isn't trading a bum for an albatross quid pro quo? 

    I guess from your post that the two are not equivalent so that's good to know that albatross = much greater than bum....

    p.s. calling Lee a bum doesn't improve your argument much, Lee may have disappointed last couple playoffs but he's not a bum. Yah he's overpaid but the Sox are in dire need of a good starter so they will have to flex more than they wanted. 

    You are going to fight tooth and nail against the idea we need better pitching, that is until the season starts and we trot Lackey out and he stinks and you start calling him a bum and "the new Wastefield" while at the same time trolling that pitching is not important to get a reaction. 

    I'm convinced in a past life your cranked out propaganda films for European dictators, no one plays both sides as well as you (e.g. "Crawford was a bust, trading him was a misguided move") etc. 

    I'm glad the Red Sox are making the effort to move Ells and going after a great pitcher is absolutely the right move, Lee or not. Let them go to every team in the league working the deal.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "As bad as the Red Sox need to get rid of goldbicking albatross Ellspuff, paying last two playoff series bum Lee 24M a year for 3 years is totally incompetent. "

    Isn't trading a bum for an albatross quid pro quo? 

    I guess from your post that the two are not equivalent so that's good to know that albatross = much greater than bum....

    p.s. calling Lee a bum doesn't improve your argument much, Lee may have disappointed last couple playoffs but he's not a bum. Yah he's overpaid but the Sox are in dire need of a good starter so they will have to flex more than they wanted. 

    You are going to fight tooth and nail against the idea we need better pitching, that is until the season starts and we trot Lackey out and he stinks and you start calling him a bum and "the new Wastefield" while at the same time trolling that pitching is not important to get a reaction. 

    I'm convinced in a past life your cranked out propaganda films for European dictators, no one plays both sides as well as you (e.g. "Crawford was a bust, trading him was a misguided move") etc. 

    I'm glad the Red Sox are making the effort to move Ells and going after a great pitcher is absolutely the right move, Lee or not. Let them go to every team in the league working the deal.

    [/QUOTE]


    don't trade him away just to trade him away though. its gotta be for a ToR guy or we should just keep him and look to either move him at the deadline to a desperate contender looking for a superstar CF'er to make their playoff push OR keep him throughout 2013 and make a run to resign him/take the comp pick

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    ya gotta say im glad that philly turned that deal down. as much as i would be open to dealing ellsbury, cliff lee is not the kind of return i would want, he is 34, makes big money and showed some decline last year. no thanks.we need to get younger, not older.

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ya gotta say im glad that philly turned that deal down. as much as i would be open to dealing ellsbury, cliff lee is not the kind of return i would want, he is 34, makes big money and showed some decline last year. no thanks.we need to get younger, not older.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree, and if Philly turned the deal down, they certainly would not have paid any of Lee's deal.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ya gotta say im glad that philly turned that deal down. as much as i would be open to dealing ellsbury, cliff lee is not the kind of return i would want, he is 34, makes big money and showed some decline last year. no thanks.we need to get younger, not older.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Red Sox need to be getting better whether they're getting younger or older.  Cliff Lee could be one of the few acquistions that might propel them into contending status again.  I'm not saying it would happen, but that it at least could.  "Could" could be enough to rekindle my enthusiasm so that I might do things like renew my subscription to mlb.com and rework some of my schedule and errands around Red Sox game time again.  

    This team still has some money to spend.  I would like to see them gamble on something that could make a difference.  

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    End of the day if Phillies say they aren't looking to trade Lee. It's not that hard to see why..If you were the owner or the GM of the Phillies, why would you trade him, it's not like they're cash strapped. With He, Hammels & Halliday the Phillies have as formitable a top of the rotation as any team in the game. If one is to buy into the age old adage of pitching, defense and timely hitting is the key to winning. The Phillies have in place as strong a nucleaus to build around as any team. There chief rival in the division is the Nationals.

    That said, if the Phillies see thier offense as being part of the problem and are looking to add a bat...the obvious next step would be to go hard after Hamilton...if they trade Lee and aren't willing to eat any of his moneys owed then they're not going to get equal value in return. So again, if they're looking to add a big bat to the middle of thier lineup and want to use Lee as the chip...they'll likely have to take on a contract to balance the moneys.

    The issue with Lee's deal in not the 25M owed in 2013, it's the close to 80M more he's owed for the remainder of his deal through 2016 and the projected decline as he inches past the 35 year old mark. It is the last two years and the 50M owed to lee that makes trading him difficult...Which is why an Ellsbury & Lackey deal for Lee would make sense for both teams if indeed the Phillies were looking to get out from under the contract. Make no mistake about the AAV and the length of the deal prohibits the teams that could take on Lee's deal thus mitigates the leverage the Phillies would have in trying to get maximum value...If the Phillies truly want to to trade for a bat the guy that would bring back max value is Halliday without the need to eat any moneys...

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    we trot Lackey out and he stinks and you start calling him a bum

    I called Lackey a prima donna back when I said his value ended at 3 years and 30M. It is exactly desperation moves for old "been a disappointment in last 2 playoff series in 2010 and 2011", paying 24M a year for garbage like that is how Lackey arrived.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You just can't help yourself from lying.

    Yes, you initially said it was an "overpay", but when you later found out there was an injury clause that added a year at min wage, you said "it was the best deal we could have made and filled our greatest need area" that winter.

    I posted your direct quotes time and time again, and you never even responded to them except to occaisionally pretend that you were not "that softlaw".

    Get over yourself, admit you are a clown or major proportions.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to JohnnyLefty's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Red Sox approached the Phillies about a trade of Jacoby Ellsbury for Cliff Lee, but the Phillies said that Lee wasn't available.  I can't blame the Phils for turning that offer down; even if they did want to move Lee, he would fetch far more on the trade market than just one year of Ellsbury, who hits free agency next winter.

    Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#SjfTmiO8KRCW5bV7.99

    Well, I guess that kills that story.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think our FO will learn the hard way a couple more times before coming to their senses on SP.  Just the fact we offered Dempster a contract tells me they still don't get it.  Trade top prospects for a younger established ace, or top 10 pitching prospect. 

    Stop screwing around with the 34 an over club and rehab cases.  Or in Lackeys case, very little skill at a huge price.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    You are a teenage prevaricator. I said that Lackey was a prima donna who wasn't worth more than 3 years and base 10. I said that of all the 100 million and beyiond bums from that FA class, Lackey was the ony one that made any sense. I then said that he was a prima donna and I condemned his contract offer and said I would never have signed the bum because my limit was 3 years and base 10. You are an insecure stooge without a clue. I posted your comment about offering Wastefield 2 million for 2012. You lied and claimed that was "only with incentives". You then kept bidding down until you reached a begging 3/4 of a million offer to Wastefield.


    http://www.tolerance.org/blog/no-name-calling-week#comment-559

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

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

    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ya gotta say im glad that philly turned that deal down. as much as i would be open to dealing ellsbury, cliff lee is not the kind of return i would want, he is 34, makes big money and showed some decline last year. no thanks.we need to get younger, not older.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Red Sox need to be getting better whether they're getting younger or older.  Cliff Lee could be one of the few acquistions that might propel them into contending status again.  I'm not saying it would happen, but that it at least could.  "Could" could be enough to rekindle my enthusiasm so that I might do things like renew my subscription to mlb.com and rework some of my schedule and errands around Red Sox game time again.  

    This team still has some money to spend.  I would like to see them gamble on something that could make a difference.  

    [/QUOTE]


    I m with you. everbody on these boards is so worried about the money the sox pay...and they throw up the perfect storm scenero that hit us with the Crawford, Lackey, Agon, as well as escalating saleries of Paps, Youk, Lester, Ells, Papi, etc....that was....a perfect storm for the red sox. After 2 WS titles we had to pay up.....It s what happens...why dont people see that. we are in much, much better position now to go forward and spend what we should be spending. Which is right up to the tax threashold...imo

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Tolerance is merely a buzz word for censorship. I'm still waiting for the demagogue to tolerate the "Bible clingers and gun toters" that he referred to as "they".

    And, Hill, you need to become more tolerant of hillbillies and "stupid old white males".

    [/QUOTE]

    your a minority now...what don,t you get? go hang out with Boehner...or the other idiot from Carolina with the glasses. What happened..? Im sure you were one of those kids that I took lunch money from....Hey...Im sorry, I had holes in my sneakers and saw an easy target...that was 30 yrs ago...lets have a beer, Im buying..

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    And, Hill, you need to become more tolerant of hillbillies and "stupid old white males".

    I'm a late 50s white male who grew up in a small town in Iowa ... I don't hate myself and I don't resort to name-calling. ;-)

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    "it was the best deal we could have made and filled our greatest need area" that winter

    You are a teenage prevaricator. I said that Lackey was a prima donna who wasn't worth more than 3 years and base 10. I said that of all the 100 million and beyiond bums from that FA class, Lackey was the ony one that made any sense. I then said that he was a prima donna and I condemned his contract offer and said I would never have signed the bum because my limit was 3 years and base 10.

    You are an insecure stooge without a clue.

    I posted your comment about offering Wastefield 2 million for 2012. You lied and claimed that was "only with incentives". You then kept bidding down until you reached a begging 3/4 of a million offer to Wastefield.

    I never said 3/4 million. That would be an insulting offer.

    I never said $2M base, and you never posted a link to where I said it... cause there is none.

    I'm glad you keep bringing up Wake, because that proves how far back you have to go to find a sketchy, at best, time I was wroong.

    You mistakes are recent, plenty, and glaring.

    Your flipping and flopping on the Napoli signing is hilarious. You blastyed me for saying I'd offer $33M/3, but now you are "OK" with $39M/3.

    You lies about my $23M/3 suggested offer for B McCarthy and your made up suggested offer is further evidence of your dishonesty, blatant lies, and immoral character.

    On Lackey, I repeatedly showed you your own quote of acceptance of his deal. You can't hide behind your new monikers.

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Lackey was supposed to "propel into contending status". Lee's 34, was a bust in the last two playoff series from 2010 and 2011, and has a price tag of 24M a year. No wonder the Phillies are trying to con him off on some incometent GM like Cherry.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you missed it...the Sox went to the Phillies with the deal for Ells, not the other way around. 

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    we wanted lee at 24m for 3 but not grienke at his age for the same amount for 5?????

     

    im confused

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    we wanted lee at 24m for 3 but not grienke at his age for the same amount for 5?????

     

    im confused

    [/QUOTE]


    75 mil.......151mil.... BIG difference

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

    Re: Red Sox asked Philly about a Cliff Lee for Ellsbury Deal.

    In response to georom4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    we wanted lee at 24m for 3 but not grienke at his age for the same amount for 5?????

     

    im confused

    [/QUOTE]

    Probably has somethng to do with statistics.  Over the past three years, Lee has a 2.89 ERA with a 1.047 Whip.  Greinke has a 3.83 ERA and a 1.215 Whip.

    There are some people for whom a one-point difference in ERA is meaningful.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share