Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

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

    Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    No doubt about it. FA market aint where it's at in 2012.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostofTito. Show GhostofTito's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    For sure.
    They need to make trades to get what they need. Building a team the old fashioned way.
    Use FA to fill in role players, not to fill major needs.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    I said this 7 weeks ago and softy called the idea "idiotic"... the jerking circle continues.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

       I agree a trade would be welcomed, but don't see the resources on Sox end to pull off major trade, unless Ellsbury is part of the mix.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    Not quite sure why we need a blockbuster.  It's a lot easier to make the under the radar type of trades.  We don't really need a 'special' player anywhere but closer, and that's a buyer's market right now.  We lead the league in offense with nothing out of RF, so even a mediocre RF will ensure a top tier offense.  We have three top tier SPs, so it wouldn't make sense to go overboard for the 4/5.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    The largest question looming on the offense is C.C. How could we ever trade Elles without knowing Carl is going to shape up.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    In fact, Red Sox offense was inconsistent and prone to big lows that were offset by park factor and the highs.

    Red Sox need a young star Rh OFer and a decent middle tier starter. Ellsbury is the obvious trade elephant with Crawford locked on books. Lowrie should be traded, also. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    In Response to Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!:
    [QUOTE]In fact, Red Sox offense was inconsistent and prone to big lows that were offset by park factor and the highs. Red Sox need a young star Rh OFer and a decent middle tier starter. Ellsbury is the obvious trade elephant with Crawford locked on books. Lowrie should be traded, also. 
    Posted by hankwilliams[/QUOTE]

    I'm not baiting you, but do you have something to measure the inconsistency?

    And if we are inconsistent, how does trading away our best offensive player (relative to position) improve that inconsistency?

    And how does opening up a hole in CF to replace a hole in RF improve that?  If we need a RH OF (which I agree with) it seems a lot easier to simpy sign a RH RF for a couple of years.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    We should trade our best player and sign a catcher (Ramon Hernandez) for $4M.

    Silly clown on the loose.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    Yankees team OPS+ 115
    78 games in 2011 the Yankees scored 4 runs or less

    Red Sox team OPS+ 108
    85 games in 2011 the Red Sox scored 4 runs or less


    Ellsbury v. LP 2011   OPS+ 82  Career v. LP OPS .782
    Crawford v. LP 2011 OPS+ 64  Career v. LP OPS .684
    Reddick v. LP 2011   OPS+ 97  Career v. LP OPS .785

    McCutchen v. LP 2011 OPS+148 Career v. LP OPS .922

    No hole in OF. 1 OF out and 1 in. McCutchen CF

    Ellsbury to a 3rd team plus Lowrie plus one other blocked or because of trade expendable prospect in a 3 team deal would likely net long term solution Rh OF plus middle tier younger starter  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    Drivel drone who offered Dunn over 30 million and 2012 plan is to resign Varisuk and Wastefield for 3 or 4 million is loose and spamming.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    Funny how softy loves to use career stats unless others are more convenient.

    I love his "Miller was decent on the road" cherry-pickins.

    BHall's HR%.

    Lowrie vs RHPs/Jake vs LHPs.

    Wake's 2.47 year split.

    Weiland's brawl game adjustment.

    Cam's small sample after the trade.

    VTek's PB+WP rate, but not Ramon's (worse).

    Oki and Wheeler the saviors.

    "Wang for $1M" (he signed for $4M).

    Mauer for $17-18M.

    AGon will not sign in April.

    AGon will get $17M-18/yr.

    The list goes up to 167 straight blown calls, but I won't bore you all.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    Lowrie for Segio Romo, which I saw earlier on mlbtr chat.  Gotta admit, I like it.  Hope Sabean does, too.

    Also, Middlebrooks for Garza. Think Epstein still goes for it?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: Red Sox need a blockbuster Trade! Out with the Old In With The New Better 2012 and Long Term Fits!

    "Wang for $1M" (he signed for $4M).

    folks, you are now reading the prevarications of a lunatic who keeps claiming to have my comments on ignore, yet reads every comment.

    I said to offer wang, and more than a half dozen other veteran rejects, 1M. Not what Wang would end up signing for.

    But what can you expect from a drive-by stalking lunatic who drooled over Dunn and offered him over 30 million. No doubt, this team desperately needs another lefty slugger who burns it up like Dunn.

    I said Agon would not sign the day after opening day CBT capture date, not Agon will not sign in April. Agon played a half dozen or more games while Inesptien hedged on shoulder. Of course, I was the one who said Agon was wrong trade target in 2010, but would 100% be traded last winter and at least 50% to the Red Sox only because of need to agree on extension amount. I was the only one to state that in August, long before MLBTR and wedgie decided that they were wrong about Agon being retained until at least this summer's trade deadline. 

    Anyone wonder why someone who repeats stat snipets about how Wastefield and Varitek were a great value in 2011 at nearly 6 million but are a great value and can be had and should be paid 3 or 4 million for 2012. Drew started and the team won 60% of those starts, but Moonslob keeps posting team winning percentage when Wastefield and Varitek start as a basis for paying them 3 or 4 million for 2012.

    Anyone reading moonslob's comments will get nothing but cut and paste snipets of zero insight that carry comments like "if Wastefield had better luck he would have had an ERA under 5 and an even higher winning %". Lunatics wouldn't even delude themselves like that.

    And note that I provided career and 2011 metrics in my infrequent stat geek cut and paste references.  
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share