Rethinking 2013

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It could also keep them from making a move that could really help them: dumping players that will not be helping us in 2014 and/or beyond for helpful prospects.

    Also, if you think teams are overpaying for FAs and players through trades now, it usually gets much worse during the panic times of the July deadline, and mostly all you get are 2 month rentals or high-priced salary dumps.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not sure that I agree...If they add a player it would be with both the present and future in mind. If they trade multiple prospects for an impact player a condition of deal would include some sort of contract extension. unless the player they'd acquire was already under contract or in the case of say Upton still under the teams control for 3 seasons...

    Yes, we can get someone in July, but they will not be cheaper than now and we will not have them for the first 4 months of the season.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's still a month before camp opens and the rosters still not set? So if the right player presents himself a blockbuster trade could still happen. Lets just for the sake of this discussion say the Sox had a true interest in acquiring Stanton from the Marlins. What would it take to get them to listen?

    Barnes, Doubront, Bogharts and a couple of A ball prospects? 

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    I thought you said you'd come to this thread to see how you took it off track. Instead, you have come here to continue nonbaseball tangents.

    Look in the mirror...long and hard.

    Keep baseball threads about baseball. Is that such a hard thing to do for someone who is hypersensitive about trolls, Ben-bashers and pessimists?

    Do what you asked me to do on your thread: go back and see who took this thread off baseball...

    Cue sound of crickets....

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    It's still a month before camp opens and the rosters still not set? So if the right player presents himself a blockbuster trade could still happen. Lets just for the sake of this discussion say the Sox had a true interest in acquiring Stanton from the Marlins. What would it take to get them to listen?

    Barnes, Doubront, Bogharts and acouple of A ball prospects? 

    I think it will take more: something like...

    2 of Doubront, Morales, de la Rosa, Aceves (+cash) or Tazawa

    Bradley

    Lavarnway

    Cecchini

    Linares

    1 of Iggy, Vinicio, or Lin

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    In response to Kitzingen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Every morning on the forum, why do Softlaw and Moonslav walk in at the same time?

    [/QUOTE]

    Why are you using two alias on the same day, and talking to yourself pike?

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The forum is now 99% negative since Moonslav is now a chronic wet blanket.  I suggest that all Sox fans go to the beach this year and forget about the Sox.  It is all over, Woe is me, you heard it from Moonslav. No need neither to visit this forum. It is over,  Woe is me.

    [/QUOTE]




     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Acquiring Stanton this winter or next season is delusional.

    [/QUOTE]


    Perhaps it is...So to was the Kemp trade that you championed for the better part of a year. I find it funny that you'd be critical of a discusion about the aquistion of a player during the hot stove that was framed with what do you think it would take... 

    In Stanton's case while it may be dilusional of me and others to discuss the parameters of a deal that could make the Marlins listen. The difference between the two hypotheticals. Is at no point did the Dodgers leek to the press they'd listen to offers for Kemp. Fact is the Marlins have said they would listen to offers. 

    So given his resume and the Red Sox need for an impact player. Why don't you put on your GM hat and join in on the discusion. Who knows you might find that discussing baseball without needing to digress to using perjoratives and be condesending to be fun...Just saying...

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I thought you said you'd come to this thread to see how you took it off track. Instead, you have come here to continue nonbaseball tangents.

    Look in the mirror...long and hard.

    Keep baseball threads about baseball. Is that such a hard thing to do for someone who is hypersensitive about trolls, Ben-bashers and pessimists?

    Do what you asked me to do on your thread: go back and see who took this thread off baseball...

    Cue sound of crickets....

    [/QUOTE]

    It's fairy clear the intent of Edith, Kimsaysthesamethings, Burrito, the Sherif, along with Salty is to dilute this discusion and drive it off the board. Pretty juvenille if you ask me. Fear not, dispite there intent. I'll continue to try to sift through all of thier diatribes and non-sensical comments that lend nothing to the thread and stick to discussing baseball.

    Baseball Fever..Catch it!

     

     

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I thought you said you'd come to this thread to see how you took it off track. Instead, you have come here to continue nonbaseball tangents.

    Look in the mirror...long and hard.

    Keep baseball threads about baseball. Is that such a hard thing to do for someone who is hypersensitive about trolls, Ben-bashers and pessimists?

    Do what you asked me to do on your thread: go back and see who took this thread off baseball...

    Cue sound of crickets....

    [/QUOTE]

    It's fairy clear the intent of Edith, Kimsaysthesamethings, Burrito, the Sherif, along with Salty is to dilute this discusion and drive it off the board. Pretty juvenille if you ask me. Fear not, dispite there intent. I'll continue to try to sift through all of thier diatribes and non-sensical comments that lend nothing to the thread and stick to discussing baseball.

    Baseball Fever..Catch it!

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well put.

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I thought you said you'd come to this thread to see how you took it off track. Instead, you have come here to continue nonbaseball tangents.

    Look in the mirror...long and hard.

    Keep baseball threads about baseball. Is that such a hard thing to do for someone who is hypersensitive about trolls, Ben-bashers and pessimists?

    Do what you asked me to do on your thread: go back and see who took this thread off baseball...

    Cue sound of crickets....

    [/QUOTE]

    It's fairy clear the intent of Edith, Kimsaysthesamethings, Burrito, the Sherif, along with Salty is to dilute this discusion and drive it off the board. Pretty juvenille if you ask me. Fear not, dispite there intent. I'll continue to try to sift through all of thier diatribes and non-sensical comments that lend nothing to the thread and stick to discussing baseball.

    Baseball Fever..Catch it!

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well put.

    [/QUOTE]


    Thank's...unfortunately on a public forum with little real oversight, you have to take the good with the bad. On this site there's just a handful of members that clearly come here for thier own humor. What a waste of good brain cells.

     

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    GM CT,

    Let's talk some ball and get this thread back on track...

    Moon and I tried to start a discusion about the aquisition of Stanton. I framed the question to him of what he thought it would take to get the Marlins to listen. Obviously the cost of aquision in quality and quantity of prospect will be prohibitive. However if your serious about aquiring a young impact player with a proven ML resume that still under the teams control. You have to pay the piper. I'm thinkling along the lines of the deal made by the Braves to aquire Texiera total of 5

    The basic framework of the deal would comprise of 2 pitchers and 3 position players...

    Pick one:Barnes or Doubront

    Pick one: Ranaundo or Britton

    Pick one: Bogharts, Bradley, Iglesias

    Pick Two: Then give them a list of all of our A ball players and give them the choice of two not named Swiihart or Marrero.

    Thoughts?

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    GM CT,

    Let's talk some ball and get this thread back on track...

    Moon and I tried to start a discusion about the aquisition of Stanton. I framed the question to him of what he thought it would take to get the Marlins to listen. Obviously the cost of aquision in quality and quantity of prospect will be prohibitive. However if your serious about aquiring a young impact player with a proven ML resume that still under the teams control. You have to pay the piper. I'm thinkling along the lines of the deal made by the Braves to aquire Texiera total of 5

    The basic framework of the deal would comprise of 2 pitchers and 3 position players...

    Pick one:Barnes or Doubront

    Pick one: Ranaundo or Britton

    Pick one: Bogharts, Bradley, Iglesias

    Pick Two: Then give them a list of all of our A ball players and give them the choice of two not named Swiihart or Marrero.

    Thoughts?

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm probably a bad person to ask BT. Simply because I hate giving up pitching (even prospects) for position players. Granted, if the "position player" we're talking about is the missing piece that puts us over the top, then fine..........but I still kinda cringe at it :-).

    As far as Stanton goes, I think once he has the track record that Mark Texiera had prior to his trade, then what you're talking about is most likely in line with what he would be worth. However, until he has that "pedigree" I wouldn't give up the amount you're offering.

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    In response to CTChris's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    GM CT,

    Let's talk some ball and get this thread back on track...

    Moon and I tried to start a discusion about the aquisition of Stanton. I framed the question to him of what he thought it would take to get the Marlins to listen. Obviously the cost of aquision in quality and quantity of prospect will be prohibitive. However if your serious about aquiring a young impact player with a proven ML resume that still under the teams control. You have to pay the piper. I'm thinkling along the lines of the deal made by the Braves to aquire Texiera total of 5

    The basic framework of the deal would comprise of 2 pitchers and 3 position players...

    Pick one:Barnes or Doubront

    Pick one: Ranaundo or Britton

    Pick one: Bogharts, Bradley, Iglesias

    Pick Two: Then give them a list of all of our A ball players and give them the choice of two not named Swiihart or Marrero.

    Thoughts?

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm probably a bad person to ask BT. Simply because I hate giving up pitching (even prospects) for position players. Granted, if the "position player" we're talking about is the missing piece that puts us over the top, then fine..........but I still kinda cringe at it :-).

    As far as Stanton goes, I think once he has the track record that Mark Texiera had prior to his trade, then what you're talking about is most likely in line with what he would be worth. However, until he has that "pedigree" I wouldn't give up the amount you're offering.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well said, I'm of the mindset that prospects are used to enhance the ability of the ML club to compete. Either by they themsleves making the jump and being productive or to used as assests to fill a void on the roster. End of the day given our current roster. Why I would be willing to morgage the future, is becasue it's the future that we're trying to retool this club for...Adding an impact bat like Stanton's at the cost of replaceable assets (prospects). Would give us a player along with Middlebrooks to build the lineup around. While Stanton might not have the track record of Texiera. He is a player that projects to be among the best in the near term with HOF potential....

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

    Re: Rethinking 2013

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CTChris's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Beantowne's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    GM CT,

    Let's talk some ball and get this thread back on track...

    Moon and I tried to start a discusion about the aquisition of Stanton. I framed the question to him of what he thought it would take to get the Marlins to listen. Obviously the cost of aquision in quality and quantity of prospect will be prohibitive. However if your serious about aquiring a young impact player with a proven ML resume that still under the teams control. You have to pay the piper. I'm thinkling along the lines of the deal made by the Braves to aquire Texiera total of 5

    The basic framework of the deal would comprise of 2 pitchers and 3 position players...

    Pick one:Barnes or Doubront

    Pick one: Ranaundo or Britton

    Pick one: Bogharts, Bradley, Iglesias

    Pick Two: Then give them a list of all of our A ball players and give them the choice of two not named Swiihart or Marrero.

    Thoughts?

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm probably a bad person to ask BT. Simply because I hate giving up pitching (even prospects) for position players. Granted, if the "position player" we're talking about is the missing piece that puts us over the top, then fine..........but I still kinda cringe at it :-).

    As far as Stanton goes, I think once he has the track record that Mark Texiera had prior to his trade, then what you're talking about is most likely in line with what he would be worth. However, until he has that "pedigree" I wouldn't give up the amount you're offering.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well said, I'm of the mindset that prospects are used to enhance the ability of the ML club to compete. Either by they themsleves making the jump and being productive or to used as assests to fill a void on the roster. End of the day given our current roster. Why I would be willing to morgage the future, is becasue it's the future that we're trying to retool this club for...Adding an impact bat like Stanton's at the cost of replaceable assets (prospects). Would give us a player along with Middlebrooks to build the lineup around. While Stanton might not have the track record of Texiera. He is a player that projects to be among the best in the near term with HOF potential....

    [/QUOTE]

    The future is what I'm thinking about as well. However, there are different ways to view the future (which I assume is why there is so much disagreement about how to approach it). For instance, what you see as a guy to build a club around in exchange for 5 players, I can easily see as 5 guys that could all project to be ML players who we will have under control for 6 years once their ML clock starts ticking.......in exchange for one player who's clock started already.

    Like I inferred earlier........that better be one heck of a player we're trading for and IMO he better be a guy to put us over the top. As constructed presently, IMO the Sox are more than 1 player away from being considered "favorites" of any kind. I also think that the type of players that will help get us to that status the quickest are going to be Pitchers, not position players.

    So again, my bias comes into play when I'm asked if I would be interested in trading pitching for a position player. Maybe in the future if/when we have the rotation that sets us apart from the majority of other teams I'll be more receptive.....until then, not so much. That said, I admit that there is no right or wrong answer here.......only opinions. My current opinion is influenced by what I see as our need to get the rotation in order before we go looking for an OFer w/a bat. LOL but if there is a way to do both, I'm all for it.

     

Share