Trade for RA Dickey?

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

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If you can't dispute the facts

    My facts are facts, and facts can't be disputed. What is beyond dispute, because it's a fact, is that you are an idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    Facts are facts, unless they are yours.

     

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

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    Yes, his future is "any more a guarantee than Lars Anderson was". Bradley, Jr. is a legitimate defensive talent of such proficiency that there is no doubt he'll start numerous years in  MLB if he's not seriously injured.

    I'd love to do business with you.

    The Mets are getting rid of Dickey, that's a fact. He doesn't have a big market long term at his age and with the garbage he throws. The Mets could talk contract with him, but, instead, they are taking him out with the garbage. And the Mets, as incompetent as they have been, will be delighted when they get rid of Dickey for way more than the bum is worth.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You sure do like to call some of the best Major League players "bums"

    I think trading JBJ or any other top ranked prospect for Dickey is a bad idea, but the fact is the guy has been as good as almost anyone the last three years and just won the Cy Young.

    Is there anyone who is not a bum in your oppinion? please name one player who you actually have some respect or admiration for.

    [/QUOTE]


    Last year it was Kemp, this year he has a hard on for J. Upton...Next year he will be obsessed with someone else, But will not have Ellsbury here to offer in another unrealistic trade scenario to get said player. Looks like he will have to find a new punching bag on the Sox after 2013.

    [/QUOTE]

    ...and every year the Soft One has a new Carolina-based obsession....Yawkey wasn't a racist, JBJ is a guaranteed starter in MLB and, my personal favourite, Rick Ferrell for the Red Sox HOF despite only 5 years with us! 

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

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ADG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why give up anything for a 38 year old knuckleballer who could fall apart and be awful. There is no guarantee he does what he did in 2012. And he's 38.

    [/QUOTE]

    IMO, it is beyond ridiculous to think of trading 6 years of Bradley for one year of Dickey.

    [/QUOTE]

    If we were one player like Dickey away from being a top contender, I could see some logic to trading Bradley for him, but we are not.

    Joe, I respect you as an intelligent and level-headed poster, but answer me this question: were you for trading 6 years of team control of Han Ram AND Anibal Sanchez for 1 year of Josh Beckett and the salary dump of Mike Lowell?

    We ended up extending Josh and Mike. We won a second ring. Although the trade appears lop-sided in favor of the Marlins, I don't hear many fans complaining about the deal that helped us win one ring.

    (BTW, most Marlin top trade lists count that trade as their best trade of all time.)

    [/QUOTE]

    I would've made the trade, but I apparently under-estimated both Hanley and Sanchez.

    Hanley was a very good prospect, but had slipped from #10 to #30.  He had just posted a .720 in AA at age 21.  At the start of 2005, I was an agnostic on SS.  I'd have no problem with either Hanley, OCab, or Renteria.

    Sanchez seemed to be one of those soft tossers that excel in the minors, but rarely have an impact in the pros.

    Lowell looked like a good bounce-back candidate, and Beckett had the makings of an ace, with playoff success.

    In retrospect, I would not have made the trade.  Everyone points to the 2007 WS, but had we had Hanley and Sanchez instead of Beckett and Lowell, plus all the extra money, there is a pretty good chance we'd have won a WS in one of those years.

    Lowell 

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you for your honest reply.

    I agree with you here, but it is hard to see how we win in 2007 without Beckett's playoff heroics.

    Perhaps with the money saved, we could have found a great SP.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's almost useless to do the 'what-ifs', but theoretically, we don't have Beckett, Lowell, or Renteria.  We averaged 93 wins from 2007-2011.  With the added wins supplied by Hanley and Sanchez over Beckett/Lowell, plus the players acquired with the extra cash, that could've been 97 wins a year.  POs are crap shoots, but we'd have easily been the best team in BB over 5 years.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    Toronto got aggressive because they know that Boston and New York are in serious trouble.  Might as well go for it.

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

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ADG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why give up anything for a 38 year old knuckleballer who could fall apart and be awful. There is no guarantee he does what he did in 2012. And he's 38.

    [/QUOTE]

    IMO, it is beyond ridiculous to think of trading 6 years of Bradley for one year of Dickey.

    [/QUOTE]

    If we were one player like Dickey away from being a top contender, I could see some logic to trading Bradley for him, but we are not.

    Joe, I respect you as an intelligent and level-headed poster, but answer me this question: were you for trading 6 years of team control of Han Ram AND Anibal Sanchez for 1 year of Josh Beckett and the salary dump of Mike Lowell?

    We ended up extending Josh and Mike. We won a second ring. Although the trade appears lop-sided in favor of the Marlins, I don't hear many fans complaining about the deal that helped us win one ring.

    (BTW, most Marlin top trade lists count that trade as their best trade of all time.)

    [/QUOTE]

    I would've made the trade, but I apparently under-estimated both Hanley and Sanchez.

    Hanley was a very good prospect, but had slipped from #10 to #30.  He had just posted a .720 in AA at age 21.  At the start of 2005, I was an agnostic on SS.  I'd have no problem with either Hanley, OCab, or Renteria.

    Sanchez seemed to be one of those soft tossers that excel in the minors, but rarely have an impact in the pros.

    Lowell looked like a good bounce-back candidate, and Beckett had the makings of an ace, with playoff success.

    In retrospect, I would not have made the trade.  Everyone points to the 2007 WS, but had we had Hanley and Sanchez instead of Beckett and Lowell, plus all the extra money, there is a pretty good chance we'd have won a WS in one of those years.

    Lowell 

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you for your honest reply.

    I agree with you here, but it is hard to see how we win in 2007 without Beckett's playoff heroics.

    Perhaps with the money saved, we could have found a great SP.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's almost useless to do the 'what-ifs', but theoretically, we don't have Beckett, Lowell, or Renteria.  We averaged 93 wins from 2007-2011.  With the added wins supplied by Hanley and Sanchez over Beckett/Lowell, plus the players acquired with the extra cash, that could've been 97 wins a year.  POs are crap shoots, but we'd have easily been the best team in BB over 5 years.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree that we'd be better with Han Ram and Sanchez, but there are no guarantees we'd be the best team or have any rings from 2006 to now. As much as you have bashed Theo and Ben, you seem to now be giving them credit to have signed someone better.

    BTW, Snachez pitched 30 ML innings in 2007, 52 in 2008 and was 4-8 in 2009.

    While Han Ran had some great years on offense, Mikey did pretty well for us for a bit too.

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

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ADG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why give up anything for a 38 year old knuckleballer who could fall apart and be awful. There is no guarantee he does what he did in 2012. And he's 38.

    [/QUOTE]

    IMO, it is beyond ridiculous to think of trading 6 years of Bradley for one year of Dickey.

    [/QUOTE]

    If we were one player like Dickey away from being a top contender, I could see some logic to trading Bradley for him, but we are not.

    Joe, I respect you as an intelligent and level-headed poster, but answer me this question: were you for trading 6 years of team control of Han Ram AND Anibal Sanchez for 1 year of Josh Beckett and the salary dump of Mike Lowell?

    We ended up extending Josh and Mike. We won a second ring. Although the trade appears lop-sided in favor of the Marlins, I don't hear many fans complaining about the deal that helped us win one ring.

    (BTW, most Marlin top trade lists count that trade as their best trade of all time.)

    [/QUOTE]

    I would've made the trade, but I apparently under-estimated both Hanley and Sanchez.

    Hanley was a very good prospect, but had slipped from #10 to #30.  He had just posted a .720 in AA at age 21.  At the start of 2005, I was an agnostic on SS.  I'd have no problem with either Hanley, OCab, or Renteria.

    Sanchez seemed to be one of those soft tossers that excel in the minors, but rarely have an impact in the pros.

    Lowell looked like a good bounce-back candidate, and Beckett had the makings of an ace, with playoff success.

    In retrospect, I would not have made the trade.  Everyone points to the 2007 WS, but had we had Hanley and Sanchez instead of Beckett and Lowell, plus all the extra money, there is a pretty good chance we'd have won a WS in one of those years.

    Lowell 

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you for your honest reply.

    I agree with you here, but it is hard to see how we win in 2007 without Beckett's playoff heroics.

    Perhaps with the money saved, we could have found a great SP.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's almost useless to do the 'what-ifs', but theoretically, we don't have Beckett, Lowell, or Renteria.  We averaged 93 wins from 2007-2011.  With the added wins supplied by Hanley and Sanchez over Beckett/Lowell, plus the players acquired with the extra cash, that could've been 97 wins a year.  POs are crap shoots, but we'd have easily been the best team in BB over 5 years.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree that we'd be better with Han Ram and Sanchez, but there are no guarantees we'd be the best team or have any rings from 2006 to now. As much as you have bashed Theo and Ben, you seem to now be giving them credit to have signed someone better.

    BTW, Snachez pitched 30 ML innings in 2007, 52 in 2008 and was 4-8 in 2009.

    While Han Ran had some great years on offense, Mikey did pretty well for us for a bit too.

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't generally bash GMs.  They know 100x what we know.  Once in a while, the mistake is so egregious that you cannot avoid commenting on it.  Zito, ARod, Pujols, Kazmir, the Wells trade, not offering Napoli a qualifying offer.

    Still, say it was an average of $22M for both Beckett and Lowell, plus the $9M we wouldn't have spent on Renteria, I feel we would've had two reasonably good signings for $15M each.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If you can't dispute the facts

    My facts are facts, and facts can't be disputed. What is beyond dispute, because it's a fact, is that you are an idiot.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry, pal. There's only room for one idiot in this thread and you got here first.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If you can't dispute the facts

    My facts are facts, and facts can't be disputed. What is beyond dispute, because it's a fact, is that you are an idiot.

    [/QUOTE]

    See, there you go again not getting the point.  The facts being discussed were in Notins post and I was very clear about that. 

    Of course, comprehension never was one of your strong points.

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

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

     

    Yankees: Getting old

    Rays: Great pitching but no offense

    O's: 2012 magic is way behind them

    Red Sox: In a bridge-year

    So this is the time for the Blue Jays to strike.  This team has not made the playoffs since 1993.  I give props to the Blue Jays GM. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from raider3524. Show raider3524's posts

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    the jays still gotta play the game...i don't care who they got..still gotta play...you don't know if they will all jell together...

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

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    In response to raider3524's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    the jays still gotta play the game...i don't care who they got..still gotta play...you don't know if they will all jell together...

    [/QUOTE]

    True raider3524.  :)

    I remember when the Toronto media was going crazy when they got Roger Clemens and Benito Santiago in 1997.  The Blue Jays still finished in last place. 

    But I think the Blue Jays will win at least a Wild Card berth in 2013.  If healthy, I see this team going 90-72. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from raider3524. Show raider3524's posts

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to raider3524's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    the jays still gotta play the game...i don't care who they got..still gotta play...you don't know if they will all jell together...

    [/QUOTE]

    True raider3524.  :)

    I remember when the Toronto media was going crazy when they got Roger Clemens and Benito Santiago in 1997.  The Blue Jays still finished in last place. 

    But I think the Blue Jays will win at least a Wild Card berth in 2013.  If healthy, I see this team going 90-72. 

    [/QUOTE]

    exactly...i remember when we got agon and crawford...lol...i thought no way anybody stops us...on paper we were predicted to go world series.

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

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    In response to raider3524's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    the jays still gotta play the game...i don't care who they got..still gotta play...you don't know if they will all jell together...

    [/QUOTE]


    Everybody has to play the game.  It is easier to play it when you have the better talent.  The Red Sox are in a state of decline under Ben C.  That is apparent , although some here continue to be in denial. Keep attacking the posters who are telling you the truth.  Keep making excuses for failure.  But be smart. Don't put any money on the Sox chances for winning in 2013. 

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

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    Trying to figure out why some want Dickey? At 38 with two good year you want him but complain about the RS  signing of other 30 to 32 yr olds who at least have any more years of success?

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

    Re: Trade for RA Dickey?

    At least with Dickey the Jays are getting someone who has been at the top at least once in his career...not a part time player, not a grade B player, but the current Cy Young winner.  The Jays took him because for them it is about winning now...and they haven't won now in a very long time.  

     

Share