1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    [Quote]But never, ever, ever dump a kid who for years has been targeted as top talent, and has performed as top talent his whole career, because he had a poor first full season in the majors. The same dopes who wanted to do this also wanted to trade three top young talents for Santana, then sign a pitcher with a lot of mileage on his arm to a long term fat contract. Stick to your strategy because it is working: young talent, home grown pitching, multi-dimensional position players, talented role players...[/Quote]

    Dabro, I beliee Moonslav touched on this and I want to agree with him that there are certain occasions when trading top prospects is justified...Moon referenced the Beckett deal which is a great example. Also, trading for Santana would have qualified for this also.

    If you can trade top prospects for "YOUNG" proven major league stud pitchers or top 10 type proven major league hitters than you make those deals.

    In this situation the old adage: a bird in the hand (proven major leaguer) is worth two in the bush (top tier prospects).

    Now if the Santana deal went down for the package involving Lester, Masterson, Lowrie and Crisp, well based on 2008 performances that would have not been a good trade for the Red Sox.

    However, the package of Buchholz and Ellsbury, that was also offered would have been a good deal for the Sox.

    In both cases the Twins decided NOT to accept either Sox package.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SOX-FAN-IN-TAMPA. Show SOX-FAN-IN-TAMPA's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    Clay for Salty ... No No No ... Carfardo for Salty ... in a heart beat
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from seabeachfred. Show seabeachfred's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    Since the Red Sox resigned Varitek to do the catching this year and have Bard primed for second string status, I would say no to that trade for this season. Of course, this season Bucholz has got to show he is ready to take over a spot in the rotation and that his miserable pitching of 2008 is a thing of the past. I still have some hope that one of our young catchers like Mark Wagner might show enough stuff so that the Red Sox might have a catcher right in their midst.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mudbugger. Show mudbugger's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    Hey soxfanintampa...

    How about carfardo and finn for Salty?

    But we keep Amalie!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    [Quote]

    Dabro, I beliee Moonslav touched on this and I want to agree with him that there are certain occasions when trading top prospects is justified...Moon referenced the Beckett deal which is a great example. Also, trading for Santana would have qualified for this also.

    If you can trade top prospects for "YOUNG" proven major league stud pitchers or top 10 type proven major league hitters than you make those deals.

    In this situation the old adage: a bird in the hand (proven major leaguer) is worth two in the bush (top tier prospects).

    Now if the Santana deal went down for the package involving Lester, Masterson, Lowrie and Crisp, well based on 2008 performances that would have not been a good trade for the Red Sox.

    However, the package of Buchholz and Ellsbury, that was also offered would have been a good deal for the Sox.

    In both cases the Twins decided NOT to accept either Sox package.[/Quote]

    I don't want to start another 40 page thread on this subject, but many believe that MN countered by asking for Buch, Ells and Lowrie, instead of Lester, Ells and Lowrie and Boston said "no". That is the deal I was all for at the time, not just in hindsight.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    Can we throw in Ryan and Shaughnessey? I'll even pay 1/2 their salary.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    C'mon; Ryan is damaged goods! You see that sunburn?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from billy13. Show billy13's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    We have been over this again and again. No. Theo made it clear, that there was no way he was going to trade Clay for a prospect. For Joe Mauer?yes. Santana? yes. This kid is staying. He looks really good in ST
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    [Quote]
    I think the best way to get Mauer is to trade for him july 31,if he will agree to negotiate long term.Its the only way to get a heads up on the yankees(Buchholtz for mauer,if we can talk to Mauer before trade) Minn should be happy to get C B and we get an allstar catcher
    [/Quote]

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

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    [Quote]
    I think the best way to get Mauer is to trade for him july 31,if he will agree to negotiate long term.Its the only way to get a heads up on the yankees(Buchholtz for mauer,if we can talk to Mauer before trade) Minn should be happy to get C B and we get an allstar catcher
    [/Quote]

    Dude , thats laughable.

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

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    Minnesota would be dumb to trade Mauer for Lester and Bucholtz. Youve obviously never been to Minnesota.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    Soxdog and Moonslav have great points. You never make a hard conviction and stick with it. Why the hell would you ever pigeon hole yourself like that, its just bad business.

    The strategy you employ for your team should constantly be amended. For example, the Bruins wanted to have a rebuilding year, they wanted to give enough PT to their young kids to help them grow. After a hot start, when they proved they could make a run at the cup, they altered their strategy, and attempted to bring in vets to put them over the top.

    Because no FA was willing to go to Detroit, Detroit overpayed for Pudge Rodriguez because it sent the message to the league, that we are trying to field a competitive team, and top line FA's need to seriously consider this a possible stop.

    The Mets were willing to give Pedro a fourth year (knowing that he would be drastically overpaid in that fourth year), because they thought that in the first 2 yrs of the deal , Pedro would be the ace they need to put them over the top and they considered the trade off worth it.

    Point being: strategy is dependant on a plethora of variables, and therefore the best strategy for your team can change at ANY given time.

    Never pigeon hole yourself.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MikeyRedSox. Show MikeyRedSox's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    I don't think I agree with Nick Cafardo on anything.

    at least I hope not, because he's a moron

    he's also one of the laziest baseball writers in the business
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from keepmanny7. Show keepmanny7's posts

    Do you agree w/Cafardo-Buchholz for Saltalamacchia

    if you make it now it better be for more than saltalamacchia, who isnt that good.
     

Share