The ‘Full-Court Press’

From the New York Daily News

The Red Sox are "putting on a full-court press" to acquire Roy Halladay, according to a source, and are hoping to add the former Cy Young winner to the top of their rotation to go with Josh Beckett and Jon Lester. 

"They would love to get it wrapped up before the winter meetings (beginning Dec. 7)," the source said of the Red Sox, who made a big push to deal for Halladay last summer. … 

To land Halladay, Boston would likely have to give up Clay Buchholz, the organization's top young pitcher, as well as Casey Kelly, the pitcher/shortstop who signed with the Red Sox in 2008 after being recruited by Tennessee to play quarterback. Red Sox GM Theo Epstein is said to be smitten with Kelly, which could be a sticking point in talks with Toronto if Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos insists on the 20-year-old being included in a deal.


The Yankees would love to acquire Halladay, although Cashman has been reluctant to deal away top prospects such as Austin Jackson and Jesus Montero for a player he would then have to sign for more than $100 million, such as Halladay. Toronto would also likely require either Phil Hughes or Joba Chamberlain in a deal. 

Other teams figure to be involved in the Halladay mix, including the Angels, who reportedly have stepped up their efforts this week as they prepare for the possibility that John Lackey will sign elsewhere.
If the Red Sox are serious about dealing for Halladay in the next two weeks, the Yankees will likely have their chance to get involved in the sweepstakes for the Blue Jays ace, although it will take a package of top prospects – as well as a sizeable contract extension for Halladay, who has a full no-trade clause – to get a deal done.

54 comments… add one

  • The Globe also has this story, including the fact that the Jays want Buchholz and Kelly.

    Paul SF November 25, 2009, 8:31 am
  • Stay away from Halladay…we don’t need him for the price.
    Let the Sox have him…that would make next season very interesting.

    krueg November 25, 2009, 9:08 am
  • Seems like the Sox are in the position of having to make one big move this off-season and the free agent market doesn’t make that possible. So they’re exploring everything.
    Halladay is the bigger risk with how pitchers go, the prospects to get him, and the cost to retain him. Plus, if they pay Halladay big money, do they let Beckett walk or do they sign him for close to Halladay money?
    Cabrera, if A-Gon isn’t and won’t be made available, seems like the way to go (apart from the weight and drinking issues). He doesn’t blow up the salary structures either because they inherit the contract.

    Jeff November 25, 2009, 10:53 am
  • My biggest concern with Halladay is his age — he’ll be 33 next year and will obviously want at least five years if he’s signed to an extension (for which apparently Toronto is willing to grant a negotiating window now that Ricciardi is out of there). Ricciardi’s Top 10 comps at B-R are bizarre and not particularly helpful. They are:
    Tim Hudson
    Mike Mussina
    Bret Saberhagen
    Dizzy Dean
    Don Newcombe
    John Candelaria
    Andy Pettitte
    Jim Bunning
    Jimmy Key
    Dennis Leonard
    That’s two borderline Hall of Famers and two borderline Hall candidates that I would enshrine. Looking at this list, you’d get the idea that Halladay was a good pitcher with flashes of brilliance who just can’t seem to put it together.
    But none of these pitchers had an ERA+ as good as Halladay’s 133 through age 32. Hudson’s is only 126, and his walks and strikeouts are much worse than Halladay’s. Saberhagen didn’t have a 30-start season after age 25 (until age 34). Dean was done at age 27. Newcombe, Candelaria, Pettitte, Bunning and Leonard all allowed far more runs than Halladay. Key was decent enough, but through age 32 had a whopping two 140 ERA+ seasons, to Halladay’s seven (cut it to five if you want to make it a minimum of 20 starts).
    If that doesn’t show the deficiencies in B-R’s similarity scores, I don’t know what could.
    We might instead compare Halladay to a random selection of contemporary or near-contemporary greats who pitched to age 40 to see if he stacks up:
    First full season
    Halladay: 25
    Clemens: 23
    Johnson: 25
    Maddux: 21
    Seasons played through age 32
    Halladay: 8, with one season below 20 starts, two below 30
    Clemens: 10, with three seasons below 30 starts
    Johnson: 8, with three seasons below 30 starts, one below 10
    Maddux: 12, with three below 30 starts but all above 25
    ERA+ from first full season through age 32 season
    Halladay: 144
    Clemens: 150
    Johnson: 122
    Maddux: 148
    Cy Young-caliber seasons (140 ERA+ or better, min. 20 starts)
    Halladay: 5
    Clemens: 7
    Johnson: 2
    Maddux: 7
    200-inning seasons
    Halladay: 6
    Clemens: 7
    Johnson: 5
    Maddux: 11
    Age 32 season in comparison to peak
    Halladay: 155 ERA+ is second-highest qualifying mark of his career
    Clemens: 116 ERA+ is second-lowest of his career, misses significant time with injuries for third season in a row.
    Johnson: Only eight games started after the best season of his career (191 ERA+) at age 31.
    Maddux: Still at his peak, finishing a run of seasons in which his ERA+ is 166-171-271-262-162-189-187.
    How they did, age 33 and on
    Clemens: Recovered well in 1996 and went on to post two dominant seasons at ages 34 and 35 before settling in as a lesser — but still very good — starter through age 44. 12 seasons, 199 IP/yr, 140 ERA+
    Johnson: Freak of nature recovered from his injury to be dominant again at age 33, took a step back, then destroyed NL batters from ages 35 to 40. 13 seasons, 201 IP/yr, 144 ERA+
    Maddux: No longer as insanely dominant as he was through age 32, then dropped to league average at age 37. 10 seasons, 216 IP/yr, 118 ERA+.
    I’ll come back in a little bit and see what else I can dredge up.

    Paul SF November 25, 2009, 11:06 am
  • Haha, Ricciardi’s top-10 comps should obviously be Halladay’s top-10 comps…

    Paul SF November 25, 2009, 11:08 am
  • Halladay compares well to those all-time greats. He’s clearly at his peak, which was not true of Clemens. He was healthy, which was not true of Clemens or Johnson, and he has less mileage on his arm than Maddux, who already had 12 seasons behind him at this point and is the only one of these starters to falter to any degree in his late 30s.
    If Halladay gets a six-year extension, that puts him through age 38. Here are those pitchers’ age 33-38 seasons:
    Clemens: 226 IP/yr, 3.28 ERA, 1.234 WHIP, 2.72 K/BB, season-by-season ERA+: 139-221-174-103-130-128
    Johnson: 248 IP/yr, 2.58 ERA, 1.068 WHIP, 4.52 K/BB, season-by-season ERA+: 196-135-186-181-188-197
    Maddux: 222 IP/yr, 3.36 ERA, 1.169 WHIP, 4.11 K/BB, season-by-season ERA+: 125-153-146-159-108-109
    Of course, these aren’t really random. They’re starters I knew went well into their 30s. I’m still looking for starters who more closely share Halladay’s numbers than Tim Hudson and company.

    Paul SF November 25, 2009, 11:35 am
  • Competitively, I’d love to see the Sox get Halladay. But it’s interesting to note that he hasn’t pitched well at Fenway in his career (6-9, 4.09 ERA). He has pitched very well against the Yankees however.
    Honestly, this feels like a big smoke screen. Why would they kill their farm and salary structure for a 33 year old righthander? Buchholz may never be never be Roy Halladay but he has the makings of an above average pitcher. On the open market, that’s very valuable.
    The bat makes much more sense. The Sox got swept out of the post-season because they didn’t hit. Their road numbers suggest they just weren’t a championship-caliber hitting team. Pitching and defense works…if you score a few runs.

    Jeff November 25, 2009, 11:35 am
  • Pitching and defense works…if you score a few runs.
    Which the Red Sox did. They had the second- or third-best offense in the league. And as I’ve shown before, their road offense was actually no worse than it was in 2004 and 2007 — both in comparison to their home offense and in comparison to the league average road offense.
    That said, I also would prefer trading Buchholz for a hitter. I’m just working through Halladay academically.

    Paul SF November 25, 2009, 11:37 am
  • “I’m still looking for starters who more closely share Halladay’s numbers than Tim Hudson and company.”
    If you’re ignoring the top 10 of comparables, then you might be looking a while. David Cone comes to mind. So does Kevin Brown. Both had late starts/peaks.

    Jeff November 25, 2009, 11:40 am
  • “They had the second- or third-best offense in the league.”
    Because of their home park. I’m not convinced the adjustments full account for that.
    The 2004 Sox had an amazingly balanced offense, for instance, and two otherworldly hitters in the middle of it. How do you adjust for that?

    Jeff November 25, 2009, 11:48 am
  • Thanks, Jeff. I also added Mike Mussina, who I’d meant to look at because he’s No. 2 on the Halladay comp and looked to make a lot more sense than Hudson or any of the others.
    Mussina was 23 when he had his first full season, posted a 130 ERA+ through age 32, posted four seasons above 140 ERA+ and broke 200 innings eight times (would have been nine but for the strike).
    Brown started at 24, posted a 122 ERA+ through age 32, but only had two 140 seasons, and his best was the one he had at age 32. So his was a really late peak that doesn’t compare all that well to Halladay (much more so to Schilling, I think).
    Cone started at 25 and posted a 127 ERA+ through age 32, but his peak, outside of one season was in the 130-140 range (as opposed to Halladay’s 150ish). Like Brown, his peak is far above his norm, whereas Halladay’s peak spans multiple seasons of consistent production.
    I don’t think Brown and Cone are really apt for Halladay because they were not as good as Halladay and had very short peaks in their early 30s, while Halladay has had a long, sustained peak starting in his late 20s. Mussina has the opposite problem. He peaked early, then settled in to a consistent pattern slightly below that level. Still, Mussina is probably the closest, and he didn’t age as well from ages 33 to 38:
    187 IP/yr, 4.12 ERA, 1.240 WHIP, 3.73 K/BB, season-by-season ERA+ of 109-129-98-96-129-88.

    Paul SF November 25, 2009, 11:54 am
  • The 2004 Sox had an amazingly balanced offense, for instance, and two otherworldly hitters in the middle of it.
    Yet they still posted a road tOPS+ of 88 and a road sOPS+ of 108. Bill Mueller and Kevin Millar were atrocious on the road, Mark Bellhorn and Jason Varitek turned into league average hitters. That’s four of nine hitters significantly worse on the road. Meanwhile, Orlando Cabrera was the only starter who was better away from Fenway. Ortiz and Ramirez were about the same, regardless of park.
    The 2009 club posted a road tOPS+ of 88 and a road sOPS+ of 106, meaning they exhibited the exact same split as the 2004 club and were only slightly worse compared to the league’s road average. Ortiz and Lowell were terrible away from Fenway, and Pedroia turned into an average hitter. But Ellsbury, Drew, Bay and Youkilis exhibited little to no difference on the road. Meanwhile, Victor Martinez was much better away from Fenway.
    So can we say conclusively that road offense was the culprit of the Sox’ woes this year? I know Epstein mentioned it. I’m not so sure. I’m more inclined to think poor defense killed the Sox, both during the season and in the postseason.

    Paul SF November 25, 2009, 12:05 pm
  • I think part of the problem with guys like Halladay and that there are just too few comparables. It’s a roll of the dice. Even more reason I can’t see Theo signing up.
    We’ll have to disagree on the hitting. Watching the 2004, 2007, and 2009 offenses from a distance until the post-season, the 2009 offense seemed weaker. But could also have been the defense, especially against the running game.

    Jeff November 25, 2009, 1:07 pm
  • Halladay is about as little of a “roll of the dice” as there is if you are looking to add a solid pitcher and can get him for little current talent. At least for a year or two. Beyond that it starts to get iffy. That’s where the deal gets confusing, to me.
    The bigger question for the FO is what they predict Buchholz’ upside is, and if they can get 85% of Halladay for 5% of the cost while deploying resources elsewhere.
    For me, they should forward the farm for Felix, frankly.

    SF November 25, 2009, 2:05 pm
  • Going after Halladay with Buchholz and Kelly would go against everything Theo has been doing and saying for years. Why would you trade a guy who the organization has every faith in, and a prospect that Theo loves possibly more than he loved Buchholz for one year of a pitcher, no matter how good he may be? I don’t see it, and I don’t see it for the Yankees either, unless the price is something ridiculously cheap like Jackson headlining the deal.
    But if it is a smokescreen, what’s the point? The Yankees have proven they’re always going to do what’s best for them, no matter what the Sox do. Apart from, I guess, Kei Igawa, but that seemed more like a reaction to losing out on Matsuzaka than the Sox actually getting him. Cashman is far too experienced and intelligent to fall for whatever smokescreen Theo may put up. I don’t think he’s ever done that.
    So if neither option makes sense, I can only conclude that this is a media creation. Since Adrian Gonzalez and Felix Hernandez are seemingly going nowhere, there has to be some big storyline.
    Frankly, I think going after Miguel Cabrera makes a thousand times more sense. But I get the feeling he’s right under Verlander in players the Tigers do not want to move. Yes, he makes $21 million, but he’s the rare Tiger who’s actually worth his salary. Get rid of Miggy, and the Tigers are automatically competing with KC for 4th place. Dombrowski isn’t exactly a genius, but he’s no dumbass either. Cabrera and Verlander are their franchise players.
    I know you can’t look to the past, but damn, Teixeira would solve/have solved so many of the Red Sox’s problems. Oh well, at least they saved enough money to lower ticket prices…oh wait.

    AndrewYF November 25, 2009, 2:21 pm
  • I don’t think it’s a good habit to get into, but an overpay for the Yanks and Sox hardly ruins either franchise either short or long term. On the face of it, considering what the Twins got for Santana who was younger and probably better at the time of the trade, I think Buccholz-Kelly is an overpay. But, let’s be realistic about what that means for the Sox. Halladay is likely to be an ace for two more years at the least, which means, with that team, the Sox are more likely to win it all. Buccholz and Kelly might turn into great pitchers, although the chances of that, in very general terms, are slim. But even if either pitcher is a stud, the Sox will be good to very good to great. The trade makes sense to me if the Sox feel comfortable allocating the money for Halladay. Put it this way, the Sox managed to trade away maybe the best player in baseball not named Pujols and they’re still contending, and actually managed to win a world series without him.

    Nick-YF November 25, 2009, 2:26 pm
  • Wait, who did the Sox trade away in 2007?
    My beef is that you’re trading for one year of a pitcher. That’s it. Is that really worth even just Buchholz, a guy with fantastic minor league numbers, fantastic stuff when it’s on, a guy who most reasonable people think will probably be 75% of what Halladay is?
    I know I wouldn’t want the Yankees to trade any of Hughes, Joba or Montero for Halladay. Again, it’s because you’re trading for one year of him. Show me Felix Hernandez, and I’d gladly give two out of three, if not all three. That’s also because Hernandez is already better than what Halladay is, and will likely stay that way or get even more ridiculously awesome as he ages.

    AndrewYF November 25, 2009, 2:34 pm
  • The Sox traded away Hanley Ramirez in 2006 and got Beckett and Lowell who were key members of the 2007 world series team.
    I’m not so sanguine about King Felix’s health going forward, but maybe he’s past his issues from a couple of years ago.

    Nick-YF November 25, 2009, 2:49 pm
  • Andrew,
    The Sox need headlines this off-season to help their fans look forward to 2010. They’re getting hammered for exactly your criticism. I think you’re right on Cashman. If he didn’t make the move for Santana (and then the tabloids were screaming bloody murder) I see no reason he’s involved here.
    Nick,
    The Santana trade decimated the Mets. Playing for one year is very dangerous. I’d argue the same for the Sox in 2007. Flags may fly forever, but perennial MVP candidates at SS are even rarer. If they only get one ring from Beckett and Lowell, I think that’s a disappointment. Beckett was supposed to anchor a dynasty. Instead it could have been Hanley. Look how hard they’ve worked to replace even 70% of his production. There’s only been one dynasty in the free agent era, and it was anchored by an outstanding shortstop. The Braves, for all their HOF pitching, only won one ring.

    Jeff November 25, 2009, 3:08 pm
  • I think we all agree: There is no way the Sox are giving up Buchholz AND Kelly. For anybody. Maybe in separate deals, but not for a single player. The Blue Jays already turned down the best offers they were ever going to get for Halladay when he could have helped a team contend for two World Series titles. Now it’s only one, and even if they offer a negotiating window, they ain’t getting those offers again. Buchholz and Kelly would arguably be a better offer than what the Sox proposed last July. This is what the Jays want, but it’s not what the Sox will give up.

    Paul SF November 25, 2009, 3:13 pm
  • You crack me up Andrew…
    Is it relevant to bring up Doc’s lack of postseason experience? I mean, CC got massacred for not being able to produce in the playoffs (um…yeah) but was great in the regular season. Any reason to believe that Doc’s regular season mastery would translate into postseason success?
    p.s. CC is god. :)

    krueg November 25, 2009, 3:21 pm
  • They’re getting hammered for exactly your criticism.
    They are?
    If they only get one ring from Beckett and Lowell, I think that’s a disappointment.
    Spoken like a true Yankee fan.
    Beckett was supposed to anchor a dynasty.
    I don’t recall anyone remotely suggesting this at the time.

    Paul SF November 25, 2009, 3:23 pm
  • SF,
    Roll of the dice is the prospects and dollars for a pitcher at 33. If it were just a contract it would be a no-brainer.
    Paul,
    98.5 up here was non-stop about the money. It’s all they talked about for two weeks. It’s an understatement to say most expect to the Sox to spend freely this off-season.
    On Hanley/Beckett – I could understand if 2004 never happened. Didn’t one of the big Boston writers say Beckett was exactly the pitcher to get because he was an ace that could bring multiple rings? I thought that was a common sentiment. We’ll never know what could have been, but imagine if the Yankees traded Jeter for Maddux. I think the two teams would have had different outcomes. Players like Jeter and Hanley are very, very rare. Is that really controversial to say around here?

    Jeff November 25, 2009, 3:32 pm
  • “Any reason to believe that Doc’s regular season mastery would translate into postseason success? ”
    Seeing as he’d have to pitch a bunch of games at Fenway, sure.

    Jeff November 25, 2009, 3:35 pm
  • Three points to throw on the pile:
    (1) As a Red Sox fan, I’d of course enjoy watching Halladay win 20+ games in a Boston uniform — and I could rationalize the icky feeling of the rich-getting-richer by saying Theo has no choice but to keep up with the New York Joneses after their 2009 spending spree bought them a title;
    (2) However, as a baseball fan, I think it would be sad for the game if RH goes to either Boston or New York, to the extent that it would make the A.L. East race and maybe the A.L. pennant race something of a fait accompli… the Sox-Yanks late October showdown becoming all but inevitable;
    (3) All that said, when was the last time the Sox wound up landing a big name when they were first out of the hot stove gate with serious interest? If the media is pushing Boston as the early and aggressive front-runner for Halladay, my money bets that he winds up elsewhere.

    Hudson November 25, 2009, 4:10 pm
  • If they only get one ring from Beckett and Lowell, I think that’s a disappointment.
    This is a silly statement, as is the one about “anchoring a dynasty”.
    It is hard to win a title a decade, much less two or three. The idea that the Beckett/Lowell/Ramirez trade is disappointing because the Sox might only have 2007 conjures up, for me, the worst stereotypes of Yankee fans and their preposterous sense of entitlement. So I will let it pass.

    SF November 25, 2009, 4:10 pm
  • P.S. Isn’t it likely that the Sox are negotiating to get Halladay’s last year from Toronto *plus* a contract extension? Is there some obstacle to them doing that? I fully confess to not being that up on the ins-and-outs of baseball labor/contract rules.

    Hudson November 25, 2009, 4:14 pm
  • Beckett was exactly the pitcher to get because he was an ace that could bring multiple rings?
    Is there anything untrue in that statement? I guess I don’t get it. Going to the playoffs every year is, to my mind, successful. I don’t need a dynasty to consider a trade successful, and I would guess most fans of most teams wouldn’t either.
    I agree many expect the Sox to spend freely. I do also. That’s because the Sox did not spend freely last season, though they tried. I — and most others I’ve heard and read, though I don’t listen to talk radio — do not “hammer” them for failing in their efforts. It’s a fool for a Red Sox fan who thinks the Sox only needed to be a little bit less frugal to have lured Teixeira from the Yankees. Of course, talk radio is populated with plenty of fools for Red Sox fans…

    Paul SF November 25, 2009, 4:14 pm
  • After 9 years, no entitlement here. Winning is hard. But players like Hanley make winning that much easier. And he will long into Beckett’s next contract.
    Actually, the new station 98.5 is pretty good and they constantly talk about advanced metrics. But relative to 2007’s payroll and the posting fee, they’ve been sitting on cash for the last two years. They could have outspent the Yankees on Texeira by a wide margin. It may be a wash with Cabrera, or a net positive, but that includes the value of the prospects cost-controlled for 4 to 6 years.

    Jeff November 25, 2009, 4:36 pm
  • But players like Hanley make winning that much easier. And he will long into Beckett’s next contract.

    I always tell my Mom when she asks me what I want for my birthday (at least I have since my first post-2007 World Series championship birthday in 2008) is a machine that undoes the Ramirez-Beckett trade, because though I was over the moon about a championship, what I really wanted and what was really lacking in my life was to find out what would have happened if the Sox hadn’t dealt Ramirez, whether winning would have been easier with Ramirez and without Beckett, whether the Sox would have won in 2007 with Hanley and some other guy filling the ace’s spot in the rotation.
    Oh wait, I never did that or do that.
    This is a stupid topic for discussion, to put it lightly.

    SF November 25, 2009, 4:46 pm
  • If it’s so stupid why do you keep talking about it?
    Beckett has only been an “ace” one year of his four in red. In that same time frame, Lester was the ace of the staff twice.
    That brings us back to the post. Playing for one year is very dangerous to long-term success. That’s Cashman’s most important lesson (which took him a decade). Overpay once – not twice.

    Jeff November 25, 2009, 4:59 pm
  • > players like Hanley make winning that much easier. And he will long into Beckett’s next contract
    Sure, it is true that having a “Hanley Ramirez” in a team’s lineup is fantastic. Then again, doing any deep research to correlate his presence on the Marlins with how it translated to a 2nd-place finish in the NL East this past season caused me to fall asleep as soon as I tried to remember how to spell “Uggla” and rectify how a team that was so close to NL average on pitching and batting is really worth isolating any single factor that might have allowed them to reach just on the high side of average.
    As far as (lasting) long into whatever, Ramirez’ contract with Florida is ridiculously back-loaded with no non-trade clause and it is foolish to imagine that the Marlins will pay to enjoy the benefit of his services on a field in Florida through its duration: someone else will pick up that tab.

    attackgerbil November 25, 2009, 4:59 pm
  • > Beckett has only been an “ace” one year of his four in red.
    Maybe. He’s also far from a scrub.

    attackgerbil November 25, 2009, 5:12 pm
  • If it’s so stupid why do you keep talking about it?
    define “keep”.
    also define “talking about it”.

    SF November 25, 2009, 5:13 pm
  • I’ve made my feelings clear on the Hanley/Beckett thing, so I won’t get into that again, but on that topic I think it is instructive to notice that Theo didn’t make that deal, as he was dressed in a gorilla suit at the time it went down. As soon as he got back to being the GM, the trade was all but finalized. I doubt he makes the deal if he were the GM, from what I hear/read he loved Hanley like he loves Buchholz.
    He’s not giving up Buchholz and Kelly for Halladay, nor should he, and that is way more than what it’s going to take to get him. For Felix? Of course, that and Westmoreland and Kalish | Reddick | Anderson, and any Sox fan would be remiss to reject that out of hand. But Felix isn’t going anywhere this offseason.

    AndrewYF November 25, 2009, 5:29 pm
  • obvious, but for continuity
    > someone else will pick up that tab while he plays elsewhere

    attackgerbil November 25, 2009, 5:54 pm
  • Of this I am now sure: should the Sox get Halladay, Boston wins the 2010 World Series.
    (just wanted to be first)

    attackgerbil November 25, 2009, 6:50 pm
  • “It is hard to win a title a decade, much less two or three. The idea that the Beckett/Lowell/Ramirez trade is disappointing because the Sox might only have 2007 conjures up, for me, the worst stereotypes of Yankee fans and their preposterous sense of entitlement. So I will let it pass.”
    Because the SF point of view is the only point of view worth talking about right? What a joke. No chance this is a point of view worth examining because the all knowing SF deems it below him…laughable.
    I guess I didn’t “let it pass”???

    krueg November 25, 2009, 7:28 pm
  • Krueg, you are missing my point. That post was about my own reflexes, about an urge to view that one comment as somehow representative of YFs in general. That’s the “let it pass” thing. I need to let it pass so I don’t revert to stereotyping all YFs as “must win or trades and players are failures”-type people, which has, for a long time, been very much a type of character.
    This has absolutely nothing to do with an SF POV being any more valuable than anyone else’s, at all.

    SF November 25, 2009, 8:16 pm
  • But you are basically poo-poo’ing the opinion that the trade in question only equated to 1 title. How is that not a valid point of view? Basically Beckett and Lowell won 1 title, but Ramirez is one of the/if not the best young player in MLB…
    Has nothing to do with a “YF mindset”…isn’t the point of baseball to win it all???

    krueg November 26, 2009, 12:31 pm
  • only equated to 1 title.
    Again, resisting that urge…
    Happy Turkey Day everyone!

    SF November 26, 2009, 1:02 pm
  • By my understanding of the Jeff/Krueg line of argument, the Sox still won the Beckett-Ramirez trade because it has resulted in one World Series title for the Red Sox and zero for the Marlins.

    Paul SF November 26, 2009, 7:27 pm
  • I don’t have a side in the argument other than to say again that it’s SF’s way or the highway…

    krueg November 27, 2009, 12:09 am
  • ..because SF is so above it all. Sanctimonious much???

    krueg November 27, 2009, 12:10 am
  • Wow, I’m really late to this thread.
    Krueg, this isn’t about saying that SF’s opinion trumps all. The point is that it takes a ridiculous amount of entitlement to say that the Beckett trade was a failure because the Sox only won one ring from it. I know the Yankees are used to winning it all 2-3 years in a row, but us Sox Fans aren’t. I still have baseball wet dreams about Hanley in a Red Sox uniform, but I’m 100% happy with my 2007 title.
    Now can we please not talk about the Hanley/Beckett trade anymore? It seems like that topic comes up every few months and it’s always silly.

    Atheose - SF November 27, 2009, 8:25 am
  • Also, I just saw that the Jays signed Alex Gonzalez. Looks like the Sox will probably sign Scutaro now, though I think that’s a crappy move.

    Atheose - SF November 27, 2009, 8:30 am
  • You’re wondering why it keeps coming up? You’re talking about signing Marco Scutaro because Alex Gonzalez got away.
    The Sox have spent over $100 million between Beckett, Lowell, and the SS scrubs (esp. Rentaria and Lugo). Think about how those resources could have been used had Hanley been making league minimum.

    Jeff November 27, 2009, 10:26 am
  • Think about how those resources could have been used had Hanley been making league minimum.
    Why?

    SF November 27, 2009, 12:03 pm
  • > the trade in question only equated to 1 title.
    One can not equate the trade to the title, for better or worse. It’s a fallacy to take any one trade and make it causal. It’s the same sort of false appropriation that leads to bullshit like the blame that chased ARod all the way out of Seattle to last month.
    > Basically Beckett and Lowell won 1 title, but Ramirez is one of the/if not the best young player in MLB
    That phrasing is awkward. There is nothing basic about a _team_ winning the World Series.
    Regardless of how good a player Hanley Ramirez may be, the Red Sox did in fact win a World Series title after the trade. Whether it was “because of” or “in spite of”, it is navel-gazing, and it doesn’t do any favors to Hanley Ramirez whatsoever.

    attackgerbil November 27, 2009, 12:49 pm
  • So only SF, AG, Ath’s opinion count and are valid…got it.
    Jeff, get in line brother!!! How dare you have a differing opinion!!! FOR SHAME!!!
    Again, I don’t have an opinion, but Jeff should be able to voice his without SF’s predictable BS about “typical YF’s”. But alas, it is his site and it always ends the same. I will continue to call him out though when this BS happens.

    krueg November 27, 2009, 1:53 pm
  • The only reason the trade isn’t very slanted towards the Marlins is because the Sox won a World Series title mostly because of Josh Beckett.
    If you want to talk pure value from the players and ignore team production, giving up Hanley Ramirez for Beckett and Lowell was a pretty bad move. Beckett is a nice pitcher who had one great year, two very good years and one below-average year (2010 pending), and Lowell had one above-average year, and the rest were mediocre or worse (in terms of third-basemen). Trading away Hanley also directly led to the absolute suck that is Julio Lugo, and will likely lead to the suck that is Marco Scutaro.
    Ignoring the World Series title, the Marlins easily got the better end of the trade. But, why ignore World Series titles? The Sox could also win it all next year on the back of Beckett yet again, and all this discussion could be moot.

    AndrewYF November 27, 2009, 6:26 pm
  • krueg, you are still totally missing the meaning of my original comment (explained earlier), which was about MY OWN URGE to stereotype.

    SF November 27, 2009, 7:02 pm
  • Yeah, but you DID stereotype…you just did it in typical SF passive-agressive style which is exactly what drew my ire. You dismiss someones opinion and then passive-agressively call him a “typical YF”…lame.

    krueg November 27, 2009, 7:28 pm
  • Just browsing through the laugh-factory that is SOSH, and came across this gem (if anyone was wondering why no one takes message boards at all seriously):
    “Buchholz is more valuable than JJ [Josh Johnson], Hanley is way more valuable than Lowrie but not nearly as much as you might think if Lowrie is as good as some people think. The Fish save a ton of money, Buchholz looks like he’ll give them JJ quality but 5 years rather than 2, and then you offset the downgrade from Hanley to Lowrie with some top prospects.”
    And this is a post by their ‘premiere’ member. That’s NYYFans level of absurdity.

    AndrewYF November 29, 2009, 1:24 am

Leave a Comment