Where Will Manny Go?
by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 12:45 PM EST
83 comments
As a die-hard Sox fan, it pains me to hear the inevitability of Manny being traded (even if he is a major headache). Everything I've read says this trade is linked to the Sox signing Drew, but I want no part of JD who is a clubhouse cancer in his own right and won't come remotely close to offsetting the lost production of Manny.
I've heard rumors attaching Manny to San Diego, San Francisco, LA, Texas, and Anaheim. I know its a "shot in the dark" guess at this point, but where do you guy think he will wind-up, and for what?
- Padres
- Giants
- Dodgers
- Rangers
- Angels
- Stay with Red Sox
"The Dodgers might be the best fit for the Red Sox, with an array of top minor league prospects at their disposal, including third baseman Andy LaRoche, pitcher Chad Billingsleyand outfielder Matt Kemp. And Ramirez, who has veto power over any trade, would probably welcome a reunion with former Red Sox manager Grady Little."
What are others insights? Anyone heard of more rumors?
0 recs |
83 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Fair trade...
by cooper7d7 on Nov 28, 2006 12:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
As a sox fan...
The sox will get a better return from both these teams... Names such as Kemp,Loney, Broxton, Spier, Shields, Santana, Wood have all been tossed around. If you give up Manny (Oh yea, he hit 321, 35 homers, 102 rbi) you better get something in return.
by ChrisRef19 on Nov 28, 2006 12:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Would Manny Approve a Deal to the NL?
"The same executive also saw little reason why Ramírez would consent to a deal to a National League team, calling such a move "the worst possible thing a hitter could do at Manny's stage of his career, switching leagues when he knows all the pitchers and how they work him in the American League." The spacious expanse of Petco Park, in a division, the NL West, where nearly all of the parks have big outfields, would also likely expose Ramírez's shortcomings. Being in the NL, of course, would also preclude him DHing except in interleague games."
by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 12:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Re:
by OneHitWonder on Nov 28, 2006 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not related to Manny
by Wheelhouse on Nov 28, 2006 12:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
J.D. Drew
Good. Because that's the only one left that he hasn't burned.
by samjjones on Nov 28, 2006 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Also, sitting out because he didn't feel like playing in Philly is kind of weak.
And while Manny might go out to dinner with Enrique Wilson when he's supposed to be at home with the flu, Drew has a reputation for dogging it, and just generally look like he doesn't care much of the time.
Not to mention, he just ain't that good when compared to Manny, particularly when you factor in the lefty-righty thing at Fenway.
by MontrealMets on Nov 28, 2006 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Clubhouse cancer...
He's a great all around player who happens to be devoutly religious, and very quiet.
But he's had a target on his back since day one because of what happened to him in the draft, and keeping Boras as his agent doesn't help.
Still, Drew has never given any indication that he deserves the treatment he gets from fans or the media. I just go ahead and say it's fans being fans.
I hate that everytime he's mentioned, its with a snide joke about his injuries. I realize bad knees are a sin, as is being hit being hit by a 91 MPH fastball on the wrist. But he's played 140+ games in 2 of the past 3 years and been very good in both.
by SenorGato88 on Nov 28, 2006 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Drew
Drew, who had just two singles in 13 at-bats while the Dodgers were being swept by the Mets in their National League Division Series and was one of the two players tagged out at the plate on the same play in the most bizarre moment of the postseason, also has been the subject of intense media criticism for a perceived lack of passion, especially when it came to playing hurt. His nickname in the Dodger clubhouse, according to one big league coach, was "Nancy Drew," and according to one major leaguer who has played against Drew for much of his career, one Dodger player greeted the news of Drew's departure by phoning friends in jubilation.
by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Drew 2
by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guess....
by SenorGato88 on Nov 28, 2006 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Notorious JD...
by Brock20 on Nov 28, 2006 1:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It's funny
by sasquatch83 on Nov 28, 2006 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Partially
...combined with the fact that Cox is a genious.
by MontrealMets on Nov 28, 2006 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Drew
I can imagine some players would be upset when they see Smoltz pitching with a partially torn muscle in his arm unable to throw anything but fastballs due to the pain and then see Drew decline to play with a hang nail.
by cajunrevenge on Nov 28, 2006 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fact vs. fiction
by Wheelhouse on Nov 28, 2006 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And...
Braves fans hated him AFTER he left if I remember correctly. Because he was "selfish" and yada, yada, yada. But I remember reading those forums and seeing that in general fans were happy with what they had in him.
by SenorGato88 on Nov 28, 2006 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but he's no joke
The "f*rtb*lls" guy is a misogynist who only values women based on their cup size.
He's like the real life Borat.
by Galt on Nov 28, 2006 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: but he's no joke
Now lets get back to baseball please.
by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sure
by Galt on Nov 28, 2006 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: sure
Now can we finally get back to talking baseball?
by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love that word...
Is he a nerd because he's on internet forums? Cause he's telling you you're KIND of a prick when...you're proving all over you are?
I used to trash talk like that...then I realize guys like that suck.
by SenorGato88 on Nov 28, 2006 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: I love that word...
Anyways, back to the Manny trade discussions.....
by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How dare you.
You call me a "nerd" because I disagree with your Briana Banks Fan Club President mantra?
I will happily turn my focus to baseball and how overrated Elijah Dukes and Ian Stewart are, it's just that abrasive people like you have been get under my skin. As do misogynistic comments like yours in the previous thread (which John told you to stop, yet you continued).
We as a society need to treat women with more respect. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.
by Galt on Nov 28, 2006 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: How dare you.
by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
fine, next topic
by Galt on Nov 28, 2006 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With
by FrozenTed9 on Nov 28, 2006 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
While I also saw Boondock Saints
by Galt on Nov 28, 2006 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yo
by wily mo on Nov 28, 2006 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Finally....
I know everytime I see Crimson post something, some wiseass is going to make a non-baseball related comment to him because of his beliefs and what he said a couple months ago. I swear, I think there are more women here than we believe, the way these bloggers constantly bring crap up from the past.
by Boxkutter on Nov 28, 2006 8:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
right
actually in crimson's case i think it's warranted. i'm done with that guy. that was an extreme case, though.
by wily mo on Nov 28, 2006 11:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wily mo
And Crimsons case was not so bad IMO. It was insensitive I agree but...
by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not derogative
by wily mo on Nov 29, 2006 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hey
Most men don't get upset when women say:
'quit acting like boys' or other types of sayings about men.
by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 9:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
and i hope you can see the difference between saying someone is acting like a "boy" as opposed to a man (immature) vs. saying someone is acting like a "woman" as opposed to a man (weak & whiny). if there are common sayings where the condition of masculinity itself is contrasted unfavorably with superior womanhood, (a) i can't think of them offhand and (b) i suspect men actually would get upset. plus the context - men haven't been second-class citizens for hundreds of years. this stuff isn't all fun and games; sometimes it's a very real way of "keeping women in their place". it's easy to be cavalier about gender issues when you didn't just get the right to vote in 1920.
the simplest possible thought experiment on this point: think about what would happen if your girlfriend wore a suit to work, and you wore a dress. who would feel less comfortable, and why?
by wily mo on Nov 29, 2006 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hmm
As for the 2nd I disagree. Women have many sayings for men, and men have many for women. It's all about intent. Correction: it's 90% about intent. The other 10% is knowing your audience. I wouldn't make some of those comments at a womens rights group.
I've golfed with women who joke that they putt like a girl. I hear people say they got gypped (or jipped) in a deal. Gyp'd is short for Gypsey and it's a racial slur because Gypseys are known for stealing and such. And there are countless other things that we say that "originally" may have had a derogatory intent. Some we are aware of and some not.
I guess my gut feeling is this: Don't look to intentionally insult or be derogatory. And do pay some attention to the feeling on the other party. On the other hand - it's so easy for people to find an insult buried in every statement.
by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
gypsies?
your 'gypped' angle doesn't really apply. people use the word not knowing where it comes from and not referring to actual gypsies. i think boxkutter was aware he was talking about women when he used the word "women".
to me, the whole world should be a women's rights group all the time. it's not ok to say shit about girls just because they can't hear you. what's in your own head matters the most.
and it's not always about intent - weird unconscious assumptions can get you even when, consciously, you honestly believe in equality and all that. i'm sure box didn't actually mean anything by what he said. i know it was part of a joke. but still, it's funny cause it's true, right? somehow the idea did occur to him that never letting anything go is a female trait. why? none of the girls i know are like that. maybe i'm just lucky.
i just want people to question those assumptions, so i rattle the cage when i see them. there's intentionally insulting women, and i don't think boxkutter was doing that - but i think this sort of unconscious generalization about the vaguely crazy things that women do is also bad.
think of people as individual people, always. that's what i say. it's important.
i hate to be so serious - but at the end of the day, i've decided, these things actually do matter.
by wily mo on Nov 29, 2006 9:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
right wall?
I just used the gypsy comment to separate saying it without thinking about it or realizing it from the actual intent.
I agree we shouldn't talk shit about women, men, or anyone whether they are there or not.
My disagreement is whether generalization is talking shit. Some generalization is. If someone said women are bitches - obviously bad. Generalizing is not the same thing as prejudging. As I'm sure you are aware prejudging is the act of judging someone based on generalization instead of dealing with them on a one by one case.
Thats why I agree with your comment as treating a woman or man or anyone as an individual. But a generalization isn't inherently bad.
I do agree it's not all intent. That is why I mentioned target audience. What I mean by this is not that "hey, it's all women haters here so I can make fun of them". That is a cowards way to promote negativity or ...
But in a hockey dressing we could jokingly refer to a guy acting like a girl if he wasn't being tough. Not a single person in the room believes women are not tough. We don't believe it and we are not propagating it. So where is the harm?
Do you realize if you try to be too technical there is no end? If instead I don't use woman but use "wimp" or "wussy" then I'm generalizing or being negative to wimps or wussies.
Again - I think it's mostly intent. But we also have to take some responsibility if we hurt others even if we don't intend. Or if we negatively affect childrens views through our words (like a father always speaking negatively about women in front of his son).
I'm agreeing with you on most. It's just a matter of where my grey line is and where your gray line is ;)
by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
right wall
"But in a hockey dressing we could jokingly refer to a guy acting like a girl if he wasn't being tough. Not a single person in the room believes women are not tough."
are you sure? if nobody thinks women aren't tough, what's the joke? why even bring them up?
by wily mo on Nov 29, 2006 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
get you
It's just a way to tease other men.
We do say "don't be a baby". Babies technically cry more than adults. We are not derogatory towards babies in this statement though. Agreed? Women are technically not as strong. Individual women can be as strong as any man. Individual babies may never cry.
Now if the comment was about womens intelligence or something then it's only a derogatory thing. But talking about men thinking with the lower head, women shopping ;), and some other things - then I care more about intent.
Just my 2 cents.
by pedrophile on Nov 30, 2006 12:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes,
babies, as a general rule, actually do have a lower tolerance for adversity. they're immature people. it's not the same thing at all.
generalizations and gender stereotypes like "men think with their pants" and "women like to shop" are one thing. they can be more or less true, depending on the specific idea. but simply calling a man a woman, as an unfavorable comparison, fundamentally assumes male superiority. you know? doesn't it? it's a completely different animal.
by wily mo on Nov 30, 2006 2:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This
Antidisestablishmentarianism, maybe.
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
by the way
You see, I know him. There's only one person on earth who would use the name "fartballs". I was trying to subtly drop hints (Briana Banks, Opie & Anthony, American Psycho quotes), yet fool that he is, he still was playing this straight up. I finally had to tell him. And now he's shamed, and can't ever post here again.
So feel free to keep fighting, just figure I'd it out.
by Galt on Nov 29, 2006 9:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok
by wily mo on Nov 29, 2006 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes
by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so fartballs was
by Flynn Blake on Nov 29, 2006 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: by the way
by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Briana Banks? American Psycho?
Must I have mentioned Erik Cade, Zippy Aidsface, and Shawn George
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Briana Banks? American Psycho?
by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In Drew's defense
it is also well known that JD is a devout christian and is laid back in the clubhouse.....that doesn't strike me a cancer, but more of a guy that likes to keep to himself....
JD has had his fair share of injuries, but i don't see many guys playing through broken wrists and fingers and knee surgeries.....
i think alot of this cancer tag for drew comes from the fact he makes everything look easy and doesn't show a lot of fire on the field......but guys work differently and not everyone is the "rah rah" type....
by Wheelhouse on Nov 28, 2006 2:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
"he made a decision ..."
getting drafted number 2 overall and refusing to enter into negotiations with the team that drafted you is being a shit and a cockbag. he should not at all be commended for what he did to philly.
by overlord on Nov 28, 2006 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yes and no
Despite that, I think Drew's label as being bad in the clubhouse is well deserved. I remember him rubbing Chipper wrong in ATL and he was not the most loved person in LA.
by count sutton on Nov 28, 2006 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever been to Philly?
by The Colonel on Nov 28, 2006 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The greatest Manny trade that will NEVER HAPPEN
I want to see him stay AL so I'll say Texas, since they couldn't go into the season with their current outfield.
by The Congo Hammer on Nov 28, 2006 4:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
My guess
Padres - Interesting thought, but I'm not sure they have enough, a la the Giants. Is a Linebrink led package really enough?
Indians (they've been mentioned) - I'm just not sold they'd do it, and the reports have indicated that.
Rangers - Supposedly the Red Sox are talking Michael Young while the Rangers are talking pitching prospects. Jon Daniels has certainly shown a willingness to make changes, so it's intriguing, to say the least.
Angels - It's Stoneman that's the main reason why I'm not sure if they could get a deal done. The Angels arguably have the best potential matches in regards to talent they could send back.
Red Sox - They'll want decent value, and if they can't get it, keeping him makes sense, unless they desperately need funds, which I doubt since they had to make the Matsuzaka bid early. A middle of the order of Drew/Big Papi/Manny (2-4) or Big Papi/Manny/Drew (3-5) certainly addresses some of the lineup issues Ortiz had last year.
Dodgers - Not as good a fit as the Angels, talent wise, but still very good and an aggressive GM.
My guess? Dodgers.
How I'd rank those 7 options in terms of likelihood: Dodgers, Rangers, Angels, Red Sox, Padres, Giants, Indians
I think the Angels have the best match, as the Red Sox would prefer major league talent. They could offer a Shields (who could close), Cabrera (would go back to start at short), and/or Rivera (nice bat in LF) (not saying all 3, but that they could start a package with one or two of those guys). For example, a Shields/Rivera/Aybar deal seems to make a lot of sense to me. The Angels pen would still be fine, Rivera's offense is, um, ably replaced, and they don't lose much by dealing Aybar, who seems to be stuck in neutral. The Red Sox get an option at short or 2nd, as there's enough uncertainty there. If they can't land Lugo, Aybar could get a shot at short. Shields could close, and while Ortiz/Rivera/Drew isn't close to Ortiz/Manny/Drew, it's not bad. This deal wouldn't dent the offense significantly.
The problem is Stoneman. I'm just not a big fan of his and not sold that he can complete such a deal. Whereas, I like Jon Daniels aggressiveness and I think he might have a better chance at pulling something off, despite not having as good of a fit. I'm not sure what, assuming they don't deal Young, might interest Boston. Perhaps a Nelson Cruz/Joaquin Arias/Edison Volquez/Nick Masset deal? It's not as if Texas is losing much (enough depth to offset Volquez/Masset in the long run, assuming they pan out, and Arias doesn't have a spot (unless Young is moved to third, which doesn't seem like it'll happen unless they get a big time shortstop talent), and Cruz, um, is ably replaced. Boston potentially gets a good young hitter, a starting shortstop, and arms. Perhaps. Not big on that.
I do think that the Red Sox, though, will move him, which is why I've got the Sox 4th. I think the best bet is the Dodgers. Colletti's shown an aggressiveness and he has the system depth to do it. If Stoneman had Colletti's aggressiveness, then I'd favor the Angels, as they have the better match without taking away from the Angels core. But Ned could deal, say, Ethier, Elbert, and perhaps one lesser pice and not hurt his club tremendously, considering Kershaw is zooming up fast. Boston would get a good bat in LF and a good pitching prospect.
I just don't see the Padres pulling this off. I'm not sure what they could offer. Linebrink as the heart of a package doesn't get me too excited. And I'm not sure Manny will go to Petco either.
by toonsterwu on Nov 29, 2006 7:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Shields/Rivera/Aybar
SF does have either Lincecum or Cain to trade although they won't deal Cain. The problem here is Manny probably won't go to SF. Boston would probably take Lincecum over the Shields/Rivera/Aybar combo.
Texas - I'm not sold on their prospects and their pitchers have a knack for sucking.
Ana/LA - this is where he will probably go. Anaheim would probably have to trade Wood or Santana to get this deal done. Billingsley for LA?
I really do think he gets traded this time. The other times were token efforts and were more fishing in case they got a great deal.
by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 9:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lincecum can't be traded
by Galt on Nov 29, 2006 9:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
PTBN
by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is
Rivera would give them 1 legit corner OF. I'm not sure who else you are referencing. Coco is liable to stay in center if he's there. I guess you could count Wily Mo Pena ... assuming you are sold he can maintain that high level for another season with more AB's.
Of course, you could be counting Drew. Assuming they do sign him, put it this way, I won't be surprised if the Red Sox decide to use JD Drew in CF with Wily Mo in RF, as Drew's got the better glove, with Coco as a 4th OF type if he's there.
I don't see San Francisco dealing Lincecum or Cain. I'm not so sure the Red Sox would take a Lincecum deal (he'd have to be a PTBN) over a Rivera/Shields/Aybar deal, as Lincecum doesn't offer immediate help and there still seems to be mixed opinions on his viability, whereas Shields, who "struggled" in the 2nd half (I mean, his 2nd half numbers were still good) would give them a closer and Rivera a solid bat.
I don't see the Dodgers parting with Billingsley either. They can get a trade done without parting with Billingsley, who's still their highest ceiling arm.
As for the Angels, I don't understand the fascination people have with Ervin Santana in a relative perspective. He's good, I don't disagree, but it seems some have labeled Ervin Santana as a front of the rotation type, when the best bets are that he'll be a middle of the rotation type.
As for Brandon Wood, they may be willing, but I think the Angels plan B has always been to shift Wood to third if they failed to get talent in other areas. Most importantly, this is Bill Stoneman.
Of course, all speculative.
by toonsterwu on Nov 29, 2006 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Boston
I see Boston wanting Wood but if they don't get a guy like him they will sign Gonzalez to patroll short.
Pena and Drew will probably man the corners and Crisp in center or maybe Drew and Crisp will switch positions. I doubt they trade Crisp because his value is too low. I wouldn't be suprised if Crisp has a big year (for him at least) this year because of a healthy hand.
Santana is not an ace, I think we all know this. But a guy that is already a #3 at his age and his price is incredibly valuable. And there is a very good chance he becomes a #2 in time.
by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 7:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Texas
I think Danks will be real solid-good. Not ace level, but more of a 2/3 type.
I like Hurley and I think he could be the best of the bunch.
THe rumors this offseason seem to indicate that Danks is available for the right price. I think Daniels would be foolish to deal Danks unless he got pitching in return, though.
by toonsterwu on Nov 29, 2006 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
new sox lineup
So it not only looks like they're going to trade Manny, but will be signing both Lugo and Drew.
So I say the lineup should be as follows
- Lugo
- Youkils - plays perfectly into his strength. Makes contact and will advance Lugo, sees a lot of pitches (to help Lugo steal), and gets on base all the time (for Papi to drive in)
- Papi
- Drew - Yes, I realize Drew isn't great against lefties, but the other option is have WMP (who is great against lefties) bat 4th followed by Drew. But this way, if they put in a lefty to face Drew (which they would also be doing if he hit AFTER WMP), then at least WMP will be facing a lefty, who he typically kills.
- WMP - Time for him to prove himself. And he's still only 25. Doesn't get on base enough to hit higher in the lineup, but he's got power and could clear the bases.
- Crisp - he's much better suited to hit lower in the lineup than higher. Never knew why he hit so high in the lineup. He's got decent power which mostly goes to waste batting leadoff, while his speed can be used to reignite 2-out rallies.
- Lowell
- Varitek
- Pedroia
This obviously doesn't factor into who the Red Sox get if/when they trade Manny (or trade Crisp), but I think they'll get prospects and/or pitching - not MLB ready hitters.
This is a good, not great lineup, but their pitching should be dramatically better with Matsusaka, another 100 innings of Papelbon, and Beckett with another year to adjust to the AL.
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 10:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
RE: new sox lineup
Sure the starting pitching will be better, but not enough to offset the offensive loss. To this point, they've done nothing, NOTHING, to address the "real" problem last year: their bullpen. The Manny trade get a get a closer in return, but will I be related to seeing Delcarmen, Hansen, Timlin, and the god-aweful Tavarez as middle-guys?
From a starting perspective, I don't really understand everyones expectation that Beckett will "all of a sudden" become a great pitcher. While he's young age-wise, he's not really a kid (this will be his 6th major league season). His ERA last year was over 5, he gave-up a jaw-dropping 36 HR"s last year, and (most telling of his stuff) his K per 9 innings decreased for the 4th straight season (from 1.07 to 0.97 to 0.93 to 0.77). I'm not buying that easy "AL transition" excuse. I'm certainly not saying that he's done, but I nothing I've seen leads me to believe that he will get better.
Matsusaka will be good in his first year, but not great. I see him with a lot of K's, but giving-up a lot of HR's. Kind of reminds me of Nomo's season with the Sox in 2001 in which he lead the AL in K's but had a 4.50 ERA. Papelbon should be awesome though.
by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
improvements over last year
Manny = 29
Gonzalez = 9
Nixon = 10
Drew = 21
Lugo = 12
WM Pena = 8 (which was basically filling in for Nixon or Crisp when hurt)
The Sox would be gaining 14 win shares by upgrading from Nixon/Gonzalez to Drew/Lugo.
That leaves Manny to be replaced by WMP. Manny had 29 win shares, which leaves the Sox now at a 15 win share deficit from last year. WMP had 8 win shares in 82 games, so if you double it (not even assuming any improvement), you have the Red Sox actually improving a tiny bit on offense/defense.
The big issue is going from Loretta (16) to Pedroia, which people seem to be ingoring.
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: improvements over last year
by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
drew
by wily mo on Nov 30, 2006 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
my logic was:
If the Sox trade Manny, and don't get another big MLB ready bat to replace him, that's probably what it's going to be. So you are left with two options. Either Papi/Drew/Pena or Papi/Pena/Drew
Either way, they bring in a lefty to face Drew. in Option 1, they bring in the lefty to also face Ortiz, but it doesn't matter because he's equally good against either, so that's irrelevant.
The value of option 2, is that after the lefty faces Drew, he'd either have to face Pena (who is very strong against lefties) or the other team would have to bring in ANOTHER pitcher, and burn their bullpen. In option 1, that doesn't exist. Since it's mostly righties in baseball, Ortiz facesa righty, as does Pena, and then the team brings in a lefty to face Drew.
My suggestion means that either Pena faces a lefty or the other team burns another pitcher.
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
balls
Either Option 1: Papi/Pena/Drew or Option 2: Papi/Drew/Pena
Either way, they bring in a lefty to face Drew. in Option 1, they bring in the lefty to also face Ortiz, but it doesn't matter because he's equally good against either, so that's irrelevant.
The value of option 2, is that after the lefty faces Drew, he'd either have to face Pena (who is very strong against lefties) or the other team would have to bring in ANOTHER pitcher, and burn their bullpen. In option 1, that doesn't exist. Since it's mostly righties in baseball, Ortiz facesa righty, as does Pena, and then the team brings in a lefty to face Drew.
My suggestion means that either Pena faces a lefty or the other team burns another pitcher.
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
my sexuality
Stats are stats. Who cares if pitchers are "more afraid" of Manny vs. Drew. If Drew produces 72% of Manny, that's what he's worth.
I will concede your point that Drew is not a fit in Boston, and the Sox would be better of getting rid of Francona.
But Drew is an upgrade over Nixon and Lugo is an upgrade over Gonzalez, so while Manny will be a loss (if they trade him), they have made significant upgrades elsewhere to make for at least some of the downgrade, and potentially completely offset it.
And the Beckett thing. It's a proven fact. Second year a starter moves from the NL to the AL, their rate states improve. It's a proven fact. Using math and statistics. Look it up.
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 1:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
RE: my sexuality
Sidney Ponson: Did decent when he pitched in the NL in 2003, but was a complete disaster when he re-signed with the Orioles (Year 2 ERA was 6.21).
Chan Ho Park: Great starter for the Dodgers....a timebomb for the Rangers (Year 2 ERA of 7.58).
Randy Johnson: Hall of Famer in the NL.....Year 2 AL ERA of 5.01. I know age is a factor with him, but his last NL season was one of his best (his only sub-1.00 WHIP in his career).
Guys like Pavano and Clement can't count in our "Year 2 study" since they got hurt
Help me out, do you have any facts to support your statement that "Second year a starter moves from the NL to the AL, their rate states improve. It's a proven fact"?
by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not going to do your research for you
Pedro in '99
There was a guy in the 60s too.
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You have Admitted Defeat
by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I will be the bigger man
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you
by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah
I can probably hide here for another 12-18 months doing nothing before I get fired and need to find a new job.
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Nah
by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By The Way..
by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
horrendous
- Paris Hilton - For such a heavily trafficed area, the roads are in fairly good condition
- Britney - fat, pimply, and with a nice C-section scar is no way to treat your cooter, honey.
- Lohan - While trying to keep it clean, too much stuff that should be on the inside is on the outside. Like the mouth of a tired dog.
by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
