Where Will Manny Go?

Fair trade...

I know the Sox are a well funded organization, however the rumor I saw put the reason for the trade as freeing up funds to sign Drew and Matsuzaka. If true, I don't expect top level prized prospects in return.

by cooper7d7 on Nov 28, 2006 12:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

As a sox fan...

I hope he goes to LAA or LAD.
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?

This from the Boston Globe:

"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:

Staying with the Red Sox would preclude him from DHing ever.

by OneHitWonder on Nov 28, 2006 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not related to Manny

but why the "clubhouse cancer" tag for JD? i don't think that suits him at all.....what's your reasoning?

by Wheelhouse on Nov 28, 2006 12:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

J.D. Drew

Have you heard the one about the Brooklyn Bridge?

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

Imagine Manny being Manny, but without the fun aspect, and open petitioning to take positions away from guys already on the team. He managed to piss off Milton Bradley within about 5 minutes of signing with LA by saying he wanted to play center (already Milton's position); now, I'm not saying Milton is without his flaws, but shouldn't those flaws increase the likelihood you don't go public about your desire to take his position?

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...

Drew seems far less popular amongst fans than teammates.

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

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2006/11/25/progress_made_in_drew_talks/?page=3

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

Drew was vilified in Philadelphia to the point of fans throwing batteries at him, eventually getting re-drafted and signed the next season with St. Louis after sitting out an entire year just to get paid. Cardinals fans, initially enamored with his sweet swing and highlight reel plays, grew tired of his inability (or unwillingness) to stay on the field and his indifferent attitude and were happy to see him leave - this mentality came to be known as the "J.D. Drew Effect."

by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Guess....

this makes my first sentence VERY wrong.Oops.

by SenorGato88 on Nov 28, 2006 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Notorious JD...

When in he was in St. Louis, JD never played remotely hurt. There are stories about him taking himself out of the lineup moments before the game. He was generally viewed as selfish, a whiner, and not a team player.

by Brock20 on Nov 28, 2006 1:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It's funny

That both Drew and Gary Sheffield seemed to be well accepted in Atlanta. I wonder if that's because of Cox or something else.

by sasquatch83 on Nov 28, 2006 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Partially

But also due to a pretty relaxed atmosphere. Braves fans expected to get to the playoffs every year, then didn't even sell out the stadium. I'm not saying they lack passion, but the everyday grind of the season didn't really mean the same thing by the early 2000s.

...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

Drew wasnt really liked by the braves. His not playing thru injuries really rubs players the wrong way when your talking about players like Giles/Chipper who constantly play thru injuries and guys like Smoltz who has put his career on the line to pitch with serious pitching injuries at times the last few years.

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

drew played in 145 games his only season with the braves.......

by Wheelhouse on Nov 28, 2006 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And...

was their best hitter, and one of the best in the league period that year.

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

fartballs

You're a real classy guy.

by Galt on Nov 28, 2006 2:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

fartballs, meet slurves.

by Flynn Blake on Nov 28, 2006 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but he's no joke

Slurves was an obvious 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

I'll take that "real life Borat" comment to be a compliment. Thanks buddy.

Now lets get back to baseball please.

by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sure

if you promise to keep your he-man-woman hating pro-implant diatribes to the Opie & Anthony messageboards and focus on intelligent discussion like the above, senor "fartballs"

by Galt on Nov 28, 2006 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RE: sure

Listen nerd, my "implant" comment way back when was regarding a Cheesecake article specifically on girls. It wasn't as though it was a serious baseball discussion and I randomly (out of nowhere) starting talking about breasts. We happen to have different taste in women........so what. I can live with a difference of opinion, but for some reason you can't get over it. Get a life please.

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...

nerd.

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...

Nothing nerdy about being on internet forums...I love this site and am on it daily. I'm just saying this guy is being kind of a prick because he can't let go of an old topic. I've been telling him ad nauseum that I "agree to disagree" with him, but he refuses to move on. Also his grade school comments of my French Natchez name is getting old fast.

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.

hateful, anti-women posts have no place on this thread or any thread on this or any messageboard.

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.

Sure.....whatever. Next topic please.

by fartballs on Nov 28, 2006 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fine, next topic

so when you beat your wife, is it with your hand or your shoe?

by Galt on Nov 28, 2006 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With

A stick no bigger than the thumb is the general rule or Rule of thumb.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Nov 28, 2006 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

While I also saw Boondock Saints

that "rule of thumb" is an urban legend.

by Galt on Nov 28, 2006 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

damn

Caught me.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Nov 28, 2006 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yo

i'm on your team, but you gotta chill out a little bit. you're not winning any converts beating people over the head. talk feminism and boobs on the cheesecake threads, manny on the manny threads. you don't have to bring that up every time you see his name.

by wily mo on Nov 28, 2006 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Finally....

someone with a little sense. Arguing over the internet is for idiots. And some people on this site just can't stick to baseball.

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

those nutty women. sigh.

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

in all fairness boxcutter was not being derogative to women but just saying they guys have to quit complaining so much. And I think you knew that is what he meant.

And Crimsons case was not so bad IMO. It was insensitive I agree but...

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not derogative

right - he wasn't ripping on women, he was just saying that us guys need to quit complaining like a bunch of women. i get it now. silly of me.

by wily mo on Nov 29, 2006 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hey

don't become an apologist on us.

Most men don't get upset when women say:
'quit acting like boys' or other types of sayings about men.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 9:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

huh?

apologist for what? if anything i'm being the opposite of an apologist. or do you mean an apologist for galt - but what i was saying to him was that you don't need to keep bringing up the implants thing in every thread - but if there's people saying shit about girls on this thread i'm going to call it.

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

The first part with Galt I never read his comments so have no opinion on this.

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.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

gypsies?

look. this is probably not the forum for this, and we're really starting to run into the right wall here, which is a hint. but, as briefly as i can:

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'm not sure what you meant by that.

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 ;)

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

right wall

of the site. paragraphs... getting... very... narrow...

"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

I see what you mean about the readability.

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.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Nov 30, 2006 12:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes,

it's a way to tease other men by calling them women as an insult. saying someone is "acting like a girl" usually isn't about pure physical strength. it's about, like you said a minute ago, toughness - physical and mental. don't be a whiny woman - be a man and press on through adversity.

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

is really difficult to read. And in fact, I would imagine if there were some really long word like "verisimilitude", it may not even fit on the page. Though I can't imagine why anyone would use that word on this board.

Antidisestablishmentarianism, maybe.

by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by the way

as happy as I am that the fartballs-galt fight spurred further animus between other posters, all I was doing was trying to goad him.

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

well carry on then. we're not really fighting, though. we're just talkin'.

by wily mo on Nov 29, 2006 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

totally agree on that. And how can you possibly get angry on a forum? People have their own opinions and we have to respect that. No matter how wrong Wily Mo is.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

so fartballs was

... a friend of yours? An acquaintance? A competitor in a league with you? Someone famous?

by Flynn Blake on Nov 29, 2006 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

three of the four

n/t

by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 12:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RE: by the way

Dude, I've never met you. No idea what you are talking about.

by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Briana Banks? American Psycho?

How could you be so asleep at the wheel?

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?

John Sickels, is that you? Are you working under the stage name of "Galt"?

by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In Drew's defense

i don't see how sitting out a year 10 years ago makes him a "locker room cancer" - you actually have to be in the locker room to be a cancer i believe......he made a decision and stuck to his beliefs......that is the kind of character that is often applauded in locker rooms

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 ..."

not playing on yom kippur is making a decision and sticking to your beliefs.

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.

it's a bad strategy to base your lineup on the relative beauty of a man's outs rather than the rate at which he makes them.

by overlord on Nov 28, 2006 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes and no

I think his breaking negotiations with Philadelphia was terrible, but I'm not too sure why the players reacted the way they did. One has to think that the player's union (admittedly not the best loved union even by its own constituency) was behind Drew and hoping he could get more money. This is common practice in the industry and not too unlike (in certain respects, I know there are some fundamental differences) a free agent simply going for the highest payday. It's just part of the business. A team takes a riskin drafting a player and the player takes a isk when he doesn't sign. It just happened to work out OK for Drew. It's not like the freaky Hochevar/LA negotation where things went haywire.

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?

I wouldn't play there either...

by The Colonel on Nov 28, 2006 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The greatest Manny trade that will NEVER HAPPEN

Manny Ramirez to LAA for Brandon Wood and Ervin Santana. Halos have been shopping around Magic and have Aybar waiting at SS. Red Sox would get a future superstar and another strong mid-rotation pitcher. They need another power bat, and I would say this would be more likely if they didn't blow their cash on Matthews.
I want to see him stay AL so I'll say Texas, since they couldn't go into the season with their current outfield.

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Nov 28, 2006 4:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My guess

Giants - Lack the chips to make a deal. This isn't going to be an Abreu-esque deal, so they'll want decent value in return.

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

I really doubt this gets it done. They will already have two corner OF so Rivera doesn't fit the need. Aybar and Shields are not the type of guys you are looking for when trading Manny.

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.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 9:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

lincecum can't be traded

until a year after he's been signed, so that's not an option.

by Galt on Nov 29, 2006 9:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

PTBN

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The thing is

I think, by all accounts, Boston prefers immediate, major league help. They have several holes that they need to deal with, beginning with the pen. By all accounts, they understand that they aren't going to get equal value for Manny.

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 agree with the focus on immediate help but if they could get a quality reliever with Lincecum I think they might pull the trigger.

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.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Nov 29, 2006 7:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Texas

I still like Volquez, despite his struggles, somewhat.

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

Sure, this thread looks like it's dead, but, I'm not going to start another thread about such an esoteric subject....

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

7,8,9 blah blah. Pedroia's the least proven so bat him last, plus, he's the "second leadoff" guy.

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

In any division outside of the AL East, that lineup is OK. In the AL East though, its just slightly better than the Orioles (just barely), but worse that every other team. I know he's not that patient, but Ortiz has the potential to break Barry Bond's single season walk record with that pathetic assortment of "Star Wars Bar" clown hitting behind him. The Sox ensure themselves of 4th place finish if they trot-out that lineup opening day.

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

Win shares.

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

Only flaming homosexuals use "win shares" as an analytic tool. From a stat perspective you can tell me that Drew is 72% of Manny (21/29), but in opposing pitchers eyes, he's only about 25%. Drew brings no fear, intimidation, and will never be pitched around. Also (believe it or not) in my eyes Drew is MORE of a clubhouse killer and "team chemistry" disruptor than Manny. People have come to accept Manny for his actions because he's semi-retarded (they won't say this because it will come across as racist....but its true). He truly is Forrest Gump. He has no ability to tell right from wrong, but they key point is that he's got a good heart. Drew on the other hand is a scumbag, and everything that the "common fans" hate about sports. He's lazy, don't care, and does the bare-minimum with everything. He may have gotten a pass in low-key cities like Atlanta and LA, but Boston is the absolute worst place for him to go (the fans will absolutely crucify him).

by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

drew

ok, but i don't see putting drew and papi back to back because then you're just begging for one lefty to face both of them. i mean papi really doesn't care that much who pitches to him any more, but still. there's no reason to do it. but i can't see sticking wily mo in between them, either. they need one more big righty bat in there. someone like a manny.

by wily mo on Nov 30, 2006 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

my logic was:

Assuming in some order 3-5, you are going to have Papi, Drew, and Pena.

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

switch that.

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

Is not at play here, Captain foot fetish.

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

I'm trying to find an example to support your assertion, but there's not a lot of examples to chew on. It tough to find any decent NL pitcher in the last few years that have switched to the AL.

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

Look it up.

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

yeah

when pedro came over from the NL to the AL, he actually didn't win the cy young for a year. culture shock! then, back to normal.

by wily mo on Nov 30, 2006 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You have Admitted Defeat

For every Pedro example you give me, I'll give you 4 going the other way. Face it, Beckett isn't going to be any materially better next year versus this year. What you see is what you get. There's a reason why you won't draft him on your fantasy team next year and neither will I.

by fartballs on Nov 30, 2006 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by Galt on Nov 30, 2006 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

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