Royal Rooters: Trades to fix the Sox - Royal Rooters

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Trades to fix the Sox
Stupid Trade Ideas allowed in this thread

#41 User is offline  
Hail Cesar 

  • Rooters Hall of Fame
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Royal Rooters
  • Posts: 4,072
  • Joined: 30-June 04

Posted 24 October 2011 - 10:08 AM

View PostThe Ghost of Ned Martin, on 24 October 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

Blake would be a good stop-gap measure until either Middlebrooks is ready or the team decides it needs to go in a different direction (if Middlebrooks takes a step back.) They also need to figure out whether Lavarnway's defensive skills are sufficient to consider him a viable backup next year. From what I have read, he is pretty limited defensively so he is likely a DH. That being the case, I wouldn't mind seeing the Sox add a solid defensive catcher to the mix. Not sure if Yorvitt Torrealba could be had from Texas but I'm sure there are others. I think Salty showed enough signs of life to be in the mix but I don't think you want him catching as many games as Tek did a few years ago.


Note that in order for my trade to work, the Dodgers would have to pick up Blake's option for 2012, which, I see them doing if for nothing more than insurance.

I've heard a lot about Lavarnway's defense not being great, but every time I've seen him play (whether in Pawtucket or with the big club) he doesn't seem all that bad. I mean, Lavarnway threw out something like 30% of runners last year, so at least that aspect of his defensive game is better than what we've seen from Red Sox catchers over the past few years.
0

#42 User is offline  
Kid T 

  • No soup for you!
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 3,619
  • Joined: 05-January 04

Posted 24 October 2011 - 03:06 PM

View PostMike LansWho, on 23 October 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

Sox need to go after Matt Kemp. I don't know what gets it done. Perhaps Youkilis, Kalish/Reddick, another prospect and cash??

I think it would take a lot more. Maybe Ellsbury and Youkilis. However, the inclusion of Youkilis and the arb-eligible Ellsbury would be inconsistent with any plan to reduce payroll for them.



View PostHail Cesar, on 24 October 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

I've heard a lot about Lavarnway's defense not being great, but every time I've seen him play (whether in Pawtucket or with the big club) he doesn't seem all that bad. I mean, Lavarnway threw out something like 30% of runners last year, so at least that aspect of his defensive game is better than what we've seen from Red Sox catchers over the past few years.

No, it isn't. I saw a few games on MLB Network (including the AAA all-star game). His defensive struggles aren't in throwing, it's in receiving. I'm no expert, but he appears to "stab" at the ball and doesn't look smooth receiving. I know he was working with some pitchers he wasn't familiar with, but he still let a few pitches (and no, not in the dirt) get by him. He certainly is a ways away from being able to frame pitches and steal some calls.
0

#43 User is offline  
Mike LansWho 

  • Model citizen, zero discipline
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 8,721
  • Joined: 15-January 04

Posted 24 October 2011 - 03:23 PM

View PostKid T, on 24 October 2011 - 03:06 PM, said:

I think it would take a lot more. Maybe Ellsbury and Youkilis. However, the inclusion of Youkilis and the arb-eligible Ellsbury would be inconsistent with any plan to reduce payroll for them.


That's why I was thinking Reddick or Kalish along with having to eat a lot of Youkilis money (which is only guaranteed for 2012). I would assume another prospect would be involved, although I'm not sure who. I doubt the Dodgers would settle for a Kyle Weiland or Felix Doubront type. Including Ellsbury makes no sense for either side. Kemp and Ellsbury had very similar seasons and would almost be like a lateral move for the Red Sox. A lateral move which also includes losing Youkilis.

Also, I think Kemp would be easier for the Dodgers to trade, since Ethier would probably be easier to re-sign (in my opinion, anyway).
0

#44 User is offline  
Manny's PS2 

  • Bippity Boppity Boo
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 9,200
  • Joined: 03-February 04

Posted 24 October 2011 - 03:25 PM

View PostKid T, on 24 October 2011 - 03:06 PM, said:

I think it would take a lot more. Maybe Ellsbury and Youkilis. However, the inclusion of Youkilis and the arb-eligible Ellsbury would be inconsistent with any plan to reduce payroll for them.




No, it isn't. I saw a few games on MLB Network (including the AAA all-star game). His defensive struggles aren't in throwing, it's in receiving. I'm no expert, but he appears to "stab" at the ball and doesn't look smooth receiving. I know he was working with some pitchers he wasn't familiar with, but he still let a few pitches (and no, not in the dirt) get by him. He certainly is a ways away from being able to frame pitches and steal some calls.

I read that he had bad footwork, but throwing dude's out implies good footwork unless you have a shoulder mounted howitzer. I know the talking heads mentioned he has improved drastically already. I've watched enough MLB gmaes to see he didn't look lost or overmatched behind the plate. I'd live with the growing pains, if he could hit 20-30 HR's and hit .280. I think if he stays, Papi goes. I just think they can rotate players to DH, they are a little too LHH heavy too...
0

#45 User is online  
rominer 

  • Throwing a personal pity party, and everyone's invited.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 19,395
  • Joined: 11-November 04

Posted 24 October 2011 - 03:41 PM

View PostMike LansWho, on 24 October 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

ch also includes losing Youkilis.
Also, I think Kemp would be easier for the Dodgers to trade, since Ethier would probably be easier to re-sign (in my opinion, anyway).


The rumors earlier in the season from people who print made up shit from anonymous sources for a living is that Ethier was pretty much over the Dodgers and their whole disaster of an organization, while Kemp was seen as more loyal to the organization and willing to ride out the storm.

So there. You can't tell me that you're going to try to argue with "sources."
0

#46 User is offline  
Kid T 

  • No soup for you!
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Rooters Supporter
  • Posts: 3,619
  • Joined: 05-January 04

Posted 24 October 2011 - 04:47 PM

View PostMike LansWho, on 24 October 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

That's why I was thinking Reddick or Kalish along with having to eat a lot of Youkilis money (which is only guaranteed for 2012). I would assume another prospect would be involved, although I'm not sure who. I doubt the Dodgers would settle for a Kyle Weiland or Felix Doubront type. Including Ellsbury makes no sense for either side. Kemp and Ellsbury had very similar seasons and would almost be like a lateral move for the Red Sox. A lateral move which also includes losing Youkilis.

Also, I think Kemp would be easier for the Dodgers to trade, since Ethier would probably be easier to re-sign (in my opinion, anyway).

I think it would take a lot more than Kalish/Reddick. Maybe add Middlebrooks and Renaudo along with them. I just don't think the Dodgers would be looking to unload their star player for anything less than an overwhelming offer.



View PostManny, on 24 October 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

I read that he had bad footwork, but throwing dude's out implies good footwork unless you have a shoulder mounted howitzer. I know the talking heads mentioned he has improved drastically already. I've watched enough MLB gmaes to see he didn't look lost or overmatched behind the plate. I'd live with the growing pains, if he could hit 20-30 HR's and hit .280. I think if he stays, Papi goes. I just think they can rotate players to DH, they are a little too LHH heavy too...

We are both evaluating based on small sample sizes (though I would suggest that what I saw was more in line with what scouts/evaluators had suggested). I doubt he hits 20 HR's in his first 2 years. If he had that kind of power, they probably would have asked him to try out 3B or LF.
0

#47 User is offline  
CesarTovar 

  • Short Season A Lowell
  • Pip
  • Group: New Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 05-October 06

Posted 01 November 2011 - 04:31 PM

Marco Scuturo and Derek Lowe. Those names already set the table for this offseason.

I don't think they'll be tweaking the offense much at all. However, there are going to be some surprising and very interesting midlevel starting pitcher names in the $8-10 million range that teams are looking to shed via trade. This is Ben's chance to do his homework and pluck the right ones. Score on this, and we're in the playoffs in 2012. Fact.
0

#48 User is offline  
Hail Cesar 

  • Rooters Hall of Fame
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Royal Rooters
  • Posts: 4,072
  • Joined: 30-June 04

Posted 02 November 2011 - 07:04 AM

View PostCesarTovar, on 01 November 2011 - 04:31 PM, said:

Marco Scuturo and Derek Lowe. Those names already set the table for this offseason.

I don't think they'll be tweaking the offense much at all. However, there are going to be some surprising and very interesting midlevel starting pitcher names in the $8-10 million range that teams are looking to shed via trade. This is Ben's chance to do his homework and pluck the right ones. Score on this, and we're in the playoffs in 2012. Fact.


Which pitchers do you think are going to be available? Pitching is still at a premium in MLB, IMO, so I don't think there will be many teams looking to trade mid-level pitchers unless they have some young cheaper alternative waiting in the wings. That and if the Red Sox are looking for a mid-level pitcher in the $8-$10 million range, then why not try to sign Edwin Jackson and hope that Miller/Weiland/Dubront/Dice-K can fill in the 5th spot in the rotation?
0

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users