Quick Hits: McCourt, Maholm, Mariners, Axford

Another night, another pair of exciting LCS games.  The Tigers succeeded in stretching the ALCS to a sixth game while the Brewers evened the NLCS at 2-2 with the Cardinals. 

Here's the latest from around the majors….


73 Responses to Quick Hits: McCourt, Maholm, Mariners, Axford Leave a Reply

  1. gradylittle 4 years ago

    I like the idea of resigning Ellsbury, but who doesn’t, but for god sakes PLEASE don’t sign Reyes.

    • chico65 4 years ago

      I like the idea of resigning him, but I’m not sure he’s going to like the idea. 

      According to the globe article the other day, the only person in the locker room he was friendly with was Lowrie.  If that’s true, I can’t see him wanting to stay.  If it’s not, it seems like another attempt by management to smear him (“he’s not even liked by his own teammates”), which I’d think would contribute to his desire to get out of town ASAP.  I hope I’m wrong.

      And for the love of god, NO REYES 

      • gradylittle 4 years ago

        Yes I agree with you, everybody but Ells might want to resign and, obviously, that’s a problem.

    • jmcbosox 4 years ago

      ugh, no reyes, please.  i dont understand why the sox are so hell-bent on not picking up scutaros option.  the guy plays hurt, puts up respectable numbers, has already been here for 2 years.  the sox need leaders, or so is the rumour, why would they acquire reyes?  i also have a bad feeling about iglesias, i just think its gonna be another case of the sox hyping up another prospect.  watch, he’ll never be an everyday big-league SS

      • jmcbosox 4 years ago

        hell-bent is probably a bad term here, we’ll try reluctant.  it seems like a no-brainer to me though…

      • woadude 4 years ago

        Iglesias is a wizard with the glove, they are taking their time to develop his bat, not going to be an everyday big league SS? This guy already is, just needs to use that piece of wood in his hand.

    • mikefichera 4 years ago

      JUST A THOUGHT how about getting a manager first? lol.

  2. start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

    Ok, the Red Sox do not need Reyes simply because they do not need another hitter. We could lose Ortiz and we’d still have a top offense. The Sox need pitching.

    As for those of Red Sox Nation in a tizzy, calm down… seriously.

    • gradylittle 4 years ago

      They also do not need another big named free agent flop, Reyes has got that written all over him.

      • timmmc 4 years ago

        Agree 100%.
        I also hate the idea of moving Bard to the rotation. I know a lot has changed since then, but he was a complete and utter trainwreck in the rotation out of UNC… yet is typically lights out in the bullpen. Why tinker with a good thing? I felt the same way with Papelbon years ago, Felix last year, etc.

        • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

          there are reasons not to move bard to the rotation, but his minor league line during his first pro season 5 years ago is not one of them

          • johnsilver 4 years ago

            Sox fans just need to take a gander at his 1st season of professional ball to see exactly why he does not need to be a starter, then have flashbacks to another guy kind of like Bard, Joba Chamberlain who was a total flop as a starter, then when they moved him back (wisely) to the BP the next season he had lost 4-5mph off of his FB and then tore up his arm. Was that a result of wear and tear from the extra innings all of a sudden? Good question, but remember that Chamberlain was a starter earlier as well and converted to reliever, then thrust back into a rotation again after just having 1 spring to get ready.

            it is just not worth it to think Bard can be another CJ Wilson and take one of the most dominant relievers in the game like this and make him a 5 inning starter. Who thinks Bard will throw 98+ for more than 5 innings, not to mention he only has *2* pitches, one of which will lose it’s effectiveness if his FB drops to below 95 or so, a certainty if he has to go more than2 innings it is such a “lolipop” going to the plate and counts on surprise.

            As for getting Ells inked LT.. *IF* Boston makes a big splash this off season, this is the move would like to see them make, go behind Boras back if they have to as Edes kind of suggested. If it takes 5/70-75m.. Do it.

            The idea of Pedey hitting 3rd is pretty nifty with Ells and CC locked into 1-2, followed by Gonzalez, then Youk. The lineup will be in some trouble after that however. Would really, really like to see Lavarnway on the team, getting 300+ AB, backup catcher and PT DH.

            This may rub some (many) wrong but am at the point of cleaning house with a lot of the vets, Ortiz is one, Tek, *maybe* even Wake. Not saying that Orti is done by any means, but Youk needs that slot and it has been proven with his injuries. Ortiz has got to go.

          • 0bsessions 4 years ago

            “The idea of Pedey hitting 3rd is pretty nifty with Ells and CC locked into 1-2, followed by Gonzalez, then Youk. The lineup will be in some trouble after that however. Would really, really like to see Lavarnway on the team, getting 300+ AB, backup catcher and PT DH.”The Sox aren’t really any worse off than most other teams 6-9. Saltalamacchia’s one of the better hitting catchers in the AL, Scutaro’s streaky, but likewise one of the better hitting shortstops in the MLB, right field is up in the air entirely and the DH, well, we’ll essentially either retain Ortiz or use Lavarnway, either of which is still going to be a better option than most teams.

    • bjsguess 4 years ago

      I don’t follow the Red Sox super close but those all sound like terrible suggestions. Making changes for the sake of making changes is rarely good.

      1. Signing Ellsbury as he comes off his MVP season – talk about catching him at his peak. My bet is that next year you get a guy that is either hurt or has a typical Ellsbury season. In either scenario you will end up paying far less than what you dish out this off-season.

      2. Bard at closer makes too much sense. Some make the transition to starter fine – others do not. Why tinker with a dominant closer? The team has other arms to step in and start.

      3. Reyes would be OK at the right price. Dropping another $100m contract seems like a bad idea though. He’s Carl Crawford 2.0. Normally that would be a good thing. After this year though I’m not sure there is a huge interest in spending big bucks for speed demon with middling power.

      • Yeah Reyes and Crawford are identical. Since Crawford sucked Reyes is definitely going to be a bust.

      • 0bsessions 4 years ago

        “My bet is that next year you get a guy that is either hurt or has a typical Ellsbury season.”

        Well, there’s no basis for the former considering Ellsbury didn’t hit the DL at all before the rib issue in 2010 and 2011 made it pretty obvious that said rib issue was not a lingering problem. As for the latter, well, a “typical Ellsbury season” even accounting for massive regression from this year in his power numbers is probably going to be good for a .350+ wOBA, a bunch of steals and potentially solid defense in a valuable outfield position. All of that sounds like he’s worth extending if possible. If he can put up a positive UZR and an OPS north of .800 with his elite baserunning, he’s still one of the best center fielders in the game, even accounting for a dip in the power numbers.

        “He’s Carl Crawford 2.0.”

        Except he’s able to draw a walk from time to time. Reyes kept his OBP up over .350 consistently from 2006-2009 and then back up over in 2011. That’s a HUGE difference maker. Given, I don’t think the Sox should go after Reyes at all, but calling him Crawford 2.0 is unfair to him as his ability to consistently draw walks means that he’ll at least be getting on base when he’s not hitting.

      • 0bsessions 4 years ago

        “My bet is that next year you get a guy that is either hurt or has a typical Ellsbury season.”

        Well, there’s no basis for the former considering Ellsbury didn’t hit the DL at all before the rib issue in 2010 and 2011 made it pretty obvious that said rib issue was not a lingering problem. As for the latter, well, a “typical Ellsbury season” even accounting for massive regression from this year in his power numbers is probably going to be good for a .350+ wOBA, a bunch of steals and potentially solid defense in a valuable outfield position. All of that sounds like he’s worth extending if possible. If he can put up a positive UZR and an OPS north of .800 with his elite baserunning, he’s still one of the best center fielders in the game, even accounting for a dip in the power numbers.

        “He’s Carl Crawford 2.0.”

        Except he’s able to draw a walk from time to time. Reyes kept his OBP up over .350 consistently from 2006-2009 and then back up over in 2011. That’s a HUGE difference maker. Given, I don’t think the Sox should go after Reyes at all, but calling him Crawford 2.0 is unfair to him as his ability to consistently draw walks means that he’ll at least be getting on base when he’s not hitting.

    • bjsguess 4 years ago

      I don’t follow the Red Sox super close but those all sound like terrible suggestions. Making changes for the sake of making changes is rarely good.

      1. Signing Ellsbury as he comes off his MVP season – talk about catching him at his peak. My bet is that next year you get a guy that is either hurt or has a typical Ellsbury season. In either scenario you will end up paying far less than what you dish out this off-season.

      2. Bard at closer makes too much sense. Some make the transition to starter fine – others do not. Why tinker with a dominant closer? The team has other arms to step in and start.

      3. Reyes would be OK at the right price. Dropping another $100m contract seems like a bad idea though. He’s Carl Crawford 2.0. Normally that would be a good thing. After this year though I’m not sure there is a huge interest in spending big bucks for speed demon with middling power.

  3. FamousGrouse 4 years ago

    Thank you for the great Mariners links.

  4. Ben_Cherington 4 years ago

    Have no fear nation, I will not sign reyes!  Great player, but as GM, we will be looking into pitching!  We have a great team and will be back next yr.  I have to get ready for my press conf. tomorrow, hope you can watch!

    • Amish_willy 4 years ago

      The talk of the Padres sending Hudson to Bos for Lackey, lots of money, and young talent was ridiculed, and rightly so because based on Kras’ wording the Padres would be paying Lackey very little. Edes does his Boston version of the same. Lackey to San Diego at around 3/15m with the Padres using Headley to make it happen, and while also making the deal affordable for SD, because I guess affording both would be too much for the Padres. That ignores the fact that Headley isn’t guaranteed a dime. 

      First off, WOW! If your the Padres why not find Lackey’s equal on the FA market for the same annual price (on a one year deal mind you) and deal Headley (WAR over 7 last two seasons) for young talent? Several teams would love to get their hands on Headley as he’s due to earn around 3.5m next year with two more years of control beyond that. He’s got a lot of Michael Young in him, except he’s a switch-hitter, with more patience (higher obp) and a ton cheaper. Put him in a great hitting environment and someone will look like a genius.

      It’d probably have to be crazy cheap, like 3/12m for the Padres to seriously ponder going that route, and in doing so a player with real value, and arguably their most valuable bat in 2011, surely wouldn’t be involved. If the Padres sent Headley to Bos for Lackey (at 3/12m), a prospect like Iglesias, Bogaerts, Renaudo or Brentz would have to be coming back as well. Even then I’m not sure that beats adding a FA starter while dealing Headley (or keeping him till the deadline or longer).

      But yeah, definitely make the trade if you can (Sox). Agree with the premise of adding a guy like Headley and making Youkilis the DH, just don’t expect that to happen by offering Lackey and a bag of money. What would he get as a free agent right now? Any more then the 4m Harang got with SD this year? I doubt it. Over the same for three years could be viewed as generous. Expect a Bradley/Silva type trade if there even is one. Eating all but 1.5m of his salary wouldn’t make him “worth” Headley on his own.

      Adrian had a great year even if he hit fewer homerun’s then he has since 2006, his first full season in SD. He hit for an average 50 points higher then his time in SD while seeing his OPS increase by almost 70, over his average there. Yet people are bummed with the early results?! That’s crazy. I would be worried about the shoulder. He said he played all of last year with a bum shoulder, and had a great year, but with the same being the case following this year, it’s got to plant at least a little seed of worry for the Sox hierarchy. I expect him to be very productive through a majority of the deal, and even with the concerns go on to have a consistently great years. Not unlike what Pujols has done with the Cards these past several years (big years despite not being 100%). That’s obviously the optimistic viewpoint.

      • johnsilver 4 years ago

        ” a prospect like Iglesias, Bogaerts, Renaudo or Brentz would have to be coming back as well.”

        No chance Boston pays Lackey’s salary, gives up ANY of those for someone like Headley who would be at best a utility guy, no better than Jed Lowrie. That is pure fantasy to even think Boston would (for example) give up a possible top of the rotation prospective starter in Renaudo, pay lackey for a utility guy.. That is just.. Preposterous..

        I think too many California writers have been getting hold of that medical weed they allow there and over doing it to be dreaming up this stuff.

        • Amish_willy 4 years ago

          Take a quick gander at how Headley has hit outside of hitter’s hell and then get back to me. Lowrie and his 92 ops+ in his young career isn’t the hitter that Headley is, and it’s not even close. Lowrie’s reputation was always a below average SS who might one day be able to fall into that exclusive “average’ community. Headley’s an above average 3b. Much better then the likes of Youk in 2011 or Lowell in 2009. You guys got spoiled the year in between.  

          My point was, Lackey has no more value to SD then someone like Garland or Harang, and we can get those kind of guys for as little as a 4-5m guarantee. Think of it as a fountain that will only continue to flow. The desire will always be there for those guys in their early 30’s looking for an opportunity to draw them to SD, which between the weather and the park must seem like the garden of eden. What exactly does Lackey have to offer that those guys don’t besides the much longer obligation? That doesn’t add to his value it detracts from it.

          I personally hate the idea of being burdened by that type of starter for that long (hence not wanting to give Harang a 2-3 yr deal now). Hoyer in his two years has yet to give out more then a two-year commitment to anyone. I’m not expecting Lackey to be the first. I sure as you know what don’t expect them to give up Headley for the privilege.

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            “Take a quick gander at how Headley has hit outside of hitter’s hell”

            ~.350 career wOBA outside of petco, that’s a tick above what he did this season overall. not impressed. “Much better then the likes of Youk in 2011″? you so crazy

          • Amish_willy 4 years ago

            If Headley was a member of the Sox he’d be their starting 3b with Youk the DH, due to the defense he brings to the table. Wasn’t alluding to Youk being benched because of Headley’s presence.

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            if ortiz were gone, sure. it’s no insult to headley to say he’s not as valuable as youkilis

            for reasons you’ve explained, i don’t think the whole lackey-to-sd thing is ever going to make sense

          • Amish_willy 4 years ago

            Trading for Headley while bringing back Ortiz, kind of defeats the whole purpose.

            I really doubt Headley would be dealt to the Sox, the cries of the Padres developing players for Hoyer’s old team would only grow louder. Doubt they’d be the team to put up the best offer, as teams with deeper systems could offer more without the feeling of system depletion.

            Glad you are able to see how unlikely a Headley/Lackey deal is. When its really hard to find a reason why one team would make a trade, that’s typically a good clue that it’s one-sided.

      • 0bsessions 4 years ago

        Seconded on the notion that the Sox will not give up a top organizational prospect AND eat salary. There’s absolutely no point in that. If we’re going to basically eat Lackey’s contract for him to play elsewhere, what’s the point of sweetening the deal with a valuable prospect when we could just release him outright?

        • Amish_willy 4 years ago

          Lackey has so much negative value that I think Sox fans are misunderstanding how much money would have to be eaten for a team to take him on for free. There’s a reason when these contracts do get moved, coming off awful years, it’s always for a minimal return. Maybe the Cubs would give up Soriano & Zambranao (owed 72m) and some money (say 15m) for John Lackey. I’m sure the Cubs would rather have Soriano then Lackey, making a 1-1 deal unlikely, but removing Zambrano from the picture would balance it out, but of course they would have to include a lot of money as well.

          Take Lackey out of the equation and it’s not clear if the Padres would deal Headley for any ONE of those good (not elite) prospects mentioned.

          It’s assumed Lackey won’t be back. I think one of two things will happen. A) they’ll either swallow some pride and be stuck with him or B) some team will take the burden of their hands with Lackey costing no more then 3/15m likely with another bad contract working its way into the equation.

          He’s easily one of the 5 or 10 most umoveable pieces in baseball right now. Those guys are never moved for cost controlled players that have accumulated the kind of WAR Headley has, a guy who is fresh off a season where he hit .330/.399/.465 away from hitter’s hell. Might be worth a step back and a 20 second mental reasoning on what is being suggested. Might as well take another look at Lackey’s ugly line and put yourself in the buyer’s shoes. Would you do that?? I really doubt it.

          It’s a ridiculous suggestion, and the fact Sox fans are supporting a silly idea doesn’t exactly bode a ton of confidence from opposing fans.

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            you are way too in love with that 54 game sample of headley’s

          • Amish_willy 4 years ago

            You’re referring to a guy that owns a career line of .303/.364/.441 in 265 Games (1117 PA’s) away from Petco.

            Hardly a case of small sample sizes. It’s funny how the pitchers park thing doesn’t go both ways.

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            good for a career ~.350 wOBA outside of petco. assuming it’s sustainable, that’s mark reynolds territory. with average 3B defense, you’re talking about a 3-3.5 WAR player

            definitely solid, a valuable player – just not as sexy as that small sample slash-line suggests

          • Amish_willy 4 years ago

            OR Michael Young (career .348 wOBA). Much better comp then Mark Reynolds territorially speaking. Any way you sum it up there is no chance in hell the Sox will end up with a player of his ilk by dealing Lackey alone. Even if all but 420k/yr was paid the Padres would have little inclination to make that trade.

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            less than little. agree

          • johnsilver 4 years ago

            It’s really just easier to release lackey out right than to pay him and give up anything as Obsessions pointed out nd think most everyone agrees, much less pass along pretty much top guys like Ranaudo, Iglesias, or kalsih in a deal and get back someone they really have no use for and would block on the roster Ryan Lavarnway, the Sox minor league offensive player of the league who crushed his way through the Sox system at every step.

            Headley, just being on the Sox roster would be a problem as he can play C and DH, plus would allow them to get Varitek off of the roster.

          • Amish_willy 4 years ago

            Not sure simply releasing Lackey, eating the 46m and calling it good is the best outcome for the Sox.

            So let’s say the Sox dealt Lackey and one of said prospects to SD for Chase Headley (your mixing him up with Hundley the catcher) with the Padres picking up 3/12-15m of the tab.

            The trade would allow Youk to replace Ortiz at DH, improving the defense while replacing a soon to be 36-year old Ortiz with a 28-year old Headley.

            If you compare that outcome to simply releasing Lackey and resigning Ortiz for say 2/25m, your getting a replacement in Headley that would make around 8.5m over that time while shaving 12-15m of Lackey’s salary. Under those assumptions the Sox would save around 30m.  Doesn’t seem like the worse use of a prospect, but that’s me. Doesn’t sound like Ortiz would be open to sticking around on the same kind of terms Berkman did with the Cards, figured he’d want (and get) the 2nd guaranteed year.  

            The more I think about this suggested kind of the deal the more I think it’s a dud. Lackey might not even be pitching in the bigs in a year let alone three. If the end result is having Igleisas posting a sub-.600 ops in San Diego bet Hoyer’d would feel he could have done much better pursuing other avenues. But no, the Sox wouldn’t be stupid for parting with a prospect if meant saving 12-15m and getting back a talent on par with Headley.

      • 0bsessions 4 years ago

        Seconded on the notion that the Sox will not give up a top organizational prospect AND eat salary. There’s absolutely no point in that. If we’re going to basically eat Lackey’s contract for him to play elsewhere, what’s the point of sweetening the deal with a valuable prospect when we could just release him outright?

      • chico65 4 years ago

        You guys have the internet now?  What’s next, using a John Deere during a barn raising?

    • Amish_willy 4 years ago

      The talk of the Padres sending Hudson to Bos for Lackey, lots of money, and young talent was ridiculed, and rightly so because based on Kras’ wording the Padres would be paying Lackey very little. Edes does his Boston version of the same. Lackey to San Diego at around 3/15m with the Padres using Headley to make it happen, and while also making the deal affordable for SD, because I guess affording both would be too much for the Padres. That ignores the fact that Headley isn’t guaranteed a dime. 

      First off, WOW! If your the Padres why not find Lackey’s equal on the FA market for the same annual price (on a one year deal mind you) and deal Headley (WAR over 7 last two seasons) for young talent? Several teams would love to get their hands on Headley as he’s due to earn around 3.5m next year with two more years of control beyond that. He’s got a lot of Michael Young in him, except he’s a switch-hitter, with more patience (higher obp) and a ton cheaper. Put him in a great hitting environment and someone will look like a genius.

      It’d probably have to be crazy cheap, like 3/12m for the Padres to seriously ponder going that route, and in doing so a player with real value, and arguably their most valuable bat in 2011, surely wouldn’t be involved. If the Padres sent Headley to Bos for Lackey (at 3/12m), a prospect like Iglesias, Bogaerts, Renaudo or Brentz would have to be coming back as well. Even then I’m not sure that beats adding a FA starter while dealing Headley (or keeping him till the deadline or longer).

      But yeah, definitely make the trade if you can (Sox). Agree with the premise of adding a guy like Headley and making Youkilis the DH, just don’t expect that to happen by offering Lackey and a bag of money. What would he get as a free agent right now? Any more then the 4m Harang got with SD this year? I doubt it. Over the same for three years could be viewed as generous. Expect a Bradley/Silva type trade if there even is one. Eating all but 1.5m of his salary wouldn’t make him “worth” Headley on his own.

      Adrian had a great year even if he hit fewer homerun’s then he has since 2006, his first full season in SD. He hit for an average 50 points higher then his time in SD while seeing his OPS increase by almost 70, over his average there. Yet people are bummed with the early results?! That’s crazy. I would be worried about the shoulder. He said he played all of last year with a bum shoulder, and had a great year, but with the same being the case following this year, it’s got to plant at least a little seed of worry for the Sox hierarchy. I expect him to be very productive through a majority of the deal, and even with the concerns go on to have a consistently great years. Not unlike what Pujols has done with the Cards these past several years (big years despite not being 100%). That’s obviously the optimistic viewpoint.

  5. Tony 4 years ago

    Good luck to the Bucs on A) thinks $9.75 million is a fair cost for Maholm and B) doesn’t want to
    take the risk of letting Maholm go into the free agent market.”

    Last I checked, 9 million is not the going rate for sucky SPs in the worst division in the inferior league.  Maholm should get 6 million tops.  HE is Jon Garland lite!

  6. Gator4444 4 years ago

    I want the D’Backs to upgrade the lineup so the team doesn’t regress after a great season but nothing makes sense realistically.  Maybe Aramis Ramirez but his defense is terrible and should be a 1st baseman.  With Goldschmidt there and Roberts costing a fraction of the price we’ll probably roll with the same exact lineup.  Not sure how they’ll stack up again.

  7. Gator4444 4 years ago

    I want the D’Backs to upgrade the lineup so the team doesn’t regress after a great season but nothing makes sense realistically.  Maybe Aramis Ramirez but his defense is terrible and should be a 1st baseman.  With Goldschmidt there and Roberts costing a fraction of the price we’ll probably roll with the same exact lineup.  Not sure how they’ll stack up again.

  8. Poor M’s, they really missed out on Santiago. Forget Dustin Ackley

  9. Poor M’s, they really missed out on Santiago. Forget Dustin Ackley

  10. Really interesting BP article, great link. Something i’ve always assumed but never had any numbers to back it up with. I’m gonna go piss off some friends with the first graph.

  11. Really interesting BP article, great link. Something i’ve always assumed but never had any numbers to back it up with. I’m gonna go piss off some friends with the first graph.

  12. JacksTigers 4 years ago

    “Not once, not twice, but thrice…”

    lol

  13.  There’s no way Ellsbury stays with the Sox. He’s still got that sour taste in his mouth from the way he was treated in 2010. Once he’s a free agent, he’s gone.

    • 0bsessions 4 years ago

      Ellsbury’s a Boras guy through and through from a lot of indications. If the money’s in Boston (Which it most certainly will as the only team that can afford to outbid us will be dealing with Cano, Granderson and Hughes hitting free agency that offseason), he’ll stay.

  14. hawkny1 4 years ago

    I would extend Scutaro for another year before signing Reyes to a $100M+ contract.  Besides, the Red Sox have 3 starters capable of stealing 30-50 bases a year, in Pedrois, Crawford and Ellsbury.   Take away Reyes speed and what do you have?

    As for pitching I would move Aceves into the starting rotation before tinkering with the Papelbon/Bard combo as closers.  Assuming the healthy return of Buchholz, and a “dry”, in shape, ready-to-play combo of Beckett and Lester, I would look for a 5th starter from among, Bedard, Miller and Weiland.  As for Lackey, if he cannot contribute as a middle inning reliever, with Albers, then, I say send him down to Pawtucket, if that is possible.  As for Jenks,

  15. hawkny1 4 years ago

    I would extend Scutaro for another year before signing Reyes to a $100M+ contract. Besides, the Red Sox have 3 starters capable of stealing 30-50 bases a year, in Pedroia, Crawford and Ellsbury. Take away Reyes speed and what do you have?  A younger Scutaro.

    As for pitching I would move Aceves into the starting rotation, in the #4 slot,  before tinkering with the Papelbon/Bard combo as closers.

    Assuming the healthy return of Buchholz, and a “dry”, in shape, ready-to-play combo of Beckett and Lester, I would look for a 5th starter from among, Bedard, Miller and Weiland.

    As for Lackey, if he cannot contribute as a middle inning reliever, with Albers, then, I say send him down to Pawtucket, if that is possible. As for Jenks and/or Wheeler, if totally healthy,  I would give them an opportunity to make the club in the spring, but they would have to earn it on the basis of performance, not reputation.  Wakefield has to retire.

    An effective lefty specialist and 2 seventh/eigth inning guys would be my priority over the winter.  Plus, Lavarnway would be my backup catcher with Veritek moving to the coaching staff.

    My biggest concerns are the health status of Youkilis and Lowrie.. when the 2012 season starts.   Otherwise, the key to the 2012 edition of the Red Sox will be the choice of manager made by Ben Cherington, the new GM.

  16. Alex 4 years ago

    Did anyone read the Giants mailbag? Someone suggested that the Giants trade Brian Wilson and Jonathan Sanchez to Boston for Jacoby Ellsbury. I couldn’t help but laugh.

    • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

       not the worst idea i’ve heard.

      probably would need a bit more going to boston, but selling high on ellsbury and moving crawford to cf is probably a sound idea

      • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

        sanchez is not a desirable pitcher – like at all. trading ellsbury might be a fine idea, but that package is definitely not close

        • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

          i said more going boston’s way.. bumgardner? – sanchez= winning.

          • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

            he and wilson would be too much, but i’d definitely do something centered around bumgarner. the giants probably wouldn’t though

          • bayareabeast 4 years ago

            no they wouldn’t

  17. Jeff 4 years ago

    unsure if this is a force trade Button, but how about

    Youkilis and Ellsbury for Tommy Hanson , Derek Lowe (needs to make the salaries match) and Ed O’Flaherty?

    • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

      okay and what do the sox get?

      • notsureifsrs 4 years ago

        fourth place

      • Jeff 4 years ago

        A very good #2 borderline ace starter who is cost-controlled 3 years, possibly the best LOOGY in baseball, and a salary dump.

        • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

          for one of the best young outfielders in baseball?

          sold!

  18. slider32 4 years ago

    The Sox do not need Reyes, they need pitching.  They could take a chance on free agents or trade for a least one starter. Cherrington will have his first chance to put his stamp on this team, possibilities of Ellsbury, Youklis, and some young players like Kalish and Reddick could be good trade bait to get a good pitcher. The Braves and the Rays seem to have the most young pitching, but the Rays might be off limits. Since their is a connection with the Padres,a Latos for Ellisbury trade might be possible, if that happens then Reyes would look more like a possibility.

  19. Ben_Cherington 4 years ago

    Is that the alcoholic drink in our locker room?

  20. Blanketsburg 4 years ago

    I like how that picture was made for Yankees in 2004, and clearly has been edited to say Red Sox. Good attempt at trolling, but you still fail.

  21. chico65 4 years ago

    Got one of those for the Braves, too? Manufacturer’s hometown team and all, you know. 

  22. start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

    Is that you Fantasy_Theo?

  23. notsureifsrs 4 years ago

    (ginger) fail, the actual official soft drink of the red sox

  24. No, it’s the official soft drink of the ’86 Red Sox, U mad?

  25. No, it’s the official soft drink of the ’86 Red Sox, U mad?

  26. johnsilver 4 years ago

    LOL. I knew they were in trouble when those bone head announcers started talking about the price of bread and other rubbish in 1918 with 1 out in the 9th inning, while Schiraldi was crapping hand grenades on the mound.. Pure fate…

  27. johnsilver 4 years ago

    LOL. I knew they were in trouble when those bone head announcers started talking about the price of bread and other rubbish in 1918 with 1 out in the 9th inning, while Schiraldi was crapping hand grenades on the mound.. Pure fate…

  28. Ben_Cherington 4 years ago

    The former :)

Leave a Reply