SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Aug 1, 2013 20:29:18 GMT -5
That is just an ignorant statement. So if Hernandez could still play football you would root for him since him being a psycho is irrelevant to playing football? Stupid argument. We saw the last couple years how a few "bad eggs" can effect a team. I was not saying that is the reason they should get rid of him, but if they have to get rid of Lackey or Dempster and IMO the talent is about the same, you would then look at that off field behavior (and his higher salary) as points against him. Seriously? Yours is the ignorant statement. He never mentioned criminal activity. He simply addressed & refuted your point. If Lackey is so bad, what about Tek and Ortiz? Are you calling for Ortiz to be traded, too? You are digging a bigger and bigger hole by talking out both sides of your mouth. And I bet you'd love FIP if it supported your argument instead of refuted it. Cheating on your wife is sucky, cheating on her while she is going through cancer treatment is a whole new level. That's despicable. And no, FIP is just a bad stat. It doesn't truly equate the amount of runs a pitcher gives up.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 1, 2013 20:30:45 GMT -5
By the way Ortiz's wife filed for divorce from him - widely publicized that Tek wasn't faithful and his wife divorced him as a result. Lacey actually divorced his wife, not the other way around. All this is just stupid talk anyways as its irrelevant to playing baseball. If ou want everyone you root for to have high morals, you better stop watching sports. That is just an ignorant statement. So if Hernandez could still play football you would root for him since him being a psycho is irrelevant to playing football? Stupid argument. We saw the last couple years how a few "bad eggs" can effect a team. I was not saying that is the reason they should get rid of him, but if they have to get rid of Lackey or Dempster and IMO the talent is about the same, you would then look at that off field behavior (and his higher salary) as points against him. So you take the most extreme example possible to show that we can only sign a bunch of boy scouts? 1. Lackey's teammates have consistently come out and said what a good teammate he is. 2. Lackey worked is butt off after Tommy John - coming back this year in the best shape of his life. 3. Lackey divorced his wife for reasons that none of us really know - nor should we - because it DOESN'T MATTER!! So now that we've established that John Lackey is not actually this monster you portray him to be... 4. It doesn't even matter! There are players that are total pricks, cheat on their wives, don't talk to the media, etc. on virtually every winning team in every sport ever. rjp313jr mentioned a couple examples. This is completely relevant when you try to claim these things matter. So now that we've established that these issues don't matter (not that this matters, because it isn't true anyways...): 5. Lackey has two years left at a total of $15.75M (thats less than $8M per year average) and is 35 years old. Dempster has one year left at $13.25M and is 37. So now that we've established that Lackey has the more favorable contract: 6. they are incredibly far in talent. So now that we've established that Lackey is the better pitcher... What?
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Aug 1, 2013 20:31:29 GMT -5
Re: Lackey, lots of random reports that he's a pretty good athlete. I think that may bode well for his aging. Clearly I'm more optimistic regarding his future than I had been.
Also... two of the crazier things I saw in this thread 1) Buchholz's existence means trade away all the depth? How's that working out this year? And 2) If Ranaudo comes up and is lights out you take your young, cheap, good pitcher and trade him away? Why exactly?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 1, 2013 20:33:37 GMT -5
Cheating on your wife is sucky, cheating on her while she is going through cancer treatment is a whole new level. That's despicable. Sure is. Doesn't make him a bad baseball player. By the way, with your high moral standards, I'm assuming you don't want drunk drivin' Drake on the team either, right?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 1, 2013 20:34:48 GMT -5
Or laptop stealing, porn star marrying Clay Buchholz. Can't forget about him...
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Aug 1, 2013 20:35:26 GMT -5
That is just an ignorant statement. So if Hernandez could still play football you would root for him since him being a psycho is irrelevant to playing football? Stupid argument. We saw the last couple years how a few "bad eggs" can effect a team. I was not saying that is the reason they should get rid of him, but if they have to get rid of Lackey or Dempster and IMO the talent is about the same, you would then look at that off field behavior (and his higher salary) as points against him. So you take the most extreme example possible to show that we can only sign a bunch of boy scouts? 1. Lackey's teammates have consistently come out and said what a good teammate he is. 2. Lackey worked is butt off after Tommy John - coming back this year in the best shape of his life. 3. Lackey divorced his wife for reasons that none of us really know - nor should we - because it DOESN'T MATTER!! So now that we've established that John Lackey is not actually this monster you portray him to be... 4. It doesn't even matter! There are players that are total pricks, cheat on their wives, don't talk to the media, etc. on virtually every winning team in every sport ever. rjp313jr mentioned a couple examples. This is completely relevant when you try to claim these things matter. So now that we've established that these issues don't matter (not that this matters, because it isn't true anyways...): 5. Lackey has two years left at a total of $15.75M (thats less than $8M per year average) and is 35 years old. Dempster has one year left at $13.25M and is 37. So now that we've established that Lackey has the more favorable contract: 6. www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2013&month=0&season1=2013&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=1507,517 So now that we've established that Lackey is the better pitcher... What? Anyone remember chicken and beer? Anyway, the Lackey off field stuff was my way of a tie-breaker. It isn't a huge deal in itself, but if you gotta make a choice, all things get considered. That's a more favorable contract if you want him for 2015 and think he will be decent. I would rather trade him and get what I can for him, which will be more than Dempster. Go with Dempster for 2014, and by 2015 you hope that some of the young arms are ready. Yes Lackey is better this SEASON. We are talking about NEXT season.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 1, 2013 20:38:21 GMT -5
Lackeys Era from 2005-2010 + 2013 is 3.61
This is the most indicative of who he is. Before 2005, he was young and developing and in 2011 he was incredibly injured. Truthfully, 2010 is an anomaly too as he was already injured but we'll keep it to not cause issues.
That's a damn good pitcher and its exactly what you've seen and gotten this year.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 1, 2013 20:38:33 GMT -5
You are insufferable. If you can't see how wrong you are at this point then you have blinders on.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 1, 2013 20:38:44 GMT -5
Or laptop stealing, porn star marrying Clay Buchholz. Can't forget about him... Say what you will about Lackey's '11, he was pitching on a shredded elbow (which probably wasn't in good shape in '10, either). Meanwhile Clay misses the better part of a season with an injured... nothing.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Aug 1, 2013 20:39:01 GMT -5
Whether you agree with me or not, I think Lackey and Dempster are going to have very similar seasons next year. So in my eyes, you have player A and B and can only keep one. They will produce the same for you, but one has off field issues in the past, including being a part of a major clubhouse problem a few years ago and the other one has none of that.
Which would you trade?
Has nothing to do with a moral high horse or not wanting players with issues on the team, if I thought he was a much better player than Dempster for next season then it would be irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Aug 1, 2013 20:39:33 GMT -5
Wade Boggs, Ted Williams, Roger Clemens the list goes on and on and on - how you can you stand being a Sox fan
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Aug 1, 2013 20:40:47 GMT -5
I can't wait to revisit this in a year when both guys have an ERA around 4.4 and a WHIP around 1.4
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 1, 2013 20:42:04 GMT -5
There is no reasonable argument that Lackey and Dempster will be similar pitchers next year other than the "because I said so" argument you are giving.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 1, 2013 20:47:01 GMT -5
Why can't you keep both?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 1, 2013 20:47:12 GMT -5
At this point all points have been made. Lets end it. Any further posts will be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by psusox14 on Aug 1, 2013 21:45:46 GMT -5
By the way Ortiz's wife filed for divorce from him - widely publicized that Tek wasn't faithful and his wife divorced him as a result. Lacey actually divorced his wife, not the other way around. All this is just stupid talk anyways as its irrelevant to playing baseball. If ou want everyone you root for to have high morals, you better stop watching sports. That is just an ignorant statement. So if Hernandez could still play football you would root for him since him being a psycho is irrelevant to playing football? Stupid argument. We saw the last couple years how a few "bad eggs" can effect a team. I was not saying that is the reason they should get rid of him, but if they have to get rid of Lackey or Dempster and IMO the talent is about the same, you would then look at that off field behavior (and his higher salary) as points against him. Pretty sure lackey is one of the most beloved guys in the clubhouse.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 2, 2013 7:49:56 GMT -5
Let's say it's August 31st. Peavy has looked ok. Nothing special. But, ok. Buchholz has pitched a couple of starts and looks good. You put Dempster on waivers? If someone claimed him, would you pull him back? I'm thinking the Dodgers.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Aug 2, 2013 8:32:47 GMT -5
Yes you pull Dempster back? Give one good reason not to have him around the rest of the year?
Rosters expand in September
He doesn't have to be on the post season roster
I bet they would love to see how he look out of the pen so a playoff preview and 2014 preview.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Aug 2, 2013 9:06:18 GMT -5
I think all 6 current starters will be available to be talked about.
It is early to speculate on who it will be, but if they're trying to have the best staff, Dempster gets moved. If they're trying for a big return, I could see Felix/Lester being moved in a bigger deal.
Whatever happens, BC has an incredible amount of assets at his disposal, especially with Peavy/Lester almost guaranteed to get QO's after next year. It's a envious spot to be in.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 2, 2013 9:36:29 GMT -5
At this point all points have been made. Lets end it. Any further posts will be deleted. I've deleted a bunch of posts. If things don't improve, I will lock the thread.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 2, 2013 9:43:38 GMT -5
Yes you pull Dempster back? Give one good reason not to have him around the rest of the year? Rosters expand in September He doesn't have to be on the post season roster I bet they would love to see how he look out of the pen so a playoff preview and 2014 preview. Would you rather have 12.5m to spend or Dempster for 2014? I'd take the 12.5m. I don't want to pay him that much to be a set-up guy. In September we can call up; Beato, Wilson, Dela Torre, Morales. Don't see much of a need for Dempster. Doubront moves into the pen for the playoffs. I just don't see a spot for him. If Peavy is looking better.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Aug 2, 2013 9:54:26 GMT -5
Doesn't Peavy have a player option for 2015?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 2, 2013 10:08:42 GMT -5
Peavy only gets a player option if he pitches 400 innings in 2013 and 2014, which (due to his injury this year) is just about impossible.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Aug 2, 2013 10:12:25 GMT -5
So, moving forward: 2014 SP Boston - Buchholz (R), 7.7M Lester (L), 13M [club option] Peavy (R), 14.5M Lackey (R), 15.25M Dempster (R), 13.25M Doubront (L), 0.6M est. Pawtucket - Webster (R), 40man De La Rosa (R), 40man Ranaudo (R), 40man [assumed] Wright (R), 40man Workman (R), 40man [potential MLB swing-man] Barnes (R) * FA SPs are: Garza, Josh Johnson, Ervin Santana and Hiroki Kuroda
2015 SP [current commitments] Boston - Lackey (R), 0.5M [vested option] Doubront (L), 2M est. Arb1 Buchholz (R), 12M Paw/Bos - Webster (R), 40man De La Rosa (R), 40man Ranaudo (R), 40man [assumed] Wright (R), 40man Workman (R), 40man Barnes (R)
*FA SPs (age) - note: I removed all players with options from this list
Homer Bailey (29) Josh Beckett (35) Kevin Correia (34) Ryan Dempster (38) Edgar Gonzalez (32) Luke Hochevar (31) Jair Jurrjens (29) Kyle Kendrick (30) Clayton Kershaw (27) Aaron Laffey (30) John Lannan (30) Justin Masterson (30) Brandon McCarthy (31) Charlie Morton (31) Jeff Niemann (32) Ross Ohlendorf (32) Felipe Paulino (31) Jake Peavy (34) Clayton Richard (31) Max Scherzer (30) Chris Volstad (28) Carlos Villanueva (31)
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 2, 2013 10:41:19 GMT -5
Re: selling high on Lackey
I understand the logic behind the argument, especially given recent events. Two years of James Shields brought back Wil Myers. One year of Shin-Soo Choo brought back Trevor Bauer. If there's a team willing to buy high on John Lackey and surrender a top-30 prospect, especially one at a position of need and who is almost major-league ready, I would be willing to talk. Say, Dylan Bundy or Mike Zunino or Travis d’Arnaud or Jonathon Singleton. But I don't see that happening, both because there are a limited number of GMs you can rip off (many of whom might be fired this offseason) but also because other GMs know that the Red Sox aren't the Rays or the Athletics who need to sell guys off for salary space and so will be suspicious of making a move. I am certainly not moving Lackey for a B prospect (read: anyone who would not slot into the current SP.com top 10) and am happy holding onto him if noone bowls me over.
|
|
|