|
Post by pedroiaesque on Jul 31, 2017 10:08:55 GMT -5
lBest part of the deal may be that it increases the odds of Fister being DFA'd. I don't normally bag on a struggling player, but if we could trade three minor league pitchers to just get rid of Fister, then it's a win.
|
|
|
Post by mannofsteele on Jul 31, 2017 10:14:40 GMT -5
A decent value bet, however I still have concerns on getting a lefty who can get lefties out. Everything is too right handed as our relievers go. Reed definitely was a nice get.
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Jul 31, 2017 10:19:02 GMT -5
I look at trading Bautista the way I looked at Espinosa: great arms that aren't close are worth selling for arms that are here. Callahan wasn't going to be on the team this year, is Rule 5 (with other similar arms). Nogosek might end up being a decent reliever, but, well, might. The other question to me is, does this trade hurt the Sox making an impact trade now or in the next year? I don't think so. They kept any centerpiece, and they have other secondary pieces (Buttrey types) they could package in a similar way. I hear what you're saying. My main problem of your last sentence is that while we in theory have some pieces for a trade in the offseason, we continue to trade away future trade bait and depth for marginal upgrades. Having a few low-cost arms in AAA who can give some positive innings in the bigs is important, and you never know if one of these guys can become gems.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 10:19:56 GMT -5
That's a very good trade! I thought we would need to include someone better. Love it!!
Gotta laugh at the guy that wanted to trade Chavis for a reliever thinking this is a lot. I love a buyers market.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jul 31, 2017 10:20:29 GMT -5
Okay, initial take: Callahan being the best piece to get Reed is fine - giving up quantity instead of quality is the tradeoff here. On the other hand, it's yet ANOTHER three-for-one trade for a reliever. I'd have been a lot happier with this if they could've gotten this done with a weaker second piece than Nogosek, or if it had just been the top two. EDIT: This is a good trade for the Mets. I understand where you're coming from, but not all 3 pieces are the same right. I'm by no means an expert on any of those, but it seems like they traded 3 pieces that border on irrelevancy. Let's be realistic here, Callahan and Nogosek have basically no chance at ever becoming nearly as good as Reed and they have 0 chance to be a considerable piece in a deal elsewhere. It fills a hole because this was a role being played by Matt Barnes. Think about it this way, they traded for a guy who had a FIP of 1.97 a year ago and is still very good this year. I know he's a rental, but asking for the second piece in a deal for him to be weaker than a 22 year old reliever with mediocre to bad numbers in A+ is just not realistic man.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jul 31, 2017 10:22:17 GMT -5
I'm OK with it...but this working is still incumbent on our bats waking up and the black holes filling back in. Giving up less runs but continuing to suck at hitting...not a winning recipe ....and hey - three prospects will now get to be elevated to fill in the gaps so they will have their pictures on the top prospects pages!
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 31, 2017 10:26:34 GMT -5
I'm OK with it...but this working is still incumbent on our bats waking up and the black holes filling back in. Giving up less runs but continuing to suck at hitting...not a winning recipe ....and hey - three prospects will now get to be elevated to fill in the gaps so they will have their pictures on the top prospects pages! Which we can then trade in a few hours for a bat.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 31, 2017 10:32:37 GMT -5
That's a very good trade! I thought we would need to include someone better. Love it!! Gotta laugh at the guy that wanted to trade Chavis for a reliever thinking this is a lot. I love a buyers market. What is this even supposed to mean? Check with Hatfield and James Dunne. They both said the same thing. It was a bit much for the price of admission but it's a deal you can live with. I don't know why you got to make things personal. I know you were directing your quotes towards me. No need for that junk.
|
|
|
Post by despo19 on Jul 31, 2017 10:39:48 GMT -5
Yeah either Fister is DFA'd after today or Noe Ramirez is DFA'd to make room on the 40 man roster imo. Robbie Scott sent down if Noe is DFA'd, like Eric mentioned. Hopefully they'll DFA Fister and let Brian Johnson fill in for Price. He has looked much better than Fister all year, I don't understand why they don't at least let him show his stuff so they can trade him in the offseason if they're not gonna use him full time
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 31, 2017 10:40:55 GMT -5
Yeah either Fister is DFA'd after today or Noe Ramirez is DFA'd to make room on the 40 man roster imo. Robbie Scott sent down if Noe is DFA'd, like Eric mentioned. Hopefully they'll DFA Fister and let Brian Johnson fill in for Price. He has looked much better than Fister all year, I don't understand why they don't at least let him show his stuff so they can trade him in the offseason if they're not gonna use him full time Brian Johnson is out with shoulder issues. It would be Velazquez who would get the starts if Price doesn't come back soon.
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Jul 31, 2017 10:42:56 GMT -5
Yeah either Fister is DFA'd after today or Noe Ramirez is DFA'd to make room on the 40 man roster imo. Robbie Scott sent down if Noe is DFA'd, like Eric mentioned. Hopefully they'll DFA Fister and let Brian Johnson fill in for Price. He has looked much better than Fister all year, I don't understand why they don't at least let him show his stuff so they can trade him in the offseason if they're not gonna use him full time Beeks has to be added at some point. Why not give him a shot at a spot start?
|
|
|
Post by despo19 on Jul 31, 2017 10:45:00 GMT -5
Hopefully they'll DFA Fister and let Brian Johnson fill in for Price. He has looked much better than Fister all year, I don't understand why they don't at least let him show his stuff so they can trade him in the offseason if they're not gonna use him full time Brian Johnson is out with shoulder issues. It would be Velazquez who would get the starts if Price doesn't come back soon. Oh shoot, I forgot about that. I wouldn't mind Velazquez coming back up, he's got a good presence on the mound
|
|
|
Post by despo19 on Jul 31, 2017 10:46:00 GMT -5
Hopefully they'll DFA Fister and let Brian Johnson fill in for Price. He has looked much better than Fister all year, I don't understand why they don't at least let him show his stuff so they can trade him in the offseason if they're not gonna use him full time Beeks has to be added at some point. Why not give him a shot at a spot start? No room for Beeks on the 40 man right now
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 31, 2017 10:48:43 GMT -5
Hopefully they'll DFA Fister and let Brian Johnson fill in for Price. He has looked much better than Fister all year, I don't understand why they don't at least let him show his stuff so they can trade him in the offseason if they're not gonna use him full time Beeks has to be added at some point. Why not give him a shot at a spot start? They could give Beeks a shot at either relief or starting at some point. Noe Ramirez is bound to get DFA'd at some point along with Fister soon.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 31, 2017 10:49:24 GMT -5
I mean I wouldn't consider this a steal, but I am certainly not upset over it. I guess I'm more concerned that we didn't get a bat (yet) and that the 3 pieces we gave up could have helped us get a bat, rather than any spilled milk over losing the prospects themselves. I can see this deal being good for both sides. If I were the Mets, I'd probably have preferred to get 1 better prospect than 3 ok ones, but if I'm the Red Sox, I'd prefer to give up 3 ok ones than 1 better one, so at least there's that.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 31, 2017 10:51:33 GMT -5
The Sox also have to give Carson Smith his 40 man roster spot when he comes back also. So someone else will have to get DFA'd too if they wanted to add Beeks. My guess would be Josh Rutledge.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 10:53:08 GMT -5
That's a very good trade! I thought we would need to include someone better. Love it!! Gotta laugh at the guy that wanted to trade Chavis for a reliever thinking this is a lot. I love a buyers market. What is this even supposed to mean? Check with Hatfield and James Dunne. They both said the same thing. It was a bit much for the price of admission but it's a deal you can live with. I don't know why you got to make things personal. I know you were directing your quotes towards me. No need for that junk. I don't have to check with anyone or jump on someone else's bandwagon. This was a great trade. That means that anyone that wanted to trade Chavis for a reliever, should think this is a great trade! It's that simple. Yes, it was towards you. No one else thought we should trade a guy that's starting to show up on top 100 and top 105 lists for a reliever but you!
|
|
|
Post by despo19 on Jul 31, 2017 10:58:28 GMT -5
What is this even supposed to mean? Check with Hatfield and James Dunne. They both said the same thing. It was a bit much for the price of admission but it's a deal you can live with. I don't know why you got to make things personal. I know you were directing your quotes towards me. No need for that junk. I don't have to check with anyone or jump on someone else's bandwagon. This was a great trade. That means that anyone that wanted to trade Chavis for a reliever, should think this is a great trade! It's that simple. Yes, it was towards you. No one else thought we should trade a guy that's starting to show up on top 100 and top 105 lists for a reliever but you! That's not true. Many people thought that the number of teams interested in Reed would drive the price up to a package built around a top 10 prospect like Chavis or Ockimey
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Jul 31, 2017 10:58:52 GMT -5
What is this even supposed to mean? Check with Hatfield and James Dunne. They both said the same thing. It was a bit much for the price of admission but it's a deal you can live with. I don't know why you got to make things personal. I know you were directing your quotes towards me. No need for that junk. I don't have to check with anyone or jump on someone else's bandwagon. This was a great trade. That means that anyone that wanted to trade Chavis for a reliever, should think this is a great trade! It's that simple. Yes, it was towards you. No one else thought we should trade a guy that's starting to show up on top 100 and top 105 lists for a reliever but you! I don't think that the original comment is as much an argument about the trade as it was to point out the gratuitousness of the mention. In other words, you can support the trade without rubbing anyone else's nose in it. And please remember that opinions are not only subjective, but also work both ways.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 11:10:37 GMT -5
I don't have to check with anyone or jump on someone else's bandwagon. This was a great trade. That means that anyone that wanted to trade Chavis for a reliever, should think this is a great trade! It's that simple. Yes, it was towards you. No one else thought we should trade a guy that's starting to show up on top 100 and top 105 lists for a reliever but you! I don't think that the original comment is as much an argument about the trade as it was to point out the gratuitousness of the mention. In other words, you can support the trade without rubbing anyone else's nose in it. And please remember that opinions are not only subjective, but also work both ways. This trade doesn't need to be debated or argued about. It's crystal clear that it was a great trade. If you want to speak for him answer me this? How is Wilson for Chavis a good trade and this trade for Reed isn't a grand slam ? Chavis could be in Boston next year helping the Red Sox in a big way fill there need for power. The players we traded wouldn't have. Don't make crazy trade offers if you can't live with a little criticism !
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 11:15:59 GMT -5
I don't have to check with anyone or jump on someone else's bandwagon. This was a great trade. That means that anyone that wanted to trade Chavis for a reliever, should think this is a great trade! It's that simple. Yes, it was towards you. No one else thought we should trade a guy that's starting to show up on top 100 and top 105 lists for a reliever but you! That's not true. Many people thought that the number of teams interested in Reed would drive the price up to a package built around a top 10 prospect like Chavis or Ockimey I was the one that made that post and Chavis and Ockimey were never mentioned! I brought up Dalbec name. Show me the posts you are referring to? Looking at the Market Chavis for Reed was never going to happen unless our GM was a moron! Edit- Nevermind the post that I brought up Dalbec name was for Bruce and Reed, with Mets eating money or taking back Young. Not just for Reed.
|
|
|
Post by doctorduck21 on Jul 31, 2017 11:17:07 GMT -5
While all three have potential to be good relievers. I don't think this is too high a price to pay. I was hoping Nogosek would stay with the Sox, that's because I'm an Oregon fan more then his upside. There all three middle relief types to me
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 31, 2017 11:19:05 GMT -5
What is this even supposed to mean? Check with Hatfield and James Dunne. They both said the same thing. It was a bit much for the price of admission but it's a deal you can live with. I don't know why you got to make things personal. I know you were directing your quotes towards me. No need for that junk. I don't have to check with anyone or jump on someone else's bandwagon. This was a great trade. That means that anyone that wanted to trade Chavis for a reliever, should think this is a great trade! It's that simple. Yes, it was towards you. No one else thought we should trade a guy that's starting to show up on top 100 and top 105 lists for a reliever but you! Of course you can't jump on someone else's bandwagon when you think you're always right. No one could of known the actual package it would of took unless you were Dombrowski yourself. Your arrogance is really insulting. I'm sure the Mets asked for Chavis at some point and came off it and settled for less.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 31, 2017 11:22:44 GMT -5
I don't have to check with anyone or jump on someone else's bandwagon. This was a great trade. That means that anyone that wanted to trade Chavis for a reliever, should think this is a great trade! It's that simple. Yes, it was towards you. No one else thought we should trade a guy that's starting to show up on top 100 and top 105 lists for a reliever but you! Of course you can't jump on someone else's bandwagon when you think you're always right. No one could of known the actual package it would of took unless you were Dombrowski yourself. Your arrogance is really insulting. I'm sure the Mets asked for Chavis at some point and came off it and settled for less. Nothing more than common sense! You can read the market. Just look at the trades that were being made. Reports after reports that it was a buyers market. This year was the exact opposite of last year. Very simple. Edit- I have my own opinions and don't need anyone else to believe them. Unlike a ton of posters on here.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 31, 2017 11:24:39 GMT -5
Of course you can't jump on someone else's bandwagon when you think you're always right. No one could of known the actual package it would of took unless you were Dombrowski yourself. Your arrogance is really insulting. I'm sure the Mets asked for Chavis at some point and came off it and settled for less. Nothing more than common sense! You can read the market. Just look at the trades that were being made. Reports after reports that it was a buyers market. This year was the exact opposite of last year. Very simple. One trade doesn't preclude another. The Cubs just paid 2 top 100 prospects for a reliever. That isn't exactly a buyers market. It's not simple. It isn't at all.
|
|