Marty34

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:41 AM) At no point, has anyone argued that Ozzie should not have allowed his pitchers to throw complete games in the World Series. No one. At any point in this thread. We were arguing the general idea of the "genius," or lack thereof, of having a long hook on starters because greg associated it with Ozzie and his greatness. Wite just said he would have taken the starters out in retrospect, but it's a decision that would not have made any difference.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:33 AM) And this is the problem with skimming. Nobody has said Ozzie got lucky in managing. I have suggested the fact that 4 guys in a row got complete games is lucky. I also said that I would have taken guys out in retrospect, but that it was a decision that ultimately made no difference. Read and comprehend, don't skim and jump to conclusions. The only difference it could have made would be not winning the World Series.

I've skimmed through this thread and I find it funny that people think Guillen "got lucky" managing his staff during the 2005 postseason. Brings me to another point, it seems a lot of people here use "lucky" to describe success that goes against the SABR norm.

How this offseason unfolds (keeping or dealing Quintana) may give a clue about who they think will be available at #3.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 01:21 PM) It could also be the Cardinals were not able to pick up the money. Ramirez is worth his contract to the White Sox. My God, you are the guy saying pick up BJ Upton, eat half his contract, and see what kind of prospect you can get. You also want Uggla. Then say Ramirez's contract is a probelm? Your trolling has gotten out of hand. OTOH, I do find it funny a guy who a lot of posters seem to think has to go, they think is a great piece for other teams to acquire. Able or willing? Big difference.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 12:34 PM) No, I brought them up to show the supposed asking price by Hahn was quite high. And the Cardinals disagreed with that price.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 12:24 PM) Hah! Your argument was that the Cardinals didn't think highly of Alexei. Nothing you have said (or actually know) can back that up. The fact that they were rumored to be interested in trading for him would belie your statement. You brought up Wacha and Martinez to I guess show Ramirez's value.

Matters not, per Heyman the Cardinals never offered Martinez for Ramirez.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 11:45 AM) What does our opinion of him matter? We weren't the ones negotiating the trade. There are a lot of folks on here who follow prospects very closely.

There are numerous ways the Sox can go about this rebuilding and that's a big point in their favor. I think we'll find out which way they are going by what they do with Quintana and/or Santiago.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 11:18 AM) That has nothing to do with the statement you made which I took issue with. All we know is that the rumored asking price was one or more players that showed some dynamic stuff in the Postseason. To say that that results in the conclusion that the Cardinals didn't think much of Alexei is simply wrong. Carlos Martinez wasn't thought very highly of (on this board) when the rumor appeared.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 10:43 AM) Because they weren't gonna give up Carlos Martinez in return. Hahn didn't have to trade Ramirez, so you shoot for the moon and if they don't meet your price then you move on. I recall reading on this board posters wanting more than Martinez.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 11:05 AM) Did you see Michael Wacha and Carlos Martinez in the postseason? Did you see Kozma?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 09:27 AM) Oh? So what were the various proposals passed back and forth? At the end of the day, the Cardinals stuck with Peter Kozma.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 09:17 AM) That's not an informed opinion. Sure it is.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 3, 2013 -> 01:00 AM) 20 mill for an above average ss, awful problem to have. Teams like the Cardinals didn't think much of Ramirez at the deadline.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 09:01 PM) Nope. I didn't complain about anything, but I did offer suggestions for higher-priority complaints than Beckham. And with regard to Ramirez, rather than in a vacuum, I specifically put the issue in context of his $9.5 million paycheck. Does the combination of his good [if increasingly error-prone] defense at short and his lacking offense warrant $9.5 million? You're right the Beckham talk provides cover for Ramirez who is the bigger problem. He's owed $20M, you're not going to win anything with him and he has less trade value than Beckham.

Because he was on the bench for the last two games of the World Series, I think Salty's price could drop into a comfortable range for the Sox on say a 3-year deal.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) You keep adding pieces that will give you long term success. A 30 year old, injury prone, $20M a year speedster isn't one of those pieces IMO. This is absolutely true. It would be the very rare instance that I'd be for dealing with Boras' free agents. He uses protracted negotiations to gain leverage, telling teams they are still in the bidding for his client as every other free agent is snapped up. It then becomes either you get the Boras client or you get nothing, just what he wants.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 11:03 AM) I know, how dumb was it for the Red Sox to hold on to Lester and Ortiz? F***ing failures, absolutely guaranteed them 120 losses in 2013. Never thought you'd advocate keeping Beckham, but here it is.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 02:21 AM) This is where I think you're crazy again. Ellsbury is a 6 win player just on his own. I honestly think just adding Ellsbury and excluding any surplus value the Sox get from Abreu to Konerko makes the Sox an 80 win team. Ellsbury does so.much.right that it'd he hard for the Sox to lose. He's still a great, great player. Ellsbury is 30 y.o., fragile, and going to be owed north of $150M, 80 wins is likely a high point for the Sox during the Ellsbury contract. Boras' contracts have a high rate of albatross.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 2, 2013 -> 08:34 AM) No, no. We lose 120 games for 5 straight years to accumulate loads of talent, while trading off all major leaguers. Then whammo, we win 120 and the world series. It is simple really. You're advocating keeping major leaguers from a 99-loss team? That's a certain path to a 120 losses.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 10:08 PM) How is adding Jacoby Ellsbury, the 2011 MVP* and nearly 6 WAR player last year going to push this team further from a championship? How does he have little upside? That's just stupid. You're stuck in what guys did in the past. Ellsbury doesn't win the Sox anything, he might get them back to 80 wins. Money wasted.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 1, 2013 -> 03:05 PM) Catcher is first, second, and third on that list. If they don't come up with some sort of constituency plan at catcher this offseason, even with Abreu signed, it's a complete failure. You can't count on Flowers or Phegley. If nothing else, bring another catching prospect into the system, even if it means trading Santiago or even Quintana for one. The system has quite a few infielders right now with quite a few of them likely capable of covering 3B if necessary. They have 3 capable outfielders and could look to bring in more. For all intents and purposes, they have zilch for catchers right now. I don't think it's a good idea to to use Santiago or Quintana to get a catcher. Any trade involving those two has to bring back the best hitter possible 26 or under regardless of position. Santiago and Quintana are the best trade chips we have they need to be maximized.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Oct 31, 2013 -> 05:38 PM) What's the difference between signing a free agent this year or next year ? If we sign someone like Ellsbury this year will he not be on next years team ? Still have to plug the holes we have to compete eventually so if it's a good piece take care of it now. Everyone talks about stockpiling draft picks but I hardly hear anything about when exactly the Sox should be able to compete and how the holes are going to be filled. All I hear is " no don't want him. too old, we won't compete next year , we're building for the future, don't want to give up the draft picks etc. Holes have to be filled somehow. Maybe we can pick up a Kendrick ,Boujros or Lawrie in trades bringing us a lot closer to competing much sooner and Ellsbury might be the final piece to that puzzle. If we don't attempt to get any more free agents this year what happens if we try for some next year and we don't get them ? Now I hear a lot of sign guys to 1 year deals to trade them for more minor leaguers at the deadline. That's all well and good but with our young quality starters how long can we actually do that and when do we decide to go for it again ? Acquiring Kendrick, Bourjos, and Ellsbury, would push this team further from a championship. Very little upside to those three.