I remember a few years ago everybody was drooling over a kid named Pedro Alvarez, who I believe wound up being drafted second overall that year. How many would have liked to "Tank for Alvarez?"

We think alike. Finally.

It's likely the Sox would lose a lot more games if/when they trade Quintana, Robertson, Gonzalez, etc. and if they do, I'd be OK with those losses so long as they got good returns for those players that will help them win in the future.

 

But even so, I would still root for them to win every game rather than root for them to lose just so they could get a higher slot in the draft which doesn't guarantee them winding up with the best players anyway.

 

Just win.

No one enjoys a loss. You are OK with the losses because it helps in the greater goal of resetting things. It increases the odds.

Speaking for yourself? I can accept that. Some fans do enjoy a loss, that's what pisses me off in reading the threads. They are actively wanting losses and long losing streaks, etc. If you are 'OK' with the losses, fine. I disagree that "no one enjoys a loss." Read some of the threads.

 

As far as your last line, that's what I don't understand. I don't care about the odds. What about the pedro alvarez example? He's as highly touted as this Beer guy. There are no guarantees.

I do understand the theory the loss lovers are going by. Believe me I do. I see no reason for throwing away six months of your life wanting your team to lose. If that's not your position and you are just 'ok' with the losses, good for you. Some people, and they can admit it now if they like, actively are wanting L after L after L. I think it's just ridiculous when you have examples of Trout and Alvarez staring you in the face showing you how uncertain the draft can be.

And in the NBA Odom and Embiid (if he continues to be hurt). There are no guarantees baby. But a W guarantees me happiness during the W and every moment after the W until the next game begins.

But to Greg's point, if they just drafted Trout instead of Mitchell (just hit #14), no rebuild would have been necessary.

 

Or signed Miguel Sano the same year the A's paid almost twice as much to Michael Ynoa.

 

Mike Trout has all of zero playoff wins, so there still might have been a rebuild even with Trout. This isn't the NBA

 

Mike Trout has all of zero playoff wins, so there still might have been a rebuild even with Trout. This isn't the NBA

Then I guess most would have wanted to trade Trout in that scenario, cause Sale is the pitching version of Trout and the majority did handstands of joy after shipping him.

Then I guess most would have wanted to trade Trout in that scenario, cause Sale is the pitching version of Trout and the majority did handstands of joy after shipping him.

 

Sigh

Sigh

Why the sigh? I see it as the same scenario.

Why the sigh? I see it as the same scenario.

 

Trading Chris Sale was the right thing for this team.

Trading Chris Sale was the right thing for this team.

Yes but you sighed at the Trout comparison. It's easy to see the value in other team's players but as I said Sale is the pitching version of Trout. A true phenom.

But in the same scenario would we have traded Trout? The answer is "yes" if you are going by the same philosophy of rebuild that the Sox are apparently embracing. You know guys like me wanted to keep Sale and buy free agents and make the usual tinkering trades to fill holes. We'd have had Sale and Q starting in a year Avi is breaking loose to go with stars in Abreu and Anderson (I didn't mean Frazier for gosh sakes) and a bullpen that until recently seemed decent. Could we have won a s***ty Central Division? Hmmm..... Some of us wanted to try things with a manager who had a clue, somebody besides Robin (great player; bad manager).

Edited May 21, 20178 yr by greg775

If Sale and Eaton stayed and the Sox stayed in go-for-it mode, Avisail would probably be in a different uniform right now.

Yes but you sighed at the Trout comparison. It's easy to see the value in other team's players but as I said Sale is the pitching version of Trout. A true phenom.

But in the same scenario would we have traded Trout? The answer is "yes" if you are going by the same philosophy of rebuild that the Sox are apparently embracing. You know guys like me wanted to keep Sale and buy free agents and make the usual tinkering trades to fill holes. We'd have had Sale and Q starting in a year Avi is breaking loose to go with stars in Abreu and Anderson (I didn't mean Frazier for gosh sakes) and a bullpen that until recently seemed decent. Could we have won a s***ty Central Division? Hmmm..... Some of us wanted to try things with a manager who had a clue, somebody besides Robin (great player; bad manager).

 

Been there, done that unsuccessfully too many times.

Edited May 21, 20178 yr by soxfan2014

If Sale and Eaton stayed and the Sox stayed in go-for-it mode, Avisail would probably be in a different uniform right now.

 

This^ he woulda been replaced by anyone.

So I guess they're waiting until the deal with Robert is finalized before talking about it in a game broadcast. Haven't heard anything today or yesterday from our commentators.

So I guess they're waiting until the deal with Robert is finalized before talking about it in a game broadcast. Haven't heard anything today or yesterday from our commentators.

 

They talked a lot about it on pregame last night

lets us score some baseball points

Todd took a cookie 3-1

This^ he woulda been replaced by anyone.

Why? Avi isn't making any money. He, Eaton and Melkster woulda been the outfield. Don't worry. I'm out. Off to church, 5 pm Sunday.

Edited May 21, 20178 yr by greg775

Nice Yolmer

two baseball points!

Why? Avi isn't making any money. He, Eaton and Melkster woulda been the outfield.

 

Weren't you the one arguing about a month back saying all they needed was a catcher, a DH and another OF? That would replace Avi.

Rocket RBI for Timmy

three baseball points!

Tim with the KC special

Vogelbach butchered that

37 mph exit velocity