Login
ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 312
11/27/09 12:52 PM
TokenWilliams wrote: Sibby - a couple things... 1. the Sox traded a major leaguer for Tek and Lowe so if anything the Sox were Toronto, the sellers, and Seattle was Boston, the aggressor. 2. Stripping the farm for Pedro would be the equivalent of stripping the farm for Felix Hernandez not Halladay. Completley different points in their careers. Yes, Pedro required a big money contract like Roy will, but Pedro was entering his prime, not at the back end of it, best case scenario. Also, Rose and Pavano had not done nearly what Buchholz has done, and their scouting reports weren't as good as Kelly's are so I dont think it's a fair comparison. Scouting has come such a long way since then as far as the reports available to us as fans and to other teams as well. I just think it's silly to strip the farm for Halladay when there are arms available via free agency. Are they as good? No, but Lackey is close enough for me when it allows you to keep your prospects for future use in a trade or for your team and also keep Buchholz who right now is your 3rd starter, looking good and is 5 years away from free agency. 5 years away.
Interact
Posts: 1381
11/27/09 12:59 PM
John Gray Lead Staff Writer SoxProspects.com
Posts: 295
11/27/09 1:42 PM
SexyBanana wrote: I doubt Halladay would strip out farm baren, I also believe you will see us pick up a few draft picks this year, If we think halladay can be a horse for us for 4-5 years if not more. You make a fair deal everyday and twice on sundays
Posts: 673
Veteran Member
Posts: 85
11/27/09 2:33 PM
Sibby Sisti wrote: Token: agree with you against clearing the system of top prospects for Halliday. I was more into defending Dan Duquette, as he did not strip the farm system to acquire key players who, ultimately were responsible for our 2004 World Championship. BTW, it was Pavano and Armas, Jr., not Rose, to Toronto in the Pedro deal.
Token: agree with you against clearing the system of top prospects for Halliday. I was more into defending Dan Duquette, as he did not strip the farm system to acquire key players who, ultimately were responsible for our 2004 World Championship. BTW, it was Pavano and Armas, Jr., not Rose, to Toronto in the Pedro deal.
"I will repeat as Rookie of the Year" - Dustin Pedroia
Posts: 79
11/27/09 2:39 PM
Posts: 555
11/27/09 2:40 PM
Posts: 3043
11/27/09 2:46 PM
Posts: 86
11/27/09 3:01 PM
flap1919 wrote: He seems like the type of pitcher OCD that is going to age well to me. Just my observations but he isn't a guy that relies heavily on velocity. No data to back me up, but a heavy groundball guy from my observations over the years seem to age better than the heavy fly ball guys. I think Halladay's added value to me comes from his ability to consistently go deep into games (and that was already in the AL East) and his ability to potentially start games 1, 4, and 7 in a playoff series. Imagine being able to go Halladay, Beckett, Lester, Halladay, Beckett, Lester, Halladay in a 7 game series. That's why I think CC was so damn valuable to the Yankees this year, he shortned their rotation when they needed it most, pitching depth had been a bit of an achilies heel for the Yankees in the past 7-8 years. Halladay essentially makes it so you only need 1 or 2 relievers a games 90% of his starts. That's especially important when you see how deep into games guys like Dice-K and Buchholz typically don't go. I'm not going to throw out any specific names but I would easily give up 4-5 of the Sox current top 20-30 if guys like Kelly, Westy, and Buchholz aren't included. You give them 1 OF prospect (other than Westy and hopefully Kalish), 1-2 SP (I don't think they trade Tazawa for cultural reasons), 1 SS prospect (Iglesias can't be traded), and 1 C (we still keep 2 of the Wagner/Expisito/Fed-X group), or you could substitute a 1B (we still keep either Lars/Rizzo) for one of the other positions. I think the Sox farms systems strength is how incredibly deep it is. You could pull any 4 or 5 of our guys from 3-30 in the rankings and there is a pretty comparable player a few rankings down at those positions. The question is can they get away with an offer of 4-5 quality guys or is Toronto going to try to hold out for 1-2 of the studs plus a couple spare parts?
Posts: 675
11/27/09 3:32 PM
flap1919 wrote: He seems like the type of pitcher OCD that is going to age well to me. Just my observations but he isn't a guy that relies heavily on velocity. No data to back me up, but a heavy groundball guy from my observations over the years seem to age better than the heavy fly ball guys.
flap1919 wrote: I'm not going to throw out any specific names but I would easily give up 4-5 of the Sox current top 20-30 if guys like Kelly, Westy, and Buchholz aren't included. You give them 1 OF prospect (other than Westy and hopefully Kalish), 1-2 SP (I don't think they trade Tazawa for cultural reasons), 1 SS prospect (Iglesias can't be traded), and 1 C (we still keep 2 of the Wagner/Expisito/Fed-X group), or you could substitute a 1B (we still keep either Lars/Rizzo) for one of the other positions. I think the Sox farms systems strength is how incredibly deep it is. You could pull any 4 or 5 of our guys from 3-30 in the rankings and there is a pretty comparable player a few rankings down at those positions. The question is can they get away with an offer of 4-5 quality guys or is Toronto going to try to hold out for 1-2 of the studs plus a couple spare parts?
Posts: 1384
11/27/09 3:53 PM
Posts: 297
11/27/09 4:21 PM
ive heard halladay-shopping jays like jesus montero of #yanks (plus hughes/joba?) and casey kelly of #redsox (plus buchholz?)
Posts: 91
11/27/09 4:27 PM
SexyBanana wrote: I highly doubt we trade Buch for Halladay. And Toronto is trading one year of Halladay, but we are trading for him with the intention on signing him to a long term deal. Therefore, we would be trading for a long term stay eventually.
Posts: 291
11/27/09 4:43 PM
jdb wrote: I think if they like Kelly as the centerpiece this is a great deal.
Posts: 676
11/27/09 4:51 PM
Posts: 76
11/27/09 5:47 PM
Sibby Sisti wrote: ScottLevison wrote: Bottom line to me: No Buchholz. No Bowden. Period. And since it is now Thanksgiving, let us now give thanks that Dan Duquette is nowhere near the GM's office these days. I shudder to think how much he'd strip-mine the farm system for Halladay. ....like he stripped the farm system for Pedro?
ScottLevison wrote: Bottom line to me: No Buchholz. No Bowden. Period. And since it is now Thanksgiving, let us now give thanks that Dan Duquette is nowhere near the GM's office these days. I shudder to think how much he'd strip-mine the farm system for Halladay.
Posts: 77
11/27/09 5:51 PM
mredsox89 wrote: Nolson20 wrote: ScottLevison wrote: Bottom line to me: No Buchholz. No Bowden. Period. And since it is now Thanksgiving, let us now give thanks that Dan Duquette is nowhere near the GM's office these days. I shudder to think how much he'd strip-mine the farm system for Halladay. No Bowden? Can you care to explain why Michael Bowden would be a hang up in a Roy Halladay deal for you? I'm as big of a fan of Bowden as probably anyone, but if a deal for Halladay was centered around Bowden I would be absolutely thrilled. No way in hell Bowden holds up a deal for Halladay.
Nolson20 wrote: ScottLevison wrote: Bottom line to me: No Buchholz. No Bowden. Period. And since it is now Thanksgiving, let us now give thanks that Dan Duquette is nowhere near the GM's office these days. I shudder to think how much he'd strip-mine the farm system for Halladay. No Bowden? Can you care to explain why Michael Bowden would be a hang up in a Roy Halladay deal for you?
Posts: 3045
11/27/09 6:04 PM
OCD SS wrote: Wait, who are you actually willing to trade for him again?
Posts: 3299
11/27/09 6:14 PM
Posts: 3047
11/27/09 6:40 PM
Share This