Nov
17

Olney on Peavy: Don’t count on it

By

The back-and-forth on Jake Peavy and the Yanks continued today with Buster Olney’s offering up his take on the rumors that just won’t die. According to Olney’s latest blog post on ESPN.com (Insider-only), the Padres and the Yanks probably won’t be consummating a deal anytime soon.

Writes Olney:

he past conversations between the Padres and the Yankees about Jake Peavy never developed into anything that close to being serious, sources say, and it’s highly unlikely the Padres and Yankees will ever get serious about a Peavy deal.

The Yankees are focused almost entirely on adding pitching through free agency, because they won’t have to part with their prospects in a deal. CC Sabathia, Derek Lowe and A.J. Burnett are the Yankees’ targets, and not Peavy.

So, in practice, two things would have to happen before Peavy-to-the-Yankees became serious:

1. A whole bunch of other pursuits would have to end badly.

2. The price on Peavy would have to come down.

I know a lot of Yankee fans would like to see Peavy in pinstripes; I know others who think trading for him would be a bad move. I’d much prefer Peavy over Lowe or Burnett at the right price. I think he represents a better long-term investment and will be a better pitcher over the duration of their respective contracts.

That said, I can understand why the Yanks don’t want to give up the farm for Peavy. I can understand why they’d rather go after the free agents. But if the Yanks sign CC, and the price on Peavy drops, it would be hard to say no to that deal. It might not be accurate for us to seriously evaluate this potential acquisition right now, but things have a funny way of changing in the Hot Stove League.

Categories : Hot Stove League
  • Bill

    If the price comes down to:
    Kennedy, Jackson, Suttle, and Belatances/McAllistor then we better not refuse.

    • Brian

      I don’t know. It’s a negotiating window….I bet the price could be Kennedy and Jackson alone. And it’s Betances.

    • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

      at that price, i’d rather sign Burnett.

      there are deals i would make for Peavy. Kennedy/Jackson/Suttle/Betances is not one of them.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

      “Belatances/McAllistor”

      Bill, they have this thing called “The Internet”. It’s an ever-so useful communication and research tool. It allows you to do all sorts of wonderful things like, for example, look up the names of the players under contract to your organization so that you don’t CONSTANTLY FUCKING MISSPELL THEM OVER AND FUCKING OVER AGAIN. This process of looking up how to spell the names of the players on your own beloved team couldn’t be easier, it takes like 5 seconds.

      I suggest you look into it.

      • Murph1010

        Yikes, overreaction much?

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

          It’s not the first time he’s fucked those two names up in that way. It’s annoying.

          • Steve S

            What if he had proposed Jake PeavEy for BeLANtances, McallistOR, etc..

  • A.D.

    Finally some logic this makes much more sense than the IPK, Igawa, OF not named AJAX of last week

  • http://www.freewebs.com/ps3tf2/ Double-J

    I too would rather have Peavy over Burnett and/or Lowe. However, as the article states, the price would have to be right and other pursuits would have to fail. It can’t hurt to at least get a feel for what the Padres are asking, though I doubt it was that Igawa+ rumor we heard the other day.

  • Reggie C.

    The whole Peavy to ATL scenario is dead in the water unless ATL moves one of Jurrgens, Hanson, or Heyward into this deal. I understand ATL not wanting to move any of the 3, but Escobar + Gorkys + Flowers(?) isn’t going to do it. I think that was the last deal on the offer.

    I understand the Yanks refusing to part with Jackson b/c there’s zero OF depth in the upper minors. But if the Yanks are serious about going 2 deep in the SP pool this off season, then Hughes should be tradeable if you’re getting back Jake Peavy.

    Offer: Hughes, Gardner, and McAllister and hope the Pads’ bite.

    • Reggie C.

      I forgot to add Suttle’s name in the mix. It’ll probably take another player if we’re not including Jackson.

      Hughes, Gardner, McAllister, Suttle.

      • Murph1010

        Take Hughes away and give Ajax and I’m with ya.

  • RobC

    If the “other” deals fall through for the Padres and they need to talk to the Yanks and Angels then one would think the price would be down

  • Dave

    I’ll take Burnett minus a draft pick over Peavy minus several prospects. More or less the same K% & BB% except Burnett is doing it in the AL and is much better at keeping the ball on the ground. Also, for all the Burnett is fragile talk, people seem to be ignoring that Peavy missed time with an elbow injury last season.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

      As much as I dislike the notion of us paying A.J. Burnett, who is capable of leading the league in strikeouts while still posting a WHIP north of 1.5 and going 12-11 with a 4.30 ERA like nobody’s business, I agree with all of this.

      I’d rather overpay Burnett in dollars than part with numerous extremely valuable pieces in a Peavy trade.

      One of the most repeated (and most erroneously referenced) lines of thought about the 2009-20XX Yankees is that we need to get younger and more athletic. (Which we do; it’s erroneously referenced because it’s used to advocate against the signings of certain veteran free agents, but doing so doesn’t hamper our goal of getting younger and more athletic. But I digress.) Well, one thing that truly WILL hamper our ability to get younger and more athletic is trading away handfuls of our young, athletic, near ML-ready talent.

      Even though Peavy is still young, trading for Peavy would harm our “youth movement” much more than signing Burnett would (or standing pat and doing neither), because we’d be ridding ourselves of numerous twentysomethings just to get one twentysomething, instead of keeping the twentysomethings and simply adding one thirtysomething on a 4-6 year deal.

      • RobC

        I agree in principle and the question would be easier if we new who the valuable prospects were.
        However is a future Yankees team going to take the field thinking “we are going to win today because Miranda is playing or because Montero or AJax is playing?
        They will take the field thinking “we are going to win today because CC or Joba or Peavy”is pitching.

  • Tim Q. Mills

    Everyone should remember that the Sox gave up a potential mvp in Hanley Ramirez at their weakest position for a bonafide ace in Beckett and look what its done for them.

    I say give up whoever it takes to get Peavy.

    CC + Peavy = World Series rings

    • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

      i wish you were our GM. your logic is flawless.

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

      Not only is your logic flawless, but Josh Beckett has hardly been the savior the Red Sox envisioned and you seem to think he is. In his one good season, they won the World Series. In the other two seasons, they would have had a better shot at winning with Hanley Ramirez than with Beckett.

      • Tim Q. Mills

        He had 1 year of adjusting then one year of complete regular season and postseason domination which resulted in a world series ring. There is no doubt in my mind he is more valuable to the Sox than Hanley Ramirez “would have” been.

        Beckett postaseason stats with the Sox

        7 games started

        5-0 record

        3.95 era

        1 world series ring

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

          He had one bad year, one good year, and another injured-filled mediocre year in which he was lit up in the ALCS by the Rays. Considering that he played 27 games this year and Hanley played 153 as arguably the best SS at a position where offense is hard to come by, there’s no doubt that Hanley would have been as valuable as Beckett.

          • Tim Q. Mills

            I am ending this debate now since you are bringing up games played. Are you kidding me with that? You’re comparing apples and oranges.

            ps Beckett 1-0 vs the Rays in the ALCS.

            pss 5-0 postseason in 7 starts and a 20 win regular season in 3 seasons.

            What more do you want than that?

            I bet you complain about ARod too.

            • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

              If you don’t recognized games played, then you don’t know how to analyze the game. And I can see by your reliance on wins and losses that you have no clue what you’re talking about. So what if Beckett won a game against Tampa? In the other, he was terrible. But that’s besides the point.

              A short stop hitting .300/.400/.540 is more valuable than a pitcher making 27 starts with an ERA over 4.00.

              Beckett had one good season on the Red Sox and one good postseason on the Red Sox. All of a sudden, he’s God’s gift to baseball. That’s just wrong.

              And clearly you don’t know anything about this site because relatively we don’t complain much about A-Rod around here. But what that has to do with Beckett is well beyond me.

              • Tim Q. Mills

                All I’m saying is it is RIDICULOUS to compare a SS games played to a SP. It’s given that any position player will play more games than a SP so how does that factor in to who is more valuable?

                By your logic, every position player is automatically more valuable than every starting pitcher because they play more games. That makes no sense. Games played is not a factor when comparing a pitcher to a SS. PERIOD.

                I apologize for the Arod crack.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

                  By your logic, every position player is automatically more valuable than every starting pitcher because they play more games. That makes no sense.

                  Actually, yes. Star positions are automatically more valuable than every starting pitcher because they play more games. That’s accepted baseball wisdom at every level of the game and not just from Sabermetricians and your so-called Bill James types. If you asked any GM that — Billy Beane to Theo Epstein to John Schuerholz — that’d all agree on that point.

                • Tim Q. Mills

                  So Melky Cabrera was more valuable than Mariano last year because he played more games? Yeah, that sounds like accepted baseball wisdom to me.

                  And obviously Theo Epstein would agree because HE TRADED HANLEY RAMIREZ FOR JOSH BECKETT.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

                  I see reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. Let me help you: “Star position players…”

                  Is Melky a star position player? No. He can’t even hold down a job on a team without another center field option.

                  And if you asked Theo, he’d probably tell you he regrets that trade. Only Yankee fans think it was a good one for the Red Sox. My very good friends who are Red Sox fans seem to recognize that it wasn’t a very good trade for the Sox.

                • Tim Q. Mills

                  So Hanley Ramirez is more valuable to his team than, say, Cole Hamels and Brad Lidge?

                  Brandon Phillips is more valuable than Johan Santana?

                  Luis Gonzalez was more valuable than Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling when Arizona won the series in 2001?

                  That is complete and utter BS.

                  And Im not going to say what a GM would say about this because I havent spoken to them myself and neither have you. So spare me your hearsay.

                • Dave

                  Probably worth noting that Beckett faced 725 batters last year; Hanley had 693 PAs. Not sure how/if you’d factor in Ramirez’s defense which was more or less league average (+3, ranked 15th).

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

                  And Im not going to say what a GM would say about this because I havent spoken to them myself and neither have you.

                  And you know this how?

                • Tim Q. Mills

                  Go ahead. Give me some quotes you have on this exact topic from GM’s that you have had conversations with.

                  ps Do you not see my point from the previous post?

                  Here’s two more

                  Who was more valuable to the Brewers this year?
                  Prince Fielder or CC Sabathia

                  To the Blue Jays?
                  Vernon Wells or Roy Halladay?

                  Go ahead and answer those 2 questions and the 3 from my previous post.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

                  You’re being dense, and I have better things to do with my time than argue with you. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Feel free to think you’re right.

                • Tim Q. Mills

                  Dude. Just answer those questions. If a star player is automatically more valuable it shouldn’t take that long.

                  Am I crazy? That IS what you said right?

                  1. Fielder or Sabathia
                  2. Wells or Halladay
                  3. Reyes or Santana
                  4. Ramirez or Hamels/Lidge
                  5. Gonzalez or Schilling/Johnson

                  If you don’t answer those I am assuming you have no logic to back up your bold statement.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

                  Briefly, because I really do have to get back to paying attention to class, but I’m not talking about Fielder vs. the best pitcher in the game or a mediocre Wells vs. the best pitcher in the AL.

                  I’m talking about one of the top five players in all of MLB against a pitcher with an overrated reputation based on two postseasons. I’ll grant you that very good starting pitcher is very valuable. Teams need that value to win. But in terms of regular season valuations, a pitcher has to be much better than everyone else to be that valuable.

                  But Josh Beckett, outside of 2007, isn’t in the same class as Sabathia or Halladay for the regular season. Beckett isn’t nearly as valuable or important as Manny was, and he’d have to emerge as a top-flight — as in top one or two or three pitcher in all of baseball — to match Hanley. That’s the more nuanced, logical argument.

                • Tim Q. Mills

                  “Star positions are automatically more valuable than every starting pitcher because they play more games. ”

                  This is what set me off and I’m sticking to my theory that this statement is 100% incorrect.

                  I rest my case.

                  Enjoy your class,

                  Tim Q.

                • Chris

                  Just to clear one thing up, Theo didn’t make the trade for Beckett. That deal was done while he was off in his monkey suit.

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        In the other two seasons, they would have had a better shot at winning with Hanley Ramirez than with Beckett.

        Wrong. Had they never made the trade, Hanley is their starting SS, thus Alex Cora never gets to play. And Alex Cora wins games. Hence, a Beckettless Sox team, even with Hanley, does not win games.

        Plus, you can’t have both HanRam and ManRam on the same team. That’s a no-no.

        • Mike Pop

          But Peter Gammons says both Rams would negate a no no and some way will hit 150 home runs together

    • Mike P

      That was when there were no FA available and Beckett was the best trade option. You ask Epstein if he would do the same deal if Sabathia/Burnett/Lowe/Dempster/Penny/etc. were free agents. I’d be pretty surprised if he agreed! Also, Beckett’s salary was much more manageable.

  • Murph1010

    Dude, step back from the ledge and count to 10…

  • Bill R

    CC, Wang, Peavy, Burnett, Joba!! That’s a 125 win team right there.

    • Mike P

      And a 125 million pitching staff too!

  • JohnC

    Forget Peavy. He doesn’t want to come here. In order to get him, Yanks would have to surrender a big package of prospects, and in addition, give him a large contract extension to entice him to come here. If they have to do that just to get him to come here, then forget it. Odds are he won’t do well here anyway, since his heart won’t be in it.

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

      I’m glad to see the logic of the off-season this year is “He doesn’t want to come here.” That makes no sense.

      • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

        it’s because of the ice cream in the clubhouse!!!11!1 Girardi told me so.

      • Ron

        “He doesn’t want to come here.”

        That’s agentspeak for “If you’re willing to re-work, the contract, I can deliver him”.

    • Murph1010

      I agree with you to a certain extent. If we have to send over Hughes AND sign extension, it makes little sense. However, if we can give them a package that doesn’t involved Hughes and keep at the current contract, you have to do it.

    • jsbrendog

      “What if he had proposed Jake PeavEy ”

      well tommismithjohncarlos….go nuts.

      • jsbrendog

        shite, sorry, one post to early…continue reading nothing to see here folks this comment never happened

  • http://www.samiamsports.blogspot.com SAMIAMSPORTS

    Ive had it up to here with all you people over rating the Yankee prospects.
    Stop it already, Im still pissed off we didnt trade for Johan when we had the chance(Very Frustrated right Now)
    How often do prized prospects ever mount to what there hype is.the answer is , Not often. Rarley do you find pitching prospects that turn to what there supposed to be.
    If you see somebody is proven in MLB and he is still relatively young, YOU GOTTA GET HIM. I know bitching about the past dosent really accomplish anything but still…
    It pains me that The Mets got Johan for a fraction of the price the yankees would have for Peavey. But This MUST get Done.
    If I have to Part with the Injury Prone Hughes or the ultimate aaaa pitcher in IPK AND Ajax You got to do it. I know its not fair to crap out on IPK cause hes still young BUT Peavey is Peavey…..End Of Story.
    All this is , is an opinion , but I See Ajax as Another Gary Mathews in the making..
    You Got TO GET PEAVEY NO MATTER WHAT.

    2009 Projected Rotation
    CC
    Wang
    Peavey
    Joba
    Burnette
    (I dont want Lowe)

    • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

      the Yankees aren’t going to sign CC, Burnett AND trade for Peavy.

      and that was the LEAST stupid part of your post.

      • http://www.samiamsports.blogspot.com SAMIAMSPORTS

        Ok Steve,

        I can’t wait for your “Intelligent analysis”

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

          His lack of analysis is better than what you said. Dude, on what are you basing your Ajax/Matthews comparison?

          You can’t force teams to trade you players, you can’t spend a quarter-billion dollars on payroll, and you shouldn’t overpay in trades for players making $70 million from 2010 through 2013.

          • http://www.samiamsports.blogspot.com SAMIAMSPORTS

            I Base the comparison on my gut fealing which means Absolutley nothing. Just speaking my mind …

            • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

              Thankfully, the Yankees don’t trade players based on your gut feelings.

              There is no reason to trade Hughes for Peavy. The Yanks wouldn’t do it for Santana last year, and anyone would rather have Santana than Peavy, even with the contract.

              It’s not like Peavy’s contract is that far below market that you can justify it. As I said, he’s making $70 million from 2010 through 2013, meaning an AAV of $17.5 million. If that’s below market, it’s only slightly.

              • http://www.samiamsports.blogspot.com SAMIAMSPORTS

                You have to stop saying what we could have had better than Peavey. You right we could have had more last year . but whats done is done.
                Joe, You honestly think that Hughes will turn out to be The pither peavy is??? I sure dont

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

                  So I have to stop saying something, even though you admit I’m right?

                  I don’t necessarily think that Hughes will turn out to be as good as Peavy, but I certainly recognize it’s a possibility. You think he won’t because it’s the easy thing to think. Most pitching prospects don’t pan out. Yet I have faith Hughes will turn into a fine MLB pitcher.

                  As such, I do not advocate swapping him for a lesser pitcher than we could have swapped him for last winter. The plan then was to stick with him. I believed in it then, and I believe in it now.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  You honestly think that Hughes will turn out to be The pither peavy is??? I sure dont

                  I’m not sure if Hughes will be the pitcher that Peavy is or not. What I do know is, the consensus of the baseball community thinks that Hughes, IPK, and Jackson will all be major league average players at best, and could all be better than that, and considering that we’ll probably already have CC, Wang, and Joba for the foreseeable future, and that the rest of our roster is either about to leave in free agency or retire, we probably need those three players giving us major league average production (or better) for the next 5-10 years more than we need Peavy giving us his well better than average production for the next 5-10 years.

                  Peavy is one person. ONE. Hughes, IPK, and Jackson, collectively, have more value than Peavy does, even if none of them ever become as good at what they do as Peavy is at what he does. Plus, they’re younger, under our control longer, and cost a buttload less, freeing up resources to add to other, more pressing areas of need going forward (like our outfield, or our catcher, etc.)

                  Decent-to-great Hughes, IPK, and AJax + any other free agent pitcher >>>> Great, possibly acelike Jake Peavy

        • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

          Im still pissed off we didnt trade for Johan when we had the chance(Very Frustrated right Now)

          while this decision looked bad in 2008, we are still a ways off from letting the jury rest on this one. signing Sabathia for the same money as Santana and keeping the prospects would go a LOOOONG way to making this decision look pretty smart.

          How often do prized prospects ever mount to what there hype is.the answer is , Not often.

          says who? got anything besides anecdotal evidence to back this up?

          define “not often”.

          sure, many top prospects don’t make it. but many do. just as it’s stupid to assume that they all will, it’s equally stupid to paint all prospects with the same brush and assume that none will.

          All this is , is an opinion , but I See Ajax as Another Gary Mathews in the making..

          based on what?

          You Got TO GET PEAVEY NO MATTER WHAT.

          this makes no sense. there is NEVER EVER any “no matter what” scenario. Peavy comes with real concerns over his elbow and his transition to the AL. i’d love to have him, but it DEPENDS on what we’d give up.

          same with every trade.

          2009 Projected Rotation
          CC
          Wang
          Peavey
          Joba
          Burnette

          i just don’t see the Yankees giving three huge contracts to pitchers in the same offseason. i think if they DID get Peavy, they’d be out on Burnett and vice versa.

          • http://www.samiamsports.blogspot.com SAMIAMSPORTS

            while this decision looked bad in 2008, we are still a ways off from letting the jury rest on this one. signing Sabathia for the same money as Santana and keeping the prospects would go a LOOOONG way to making this decision look pretty smart.

            DO You really think that Hughes will be better than Either Johan Or Peavy??? I dont

            says who? got anything besides anecdotal evidence to back this up?
            define “not often”.

            Ok these names do anything for you?!?!? Prior, Wood, Jesse Foppert, Juan Cruz, Ryan Anderson, Rick Ankiel, Brad Penny …..There are more . These are just my poster boys.

            All this is, is an opinion , but I See Ajax as Another Gary Mathews in the making..
            based on what?
            Like I just told Joseph p. I base this on nothing just my opinion…but you know what they say about opinions …there like A-holes Nobody likes them and they stink…lol

            this makes no sense. there is NEVER EVER any “no matter what” scenario. Peavy comes with real concerns over his elbow and his transition to the AL. i’d love to have him, but it DEPENDS on what we’d give up.

            You are correct on this point.

            i just don’t see the Yankees giving three huge contracts to pitchers in the same offseason. i think if they DID get Peavy, they’d be out on Burnett and vice versa

            On this we will have to agree to disagree. I think a year without making the post season really irked them to a point of not giving a damn about money

            • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

              DO You really think that Hughes will be better than Either Johan Or Peavy??? I dont

              no, i don’t think he will be better than Johan.

              i don’t think that is the point.

              i think SABATHIA will be as good as Johan and we still get to have Hughes to either use or to trade.

              that’s all i was saying.

              Ok these names do anything for you?!?!? Prior, Wood, Jesse Foppert, Juan Cruz, Ryan Anderson, Rick Ankiel, Brad Penny …..There are more . These are just my poster boys.

              sure, but on the flipside there are Lincecum and Cain and Joba and Beckett and Price and Shields and Garza and Kershaw and Billingsley and Volquez and Danks and Hamels, etc. etc. etc.

              my point was simply that there are lot of pitching prospects who DO work out…

              Like I just told Joseph p. I base this on nothing just my opinion

              that’s cool. you are entitled to your opinion. but surely you have to understand why people challenged it??

              On this we will have to agree to disagree. I think a year without making the post season really irked them to a point of not giving a damn about money

              hey, you might be right. agree to disagree. in the end, neither of us know what will happen.

              i apologize for calling your post “stupid”. it was really the Gary Matthews thing that got to me.

              • http://www.samiamsports.blogspot.com SAMIAMSPORTS

                I guess the answer to the famous question of “Cant we all just get along?” is yes

      • DP

        Dude, Peavey is Peavey. End of story.

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

          Except that he’s Peavy.

      • http://www.samiamsports.blogspot.com SAMIAMSPORTS

        Why dont you think The Yanx wouldn’t do those moves.
        Last I checked the Steinbrenner brothers (the ones who sign the checks) said that They will be aggressively pursuing everybody available. So why do you think that those moves are out of the question? what are you basing your genius observation on?

        • Mike P

          It doesn’t take a genius to note that bar one season of Santana (which didn’t help the Mets much), the Yankees are in a far better position getting Sabathia this year, while still having Wang, Hughes and whoever else it would have taken to get Santana. And by that same (very) logical argument, why rip your strategy up and send the farm to San Diego?

          And to make your proposal even less attractive, you can get Burnett or Sheets or Lowe and still have two aces in CC/Wang. It’s just silly to say we need 3 aces and no back end of rotation, rather than have 2 aces, 1 very solid no 3 and a back end full of potential aces. That’s how you win championships and create dynasties. Not by overkilling the present to ruin the future.

    • Murph1010

      I’m definitely with you except for Hughes. Give them Ajax and Melencan and IPK and Melky if they want. Peavey should be here. It’s bad enough we didn’t get Johan or Javy Vasquez back but we can’t let another strikeout pitching machine go through our fingers. If it doesn’t involve Hughes, trade for the man and be done with it. There should be no hesitation.

      • DP

        The guy’s name is in the title of the post. How hard is it to spell Peavy?

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

          Yet you misspelled it a minute prior to this post. Twice.

          • DP

            Haha I was imitating that guy’s “logic”

            • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

              Gotcha.

              • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                In that case, ignore my above reply…

      • jsbrendog

        “It’s bad enough we didn’t get …Javy Vasquez back but we can’t let another strikeout pitching machine go through our fingers”

        JAVY VASQUEZ?!?!?!?!?!?! yeah hes a big gamer and would obviously do well in ny. its not like he folds like a cheap card table when it counts and had a high era and didnt fail in ny once already

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

      PEAVY. P-E-A-V-Y. It’s right at the top of this post. Not hard.

      • http://www.samiamsports.blogspot.com SAMIAMSPORTS

        Ok ok…Peavy…happy now

        • Thirty5Thirty6

          I completely agree that we should trade Phil for Peavy. Seriously look at his stats.
          http://minors.baseball-referen.....?pid=11110
          Ignore the fact that he was a 25 year old first baseman in A ball. Just think what he could do on the mound?

          Ok. Ok. So you comprehend that it is Peavy.

          But WTF is “Rarley”?

          • http://www.samiamsports.blogspot.com SAMIAMSPORTS

            I was typing fast…… it happens ….

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        PEAVY. P-E-A-V-Y. It’s right at the top of this post. Not hard.

        B-E-T-A-N-C-E-S
        M-C-A-L-L-I-S-T-E-R
        M-E-L-A-N-C-O-N
        A-B-R-E-U
        B-U-R-N-E-T-T
        P-E-T-T-I-T-T-E

        • Thirty5Thirty6

          I’m not quite sure I’m following here?

          You want me to actually spell a player’s name RIGHT?

          Are you insane in the membrane?

        • radnom

          Who is melancon? Don’t you mean Meloncone

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            i laughed at that.

          • Mike Pop

            Well, I could be wrong, but I believe melancon is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.

            • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

              That behind is driving me LOCO! I’m like a nightwolf… AAAAAOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

    • jsbrendog

      “What if he had proposed Jake PeavEy”

      well tommiesmithkjoohncarlos

      go nuts..

      (there thats better)

  • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

    I’d much prefer Peavy over Lowe or Burnett at the right price…. That said, I can understand why the Yanks don’t want to give up the farm for Peavy. I can understand why they’d rather go after the free agents. But if the Yanks sign CC, and the price on Peavy drops, it would be hard to say no to that deal.

    Considering that the price for Peavy will, by default, include prospects and the price for Burnett/Lowe/Sheets/Perez/etc. will, by default, not include prospects, it’s hard for me to see how the “price” for Peavy could possibly be the “right” price. I’ll agree that Lowe and Burnett are probably the wrong price, but I thin Peavy is also the wrong price.

    Yes, if the caliber of prospects the Padres wants drops, then we’d revisit it. But the price hast to almost be bargain basement, IMO, for it not to be a better option to either sign a different free agent or simply stand pat with CC.

    Simply put, the list of people I wouldn’t feel comfortable parting with for Peavy (Joba, Cano, Hughes, Melancon, Jackson, Montero, Betances, Brackman) is large enough that I can’t really see the Padres price coming down THAT far that the talks ever have merit. I can’t see the Padres accepting a deal not including one or more of those players in it; not now, not two months from now. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

    Peavy is an excellent, excellent pitcher, but there are legit question marks as to whether he’ll be excellent or merely good once he leaves Petco and comes to the AL East, and not only do I not want to give up potential studs like Hughes and Montero for that risk, I also don’t want to give up soon-to-be ready major league talent that play positions we’re going to need to fill pretty soon, like Jackson and Melancon, just for Peavy. Especially if we already have CC-Wang-Joba and still have several really good in-house options to come up and fill those 4-5 holes (and even be future aces themselves.)

    • Murph1010

      You have to give a little to get a little. The Red Sox won 2 world seriess and they traded Hanly for Beckett. Pitching wins. Gotta get aces when you can no matter who you have to give up. Except I’m with you about Hughes but the rest they can have if it means Peavey.

      • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

        The Red Sox have won one World Series with Beckett. Just one. And you could make the argument that, in the seasons in which they had Beckett but didn’t win the World Series, Hanley Ramirez would have helped them more than Beckett has. The jury is still decidedly out on that trade.

        • Murph1010

          Beckett presence was directly related to their success in the playoffs in 2007. He practically won them the world series by himself. I don’t care how much Hanly mashes a stud pitcher like that is worth getting for October.

          • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

            Again, Beckett himself one A sole game in the 2007 World Series. Just one. You still have to (a) score runs and (b) win three other games to win the World Series. He had a huge impact, but he’s not the be-all and end-all of winning the World Series. His other two seasons have been huge disappointments.

            • Murph1010

              They’re the RED SOX. We’re the YANKEES. The whole reason we do anything is to win championships. It doesn’t matter that he had inconsistency in other seasons, he had the most dominant postseason pitching performance in the last 30 years, and yes was the MAIN reason for their postseason dominance. Regardless of inconsistencies in random years, the reason they brought him in was to win a CHAMPIONSHIP, wich is exactly what they did, and exactly what the yankees keep TRYING but FAILING to do. Because they got their ring, which is why they traded for him, the trade was a success. Period. Which is why the yankees should get their version of Beckett. A proven ace who can carry us through the playoffs. Just like Beckett, just like Hamels.

              • Mike P

                Man, how many times do you have to revise history! This is not the same situation… If the Red Sox had signed Sabathia as a free agent in 2005, they would never have traded Ramirez for Beckett. They did it ’cause they were desperate for an ace and there were none available.

              • Mike Pop

                A proven ace who can carry us through the playoffs. Just like Beckett, just like Hamels.

                Dont know how to italic or bold it BUT

                This is why we are going after CC. If we trade for Peavy we possibly give up Hughes who has the potential to be another ace who can help carry us..Add that with CC and Joba and you could potentially have 3 pitchers of that caliber.. PLUS AJax montero and who ever else we keep.. You cannot trade away the farm for this guy.. LOOK what happened to the MAriners they got pushed 3 years back after the Bedard trade.. Same can be said with Haren but I do believe that was a good deal.. Now they have money issues and dont have that kind of depth in their minors.. Final fact is Burnett + keeping our prospects is better than trading 3 or 4 of our top 10 guys for PEavy… And like TSJC said Peavy is an excellent pitcher but there are some doubts about his road splits.. I think he would be okay but he would just have to adjust to it

              • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

                he had the most dominant postseason pitching performance in the last 30 years,

                Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling from 2001 would both disagree.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

                  Yeah no kidding. RJ was ungodly that postseason.

                  5-1, 41.1 IP, 25 H, 7 ER, 8 BB, 47 K

                  Yikes.

                • Murph1010

                  Steve, in typical fashion, you take one minute thing instead of addressing the overall general point and make some flimsy argument that yes it may actually be the SECOND best postseason performance in 30 years. This is not relevant, and does not address the debate

                  At least when tommiesmithjohncarlos is a smart ass, he usually backs it up with something productive

                • Mike Pop

                  When is tsjc a smart ass ? Thats just him being normal

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  Yeah, I’m not a smart ass, I’m an insufferable asshole.

        • Bo

          The jury is still out?

          Beckett had the most dominating post season prob ever and is as big game as pitching can get.

          Finding an ace like that can pitch in Boston especially is pure gold.

          With Hanley Ramirez they don’t win last yr.

          It’s not even a consideration. You see how much desperate teams are to find Becketts.

          The Yankees will be paying a guy with major mileage on his arm 150 mill. The Mets gave up the farm and a huge deal for one last yr.

          They don’t grow on trees. When you have the chance to get one you take it.

          They won a WS with Julio Lugo playing SS. You can survive avg there.

          • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

            Pure gold does not equate to one season. At this point, Beckett’s had more bad seasons in Boston than good. It’s not that hard to understand.

            • Bo

              He was badly hurt this yr and could barely pitch and still won Game 6 of the ALCS.

              How is that a disappointment?

              Starting pitching wins titles and that’s what the game is all about.

              • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

                How did he do in the other game he pitched in the ALCS?

                This is retarded. It’s not a debate. Hanley Ramirez is more valuable to whatever team he is on than Josh Beckett is to whatever team he is on. That’s just a baseball truth. If you can’t accept it, then I’m wasting my time arguing with you.

                • Murph1010

                  To most teams you may be right, but to BIG MARKET teams, like the YANKEES, whose sole goal year in and year out is to win a championship, at all costs, no matter what… you are dead wrong. Josh Beckett actually WOULD be more valuable. Of course when comparing salaries and sabermetrics, Hanly would be of greater value to a team like the marlins. But for the yankees, where all we ever try to do is win a title, Beckett would be more valuable. That’s the stark truth.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

                  So you’re saying, Murph, that the Yankees should simply outspend everyone? Because I can find a few people who disagree.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

                  That’s not the stark truth. That’s your uninformed opinion. Don’t confuse the two. Even when Hanley’s making $18-$20 million a year in a few seasons, he’ll still be of greater value to whatever team he’s on than Josh Beckett. That’s what happens when someone gets 650 plate appearances and hit .300/.400/.540.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

                  Are we really arguing that an injury prone SP is more valuable than a 30-30 middle infielder? Really?

                • jsbrendog

                  all 3 site amdins in arow in total agreeance. nice. and you have to take hanely over becket because what no one realizes is that becket, before he came to boston, was a sub or barely over 500 pitcher!!!!!!!! he does not have “ace numbers” in the regular season and can be replaced and hanley ramirez is on a hall of fame pace.

            • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

              It’s not that hard to understand.

              One would think…

          • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

            Yes, Josh Beckett was so awesome this postseason.

            Young, cost controlled 30-30 shortstops that avg 78 XBH per season in a pitcher’s park >>>>> injury prone pitchers making $10M+ per year

            • Bo

              How many titles does A-Rod have?

              The injury prone ace who dominates in big games and is an all timer in Oct is a tad more important than the SS’s who have extra base power.

              Maybe you guys have forgot why we haven’t won a title in a few yrs here. The injury prone guy you are talking about has carried 2 teams to titles in the last 5 yrs.

              There is a reason why we are about to give CC a mega deal and also offer 2 other 30 yr old pitchers mega deals.

              • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

                Here’s another truth that should blow your mind.

                CC Sabathia is much better than Josh Beckett and whichever team has CC is better off than the team with Beckett.

                • Murph1010

                  This is the first point in the Beckett argument you were correct about. Which is why they need to both sign CC and trade for Peavey. Dominant pitching wins. Period. And for the yankees, where money in no object, there should be no hesitation whatsoever to trade away Ajax and Montero or Melencan or whoever to get Peavey. You have to get the guy. It may hurt, just like it hurts the Sox seeing Hanly right now, but it’s the price to pay if you want that ring, which the Sox got, which is why they made the trade. Therefore, trade = success. You’re right, it’s really NOT that hard to understand.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

                  Murph, this sounds like the Yankees strategy from the 1980s.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

                  You realize Murph that just by saying someone is wrong doesn’t make you right. Your argument is incorrect from a baseball perspective. Mine isn’t. That’s the bottom line. I’d be happy to do a rigorous statistical analysis for you that includes all factors including what Josh Beckett’s replacement would have done in 2007. You’ll see who was more valuable, but you won’t like the answer.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

                  trade = success

                  Just like Jeff Weaver, baby.

                • Murph1010

                  Joe I’m not advocating doing it with every player possible, only for the STUD, ACE-TYPE pitchers. It’s not like the opportunity to get one comes around all the time. When it does, you pounce on it. Will trading away good young prospects hurt a little? Of course. But stud pitching at the front of the rotation is what we lacked 04-07, and Razner and Ponson pitched wayyyy too often this year. Yes our offense struggled, but dominant frontline pitching is WITHOUT QUESTION the obstacle standing between us and a ring

                • Bo

                  I’d love to see this stat analysis showing that avs replacement level player could have duplicated Beckett in 2007 and lead Boston to a WS. And completely dominate a post season.

                  How much we forget as to why teams win titles.

                • Murph1010

                  Ben, the Sox traded away what they knew was a GREAT prospect (Hanly) and got who they hoped would be the foundation of a dominant pitching staff in October. Beckett has PLENTY of inconsistencies in Florida, but they saw what he did in 03, particularly in the WS against us, and knew that if they got that guy, he could greatly increase their chances of getting a ring, based on the fact he can be a LIGHTS OUT pitcher in October

                  Just like they did with Hanly, we would be trading away prospects we know are really good, with the chance of getting the same type pitcher, a STUD in the playoffs. We know going in our prospects could turn out to be all stars, and we know going in that APeavey may or may not be consistently dominant throught his entire tenure… but if he can increase our chances of having LIGHTS OUT pitching in OCtober, which he can, it’s a trade you make to help win that ringwin that ring…. which let me remind you… a CHAMPIONSHIP is all the yankees ever want, and its our sole priority every year

                  THEREFORE, just like their beckett trade, yes it hurts to see Hanly doing this good, but it got them a ring, so it worked out well for them

                  THEREFORE, it would hurt to see our prospects doing good, but if it gets us that ring, it’s worth it. Period.

                • Mike Pop

                  SOunds like a challenge Ben

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  Dominant pitching wins. Period.

                  The Atlanta Braves say hello.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

                  It is a challenge. But you’d have to wait until after my finals are over in December for that post. I don’t have time to do it now, but I’d be happy to give it a whirl then.

                • Mike Pop

                  Murph your point is turning into what Beckett did in October.. Now I respect that but your trying to make the case Peavy will help us be dominant in October right.. But has Peavy done anything in the postseason like Beckett did.. Still a bad trade for them.. Hanley is going to be a MONSTER for years while Beckett might not be much longer if he ever was.. If Hanley was on good teams he might of won 2 mvps already lol

                • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.
                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

                  CHICKENS DON’T CLAP!

                  (And Portia deRossi is so fucking hot. Why does she have to be gay?)

                • Thirty5Thirty6

                  She’s gay because God watches you touch your self at night.

                  Or the fact that Ellen Degeneres is FREAKING GORGEOUS!

                  http://www.trendyink.net/blog/...../ellen.jpg

              • Mike Pop

                Cant believe you just brought A-Rod up in this Beckett talk

              • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

                You’re acting like Beckett singlehandedly won two World Series, which he most certainly did not. Boston played 14 playoff games last year, he started just 4 of them.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  Also, not to make this tangent any more crazy, but the Sox traded Hanley Ramirez AND Anibal Sanchez for Beckett.

                  Sanchez has been hurt, but when he was healthy in 2006, he was pretty fuckin nasty. The Sox very well could have been a MUCH better team the past few years with Hanley AND Sanchez rather than Josh Beckett, and if Sanchez can stay healthy going forward, it’s not even close.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

                  Agreed somewhat TSJC. If you’re going to count what Sanchez gives the Fish, then you have to count what Lowell gave the Sox.

                • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

                  True, but can’t you counter with the notion that the vast majority of Mike Lowell’s success in 2007 was as a result of Fenway Park’s peculiar dimensions?

                  Lowell hit a pedestrian .276/.339/.428 away from Fenway Park. Also, I can’t cite the source, but I believe I read somewhere that of Lowell’s 30 XBH’s at Fenway Park in 2007, only three were hit in center field or right field. That park made Mike Lowell, circa 2007.

                • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.
            • Mike Pop

              I as a yankee fan am sure glad they gave up Hanley for Beckett.. But then again it might of been a good move because it brought them a World Series.. Plus Lowell was great for them in 2 seasons just to be a “throw in”.. But then again Anibal threw a no no !! Idk if I was the Sox Id rather have Hanley then Beckett but its a joke that people sont criticize the trade.. Up until last year Beckett was one of the most overrated pitchers in baseball.. But I guess when hes on theres not many better

        • Ivan

          I thought Beckett was the greatest pitcher in the last 20 years? Isn’t he?

          • Mike Pop

            Well he is but Hanley is going to the best shortstop eva !

            • Bo

              When Sabathia dominates in october the way Beckett has now done twice, you can say he’s better than Beckett.

              And Beckett was directly responsible for Boston winning.

              There is a real thing about a teams confidence when they have an ace. Remember that Cle was up 3-1 with Sab atahia at home facing Beckett and Boston showed no fear because they knew they were winning Game 5 with beckett.

              Who, by the way, beat Sabathia. But I guess thats not for debate.

              • Mike Pop

                But would Peavy be dominant like Beckett ? Take that into consideration fellas.. I mean dominant in the postseason becuz thats the only thing hes good at…zing

              • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

                Oh bullshit. Why are you ignoring when Beckett pitched like crap this postseason, or the 10 DL trips in 5 full big league seasons, or his performance in the 162 game regular season?

                And I’m sure Cleveland losing that game had nothing to do with their lineup making $80M less than the Sox’s.

                • Mike Pop

                  Ya including the lineup that including the beast in October MAnny.. You can make the argument that thats the guy who won the world series twice for Boston… His production plus what he did for Ortiz.. Thats the guy who won it all for Boston not Beckett.. AND that proves it this year.. Even Ortiz said that they would of more likely won with Manny which I agree with… So glad they dealt him

                • Bo

                  He was hurt this post season! And he still won a make or break Game 6 on the road.

                  Now Cle blew a 3-1 lead because of money?
                  Had nothing to do with Beckett completely shutting them down and giving all the momentum back to his team?

                  With Beckett I’d gladly ignore his injuries and lack of 36 great starts in a row. If the price I paid got me his Octobers.

                  I’d rather have aces than anything else.

                • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

                  This argument will never conclude for one reason: an argument between numbers and perception is like the clash between the unstoppable force and the immovable object (unless that unstoppable force is Brandon Jacobs, Derrick Ward and Ahmad Bradshaw!).

                  I don’t see how people can really favor Boston in this trade when everyone – with logic and reason in their arsenal – knows that an up-the-middle player with a .435 Secondary Average is the most valuable commodity in the sport.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

                  Jacobs, Ward, Bradshaw is no Thomas Jones and Leon Washington. ;)

                • Bo

                  Well how has that valued commodity done in the post season where starting pitching dominates?

                  You can give any stat you want but reality is that great starting pitching is the most valued commodity in the game.

                  When you can win titles with SS’ like Lugo And Eckstein it really kills your argument.

                  Ie why the Yankees draft high end pitchiners every yr and are dedicated to growing them

                • Mike Pop

                  I know Im the only cowboy fan on this blog but MB3 and Felix Jones when both healthy is a pretty sick tandem.. MB3 won that game all by himself last night and we woulda won that playoff game last year if we kept giving it to him in the 2nd half… Yep Giants fans I said it.. He was pounding ya’ll the first half and we stopped running for some god awful reason

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  I don’t see how people can really favor Boston in this trade when everyone – with logic and reason in their arsenal – knows that an up-the-middle player with a .435 Secondary Average is the most valuable commodity in the sport.

                  Jamal, the people who would waste everyone’s time trying to say that Josh Beckett is more valuable than Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez don’t know what “Secondary Average” is.

                  That’s why they say non-sensical bullshit things like “You can give any stat you want but reality is that great starting pitching is the most valued commodity in the game.”

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  When you can win titles with SS’ like Lugo And Eckstein it really kills your argument.

                  When you can win titles with SP’s like Jamie Moyer, Joe Blanton, Tim Wakefield, Jeff Weaver, and Jason Marquis it really kills your argument.

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        Gotta get aces when you can no matter who you have to give up.

        1.) CC
        2.) Wang
        3.) Joba

        You don’t have to get aces if you already have some and if getting said aces will gut your farm of much needed ML-ready talent.

        If the Hanley-for-Beckett deal was such a must and a total no-brainer, why didn’t the Sox give up Lars Anderson, Clay Buchholz, and Michael Bowden for Johan Santana? Why aren’t the Sox trading away prospects every single year for every ace that comes on the market?

        • Mike Pop

          They shoulda got Bedard Haren and Santana last year.. Beckett Dice K and those 3.. championship

        • Murph1010

          This is actually one of the few arguments that makes sense. If you feel that our team already has enough dominant, shut-down aces, and if we Sign CC you could make that debate, then yes you may be right. But if your argument is it’s not worth the money, or you are scared of our prospects turning out to be good, then that’s just lame. Trading is exactly that, trading. Both sides have to give up something, but for a team like the yankees, where all we care about is rings, that something is probably worth it if we do indeed get that coveted ring.

          And i remind you guys, we do not yet have CC

          • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

            Both sides have to give up something… when necessary.

            Jake Peavy is not necessary for the Yankees because of the available starting pitchers currently on the free-agent market.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            But if your argument is it’s not worth the money, or you are scared of our prospects turning out to be good, then that’s just lame.

            I’m not scared that our prospects are going to “turn out good”. I’m scared that after we trade away our prospects, we’re going to be left to fill the holes in our roster with the Cody Ransoms, Sidney Ponsons, and Justin Christians of the world. It’s not about being too chickenshit to make a deal, it’s about looking at what’s best for our organization, both now and in the future.

            Peavy is good, and would undoubtedly give us a better chance to win in 2009. But I think having Peavy, and not having some combination of Hughes, IPK, Jackson, Melancon, Montero, Sanchez, etc., etc. lessens our chances of winning in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, etc. etc.

            Again, Peavy is only one man. One man who could very easily end up as the 4th best starter on our 2009 team. I don’t want to give up multiple good pieces for him–not because I think they may end up being good for someone else, but because I think we have serious problems replacing them at a time where our big league club is going to be in dire need of young replacements very soon.

            • Murph1010

              Well said. Unlike most everyone else, you have laid out the significant cons of making this deal. Telling me that the Sox should regret the Beckett trade despite winning a ring, which is the whole reason they DID trade for him, like Ben and Mike, doesn’t make much sense and never will to me. (we all our entitled to opinions)

              However, I respect your argument. You are afraid that trading away said pieces for him that we will ahve even bigger holes in a few years, and you are right about that. Whether you think those problems are worth the opportunity to win rings right now is a different debate, and from what I can gather, you do NOT think the better opporunity for immediate rings is greater than the risk we acept by trading away future fill-ins. That makes sense, and I respect that.

              Telling me that it’s not smart to trade away good prospects for ace-like pitchers in hopes to bring immediate rings like the Sox did with beckett is an argument that makes no sense. Nobody on the Sox regrets that trade, nor should they.

              Conclusion: if your goal is to constantly strive to have a competitive team yaer in and year out, then by all means, keep the Ajsx’s and Romine’s of the world… if it’s to sacrifice the forseeable future for the immediate present and doing what you can to win a championship with what you know is an aging core group of players with a short window, then you agree with me.

              we al have our opinons, but don’t sit here and tell me the Sox regret that trade, cuz they don’t. They saw a window to get a championship, and made a sacrifice. Since Ben clearly doesn’t understand my point, and thinks the Sox made this trade cuz they thought Beckett would be more valuable for the next several years than Hanly, I hope this helps.

              • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                Thank you for acknowledging that my point has merit.

                In defense of Ben and Mike, though, what they were trying to tell you was NOT that Boston shouldn’t have made the Beckett-Hanley deal simply because Hanley turned out to be good. The point they were trying to make was, in retrospect, the trade, while smart on many levels, may have been unnecessary, because, knowing what we know now, the Sox could very well have still won two rings had they simply hung on to Hanley and Sanchez. Because what Beckett gives the Sox from 2006-2008 is probably less productive than what Hanley would have given the Sox from 2006-2008, and while they don’t regret the trade in the sense that they’re happy they won a ring in 2007, it’s entirely possible that they win that ring in 2007 without Beckett but with Hanley and Sanchez, and the Sox would DEFINITELY rather have Hanley and Sanchez instead of Beckett and Lowell for 2009 and beyond.

                That’s all. They were exposing that the “trade for an ace no matter what the cost” theory has holes, and that Beckett is not the textbook case of why you should trade for an ace no matter what the cost, because it may not have truly helped them in the short term and now looks like it will cost them going forward.

                If you offered Theo Epstein the chance to go back in time and redo the trade, he probably takes you up on your offer, IMO. That’s all they were saying. (and not just to you.)

        • Bo

          You don’t think the Sox regret not giving up Clay and Ellsbury for Santana?

          They thought/think Clay was a legit ace. Like the yanks think with Hughes.

          If Minny asks for Ellsbury and Anderson 12 months ago, Santana is a Sox.

          And aces don’t come on the market often.

          • Mike Pop

            Lol.. You think they have given up on Buchholz? You think they wanna deal him so bad now ? They shoulda traded LEster for him before Lester had this big year.. If they knew back then what they know now.. Lester would have never been on the table.. Lately aces have been on the market more.. 5 past 2 years

            • Bo

              If they think Clay is an ace they wouldn’t move him. Like the Yankees wouldn’t move Hughes because they think hes an ace.

              Teams don’t trade high end young pitching because it is the most valued commodity in the game.

              But Im sure there is a twinge of regret in Bos that they don’t have a rotation of Beck-Dice-Santana-Lester

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            You don’t think the Sox regret not giving up Clay and Ellsbury for Santana?

            Considering that it was likely Buchholz, Ellsbury, AND Bowden and Lowrie or two other high ceiling players, no, I don’t think the Sox regret not getting Santana. Remember, actual GM’s of actual teams have to build teams that compete EVERY YEAR. They don’t mortgage the future for the present. We’re not the freaking Brewers trying to give our long-suffering fans one title every 30 years to keep them happy, we’re trying to build a dynasty. So are the Sox.

            If Minny asks for Ellsbury and Anderson 12 months ago, Santana is a Sox.

            Wrong. The Sox, like us, never really wanted to part with prospects of value, because they know they need Anderson’s bat going forward. Their offense is aging just like us, and they knew last winter that Manny and Ortiz and Lowell wouldn’t be around forever. They weren’t doing any Santana deal that included Lars Anderson.

    • Brad K

      Strange as this seems for me I completely agree with everything you just said. The only Caveat being that the price for Johan Santana did drop dramatically before he was traded, so it is possible although unlikely.

      It also is premature to include or exclude any players/transactions before the FA market has run its course. The Yankees position on Peavy will no doubt be influenced by their relative success in the FA market.

      • Rick in Boston

        I think there’s also the difference that Santana wanted out of Minnesota and was looking for a contract to pay him what we was worth. Hence, Minnesota jumped and offered him out before they really needed to, just so they didn’t have it holding over their heads.

        Peavy, on the other hand, is locked up for a while, and doesn’t necessarily need to leave. It’s the owner’s divorce that seems to be an issue, but at the same time, it’s not like he’s looking for a major deal. They’ll actually have to be wowed into moving Peavy.

        I say sit on it, keep whatever offer is out there, and if the Padres flinch, grab him. But, I honestly wouldn’t be shocked if Peavy’s pitching in SD all of next year.

    • Mike P

      Damn. A logical post. I’m gobsmacked.

  • DP

    I SAY WE TRADE KAY IGAWA FOR PEAVEY STRATE UP. THEN WE SIGN CC, BERNETTE, LOW, MOOOOSE, PETITE, PENNY, AND SHEETS.
    2009 ROTATION:
    CC
    WANG
    BERNETT
    PEAVEY
    LOW
    MOOSE
    PETITE
    PENNY
    SHEETS
    8TH INNING: JOBA. HE’S STUFF IS SO ELECTRIC IN THE 8TH!

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

      This made me laugh.

      • Bo

        I like the misspellings littered all over.

        Bernett.

    • Andy In Sunny Daytona

      I think its spelled “Sheats”.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

      I can’t believe you spelled “electric” correctly. I would have gone with “awesome” or “sick”. Way too big of a word.

      Nicely done, though.

    • Thomas

      That is some of the worst spelling ever. It is SeeSee and PenKnee, look it up.

  • Bo

    The Peavy stuff is a joke.

    The guy has no interest in the Al East. He doesn’t pitch past the 6th inning in the NL as it is. And there are guys for free who will do just fine.

    It’s just Towers trying to get the Braves to flinch.

  • Ivan

    I can’t believe we are still talking about this Peavy stuff. I mean the chances of him being traded to the Yanks is minimal at best.

    Besides, to me the smart would just be keep the young talented players who hopefully couple years down the line can attribute to the yanks in huge ways more than one. I mean the yanks have the money to just sign guys like CC and etc. Spending money and giving up talent just doubles heck even triples the amount you are giving up for one player who might not make a difference.

    Im not saying I don’t want Peavy but lookin at the big picture, couple years down the line, I just feel the smart move would be keeping some of the young talent and see what potentially can happen.

  • Mike Pop

    Funny how Pujols wins the MVP and he said 2 years ago if your not in the postseason you dont deserve the MVP.. WOnder what he says

  • DP

    I think lost in all of this “we need to sign every pitcher available” logic, is that last year we gave up the least amount of runs we had given up since 2003. It would have been even less than that had Wang been healthy the whole year and Joba been starting the whole year. If we sign CC, and therefore have CC, Wang, Joba as our 1-3, why do we need Peavy or Burnett? We could just re-sign Pettitte for a year and put Hughes out there. If the last 2 threw league average, we’d be looking at a starting staff with around a 4.00-4.20 ERA. Assuming our bullpen pitched to around or slightly less than 4, we’d probably have a top 10 pitching staff. Personally, I feel we need to add something on offense. I mean otherwise we are relying on Posada and Matsui returning to full health, Cano rebounding, the CF spot not being awful, Swisher rebounding, and Nady continuing to perform better than his career- which seems like a lot to ask for.

    • Mike Pop

      The main reason they want these pitchers imo is becuz they dont want to see more of Rasner/Ponson like starters for so often in the season.. So if you bring in CC Burnett and Pettite back.. You have those 3 with Wang and Joba. Then if injuries happen you have Hughes and Kennedy waiting instead of being relied on..You cant do much better than Hughes as a 6th starter right ? Then if Hughes proves his stuff hes your 5 in 2010 and Andy could go wherever he pleases.. Also Aceves and Coke or w,e in the wings.. Alot better thn Ras and Ponson

    • Mike P

      I agree. Except you do need cover and I’d feel a lot better if Hughes is no6 starter. Then you’re covered if one or two pitchers go down, which is quite possible. I’d prefer to have Pettite and Mussina than Burnett, but someone like Lowe makes a whole lot of sense. Having as close there is to an inning eater as no3 is the best thing you can do when you have 2 potential young aces. I would also take a flyer on Sheets if it’s not too long a contract.

      • Mike Pop

        Ya but what kinbd of 200 innings is Lowe gonna give you thats my question.. You know hes gonna get you them but will they be under 4 era or over 4.50.. Plus he wants to be a red sock..eww

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

          But you know if the Sox sign Lowe, it’ll be hailed as such a great signing, and the Yanks were so stupid to let him go!

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            Everything Theo does: good*
            Everything Cashman does: bad

            —————————

            * This includes all things that the Red Sox do while Theo is on hiatus, even if he was against them because he questioned the wisdom of trading away a potential franchise cornerstone middle-infield bat for an above average pitcher based primarily on one good postseason against the hated Yankees

            • chris

              you are an idiot.

  • DP

    I think the Yankees should sign Baldelli to a short term incentive laden contract. Worst case scenario is that you pay him a couple of mill and he only plays like 60 games. Those 60 games would boost the production of the CF spot at least somewhat. Best case is that he plays a lot in center and spells Matsui at DH vs. lefties. Not that I necessarily think Matsui needs a platoon partner, but you know Girardi- we’ll be seeing Rich Aurilia soon enough.

    • Bo

      The guy has a terrible medical condition and cannot really play anymore at anywhere close to full strength. I think we can do better .

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        I think we can do better.

        Such as?

        • Bo

          For a 4th Of?

          How about Bret Gardner for the major league min?

          • DP

            Who is the starting CF then?

            • Mike Pop

              I have an itch hes thinking Swish

              • Bo

                At this point Gardner starts in CF and they prob have Melky as the 4th OF.

                If they sign Tex things change and Damon might be playing CF.

                If they trade for Cameron Bretts the 4th OF.

  • Mike Pop

    Who predicted it ? Jeremy Affeldt to the Giants.. Anyone predict that was the first signing? Mets are pist lol

  • Pingback: River Avenue Blues | It’s P-E-A-V-Y

  • Patrick T

    I just read this whole thread and I’m pretty sure I’ve lost 30 IQ points. You guys really need to institute a short baseball IQ quiz before granting posting rights. It doesn’t have to be all VORPy, just a couple of short questions so we never have to live through that HanRam/Beckett debate. Something like this:

    Which player is more valuable?

    A: .333/.350/.390 12 HRS 100 RBI
    B: .250/.390/.450 30 HRS 80 RBI

    Which player is more valuable:

    A: 18-3 3.90 ERA 150K/120 BB 1.50 WHIP
    B: 9-10 3.90 ERA 200K/100 BB 1.20 WHIP

    Anyone who answers B to both questions can post. Anyone who answers A to either question is shot. Simple.

    • Mike Pop

      Just for shits who are they ??

      • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

        It’s nobody. The former instance is to test whether you value Batting Average more-so than any other batting metric. The latter instance is to test whether you value the “statistic” of Wins and Losses at all.

        • Mike Pop

          Wow….embarassing………….lol

    • Chip

      Actually, I don’t think you’re right about part number one. If player A plays gold-glove defense in centerfield and steals 50 bases a year at a 80% rate while player B is a DH then the argument isn’t exactly set in stone

  • Mike Pop

    You know who makes the argument that Hanley is less valuable than Beckett ? Skip Bayless.. Thats fucken Skip Bayless .. Hes pretending to be Bo and Murph

    • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

      That moron actually said Kerry Collins is the NFL MVP. I hate his soul.

      • Mike Pop

        I think ESPN just pays him to argue the most valid point… The other guy could be like Nash is best suited as a PG and he would make some kind of argument how Nash is better aas a SG.. I know you prob hate the cowboys but to really think they will only go 8-8 which he said.. cmon Skip

        • Bo

          Technically hes made a fortune/career out of just saying the opposite whether he believes it or not.

          He is the guy who got famous for writing the book on the Cowboys that outed Aikman with no proof and didn’t apologize when he was wrong.

          Hes a scumbag of the first degree.

    • Bo

      Must be an idiot for thinking that the games best Oct pitcher is somehw worth more than a SS who toils in obscurity for a 80 win team yet has all the stats in the world.

      Shucks. Forgive me for thinking that dominant starting pitching is the number one thing a team needs to win titles. Not stat accumulating middle infielders like Ramirez and Soriano.

      • Mike Pop

        Na dude no1 is an idiot on this blog.. We just disagree because thats what sports is all about

      • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

        God dammit, now this is getting to me. How can you proclaim Josh Beckett to be the “games best Oct pitcher” when he’s only had two strong postseasons?

        Also, get together all thirty General managers and their respective assistants together and ask them this question: With the first pick in a MLB draft, who would you select? I guarantee you that every single man, woman and deity (Epstein & Co.) in that group will not select a starting pitcher. I fucking guarantee that. I also guarantee that Hanley Ramirez and Joe Mauer would be amongst the top of that list. Why? It is because an up-the-middle player with a prolific bat is the most valuable commodity in baseball; there is no argument, you are wrong.

        • Bo

          I’ll bite. Who’s a better pressure big game starting pitcher right now in the game?

          Hamels had 1 good Oct so I guess hes out by your standards. Who else? CC was shelled the last 2 Oct’s. Peavy the same.

          Who else has had two all time Oct’s?

          • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

            Exactly why such an ascertainment is nonsensical. The sample size is much too small to be making such proclamations like, “[insert name here] is the best [insert situational adjective here] pitcher”.

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        Must be an idiot for thinking that the games best Oct pitcher is somehw worth more than a SS who toils in obscurity for a 80 win team yet has all the stats in the world.

        So, let me rephrase: Beckett is “worth more” than HanRam because Beckett plays for the Red Sox, who have a gigantic budget and surround him with great players so that his team is in the playoffs with regularity, and HanRam is worth less because he plays for the Marlins who have a shoestring budget and are constantly out of playoff contention, through no fault of his own.

        Even though HanRam has UN-FUCKING-QUESTIONABLY been the better player the past 3 years, since he’s on a shitty team, there’s simply no earthly way that he can be as good as Josh Beckett.

        Similarly, since Tim Wakefield won a game in the 2007 ALCS, on the bright lights and the big stage, and that win helped the Sox win the 2007 title, he’s also “worth more” than Hanley Ramirez, who will never amount to shit because he’s “toiling in obscurity”.

        Give me a friggin break. You sound like you’re just pulling shit out of your ass now. You can’t honestly believe this crap.

        • Bo

          It’s useless even arguing with a guy who thinks that Beckett and Wakefield are comparable.

          If you really think that any SP would have dominated in 2007s post season with Boston than I salute you.

          • Yanks Fan in NY

            No one is arguing that Beckett and Wakefield are comparable, but it’s clear from reading the rest of this thread that you’re either dense to prove some wrong point or just a flat-out idiot. Explaining to you why they’re different and what TSJC is saying would be a waste of my time and pixels.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            It’s useless even arguing with a guy who thinks that Beckett and Wakefield are comparable.

            That’s funny, i was just thinking that it was useless arguing with a guy who says ignorant shit like Hanley Ramirez somehow having less worth because he “toils in obscurity for a 80 win team.”

            That statement being included in your argument was the single dumbest thing anybody said or thought on this whole thread, and that’s saying a lot.

      • Thirty5Thirty6

        Dominant pitching is good and all. However, Beckett has had an ERA once under 4 in the American League.

        Hanley Ramirez has an OPS+ of 116, 145, and 146 in his 22, 23, and 24 year old seasons.

        Derek Jeter had an OPS+ of 101, 103, and 127 in his 22, 23, and 24 year old seasons.

        Through the age of 28 Beckett is most comparable to Kevin FREAKING Millwood.

  • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

    Heh, I was reading some of the comments from the start of the trade and something tickled my fancy: there seems to be a prevailing thought that Theo Epstein was behind this trade. That is wholly inaccurate. Not only was this deal made when Theo threw his hissy fit, but he was against the deal when he returned.

    • Rick in Boston

      Jamal you’re absolutely right. In fact, the trade was made while Theo was off running around in a gorilla suit, right?

      • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

        Sí, señor.

      • Bo

        He’s against it because Larry L gets all the credit for bringing Beckett to Boston. Even GM’s have ego’s.

  • Phil McCracken

    I’d still love to understand the logic behind the people on this site are in support of a Peavy trade, but when it was the best left hander in the game in Johan Santana, an AL proven multiple Cy Young winner it was “Don’t do it, Save the Big Three”.

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

      Ok. Phil. How about this post from two weeks ago with the headline Why Jake Peavy isn’t like Johan Santana? Is that good enough? We’ve gone over this ad nauseum. The search box up there is quite helpful.

      • Phil McCracken

        I’ve read that when it was originally posted. Your whole argument was money that wasn’t yours. Which I don’t understand at all.

        So its ok to trade “The Big Three” for a righty, who plays in a pitchers park, who doesn’t have a resume close to Johan Santana when you’re saving 50M of the Yankees money.

        But when its for a pitcher thats much better, plays in the AL, and is a lefty, its not worth trading Hughes and a bag of balls in Melky Cabrera.

        Or is the bigger issue here that Hughes isn’t really impressed anyone with his injury history or his 2 pitches and now he’s expendable for an ace pitcher, even if the correct trade was passed on last season. Seems to me to be second thoughts without admitting it.

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

          If you can’t see it after reading that piece, nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. There’s nothing inconsistent in saying that the Yanks could trade a reduced package of prospects for Peavy’s contract even though we didn’t want them to trade their top prospects for the opportunity to (probably) overpay Johan Santana.

          Peavy’s younger and under contract for more years. That the money isn’t mine doesn’t matter. I’m not arguing for me; I’m arguing from the Yankees’ point of view.

          • Phil McCracken

            To me, the fact that he’s 2 years younger, comes from the NL, a pitchers park, and is a righty, and doesn’t have the durability of Santana, doesn’t justify saving 60M.

            If thats the Yankees logic, then I’d have to question it. And I think there are a lot of people in that organization, even Brian Cashman, who aren’t sure about Hughes and his ability to maintain a clean bill of health long term. It might not have been a question in December of 2007, but in December 2008 I’d say there are some doubters.

    • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

      the “logic” is that the overwhelming majority of the people here are STILL opposed trading major prospects for Peavy.

      what i am getting, except from a few people, is that Peavy should be considered only IF the price comes down to where it makes sense.

      otherwise, you are just setting up a strawman to knock down.

      show me one post from Mike, Ben, or Joe that suggests the Yankees should trade Hughes for Peavy.

      • Phil McCracken

        Who do you think you’re getting Peavy for?

        It would have to be centered around Hughes or Chamberlain. And the Yankees aren’t trading Chamberlain so we’re back at Hughes.

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.

          No one is advocating trading Hughes for Peavy.

          • Phil McCracken

            Then we don’t have to worry about a Peavy trade.

        • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

          It would have to be centered around Hughes or Chamberlain. And the Yankees aren’t trading Chamberlain so we’re back at Hughes.

          ok, so then there may not be a match with the Yankees. simple as that.

          but that’s not the same as your initial argument that everyone here is Gung Ho to trade “the Big 3″ for Peavy.

          it’s more complicated than that.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            Looking from the comments here on this thread, it seems that the consensus of the board is AGAINST trading for Peavy, not for it. Most commenters (well, most sane ones, anyway) are saying it would take a serious drop in price for us to consider the deal.

      • DP

        It’s also the lower cost (in actual money) and shorter commitment for Peavy

  • Rick in Boston

    I’m not sure where everyone is getting this “Josh Beckett is an ace” stuff. He’s pitched more than 200 innings twice in his career. His ERA+ is 116 – not amazing, very good, but not ace-esque. He’s a career 8.6 or so K:9. He’s had one fantastic year in the AL, that’s it.

    Yes, he was great in the 2007 playoffs and great in the ’03 playoffs. But he allowed 14 ER in 14.1 IP this year. That’s not ace stuff even if he’s hurt. That’s season-ending stuff. He’s a guy who is perpetually hurt, under-performs over large stretches of the regular season, but who shows up in the playoffs. That’s not an ace – that’s David Wells.

    • Bo

      How do you question his ace credentials and completely overlook his postseasons?

      • Rick in Boston

        I acknowledged his post-seasons. But the fact is, he doesn’t pitch like an ace the 35 other times he takes the ball a year. If you are an ace, you should be expected to take the ball, throw 200 IP a year, and pitch extremely well. Beckett has done that once.

      • Thirty5Thirty6

        How do you overlook his 2008 post-season?

        • Rick in Boston

          We can’t we can only look at 2003 and 2007. It’s like ignoring A-Rod’s success prior to Game 4 of the ’04 ALCS. It doesn’t exist, right?

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        How do you question his ace credentials and completely overlook his postseasons?

        How do you affirm his ace credentials without having to completely overlook his regular seasons?

        Cuts both ways, bro.

  • claybeez

    Off the subject, it was interesting to just hear Dibble on XM talk about the “pro-Red Sox network he used to work for.” He claimed they didn’t want to upset the Red Sox and that it affected which stories they aired. I just never heard a media type/former player say that before.

  • Joe Fitz

    I find it hilarious that anyone would say anything negative about Beckett. I guess some people can’t be objective on some things.

    Ramirez may be more valued by stat geeks but that’s not reality. Reality is that starting pitching is where it’s at. They are what win games and what win championships.

    Valuing stats put up by guys like Ramirez is swell and all but they don’t win you anything.

    • Yankee1010

      I haven’t had a chance to go through the whole thread, but this isn’t computing here. You find it “hilarious” that people say anything negative about Beckett? You accuse people of not being objective if the say “anything negative” about Beckett? Mr. Pot and Kettle would like to say hello to your logic.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

      From Piaget’s discussions about the Preoperational stage of cognitive development:

      http://psychology.about.com/od.....tional.htm

      “Another well-known experiment involves demonstrating a child’s understanding of conservation. In one conservation experiment, equal amounts of liquid are poured into two identical containers. The liquid in one container is then poured into a different shaped cup, such as a tall and thin cup, or a short and wide cup. Children are then asked which cup holds the most liquid. Despite seeing that the liquid amounts were equal, children almost always choose the cup that appears fuller.
      Piaget conducted a number of similar experiments on conservation of number, length, mass, weight, volume, and quantity. Piaget found that few children showed any understanding of conservation prior to the age of five.”

      Your utter inability to comprehend the idea that Hanley Ramirez could possibly as good as, if not better than, Josh Beckett is based primarily on your inability to account for the fact that they are in two wildly different containers. You are elevating Beckett as more valuable because he plays on a better team that enjoys more consistent success and you are denigrating Ramirez because he plays on a poor team that rarely enjoys success. You seem unable to divorce the players from their containers and evaluate them on equal footing in your mind’s eye, because you focus on simplistic immediate pressing images and characterizations and not on higher-level brain functioning.

      Congratulations on having the mental acuity of a 4 year old.

    • http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/profile.php?id=594331910&ref=name Jamal G.

      Hey, guy, in essence, what are stats? Are statistics not reflections of what the players do on the field? How can you say stats are not reality? If you are going to take a cheap shot, take one that makes some sense.

      • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

        eh. why bother?

        there is absolutely nothing in this post that even approaches the semblance of a reasonable thought.

        at least the people above who are arguing Beckett’s case based on the post season (sortof) have a leg to stand on. i disagree with that line of thinking, but i can at least squint and see where they are coming from.

        this post has to be a parody. HAS TO.

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

          Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    • http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/01/18/jeter_ap/index.html steve (different one)

      Valuing stats put up by guys like Ramirez is swell and all but they don’t win you anything.

      wow.

  • Chip

    I have a question for all of the Santana-trade-lovers out there. Say we sign CC at 6/145. Would you rather the Yankees have a rotation of

    Santana
    Wang
    Joba
    Pettite
    Rasner

    or

    CC
    Wang
    Joba
    Pettite
    Hughes??

    Also, take away the possibility of A-Jax playing centerfield in the next few years. Let’s say we have to trot Melky out there because we were stupid enough to trade both Gardner and A-Jax. Now, CC/Santana goes down with TJS, out for over a season. Would you rather have the guy taking his spot be somebody dominating in AAA, a former first round draft pick, still getting paid the major league minimum and possibly just about to figure it out and become a #3 starter. OR would you rather have Sidney Ponson join Rasner in the rotation? Seriously you guys, you have to consider future production in this whole deal.

    Basically, we had to wait another year to pay up for our ace but we got to keep the number one pitching prospect in the majors, a former first round draft pick who is dominating AAA and our possible future centerfielder. All of that plus we have two spots (pitcher and centerfield) making the league minimum so we can go spend on possibly a slugging left fielder in the near future. The Yankees would not be able to afford a contract like that to CC if they didn’t have all these guys coming off the books, money does eventually run out

    • Chip

      BTW, if all it takes is an “ace” to win the WS, why didn’t the Mets win it this year? O yeah, Santana can’t pitch every game and his offense has to score runs for him to win. Wow, maybe they need a run producer like Hanley Ramirez. Too bad he sucks because his team only wins 80 games a season. I’ll take Alex Cora instead, he’s got a WS ring right?

    • Dave

      Not meaning to nitpick here, but AJAX was never a part of the Santana deal. It was Hughes, Kennedy and Melky.

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....index.html

        “The Twins and Yankees reached what one person called an “impasse” shortly before midnight CST. The Twins were asking that the Yankees include either pitcher Ian Kennedy or a tandem of pitching prospect Alan Horne and outfield prospect Austin Jackson in their package with pitcher Phil Hughes and outfielder Melky Cabrera.”

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        http://riveraveblues.com/2007/.....-not-1760/

        “The Twins, according to Heyman, want Ian Kennedy or Alan Horne and Austin Jackson in addition to Phil Hughes and Mekly Cabrera. To which I say, “Yeah, right.””

  • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/.....ana-2.html

    “When we left off last night, the Twins and Yankees were still haggling over the third player in a Johan Santana trade. The Twins wanted Alan Horne or Austin Jackson, according to Jon Heyman. Now comes word from Tyler Kepner that those two are considered untouchable in the deal by the Yanks. Dellin Betances, Ian Kennedy, and Jose Tabata round out the five that they will not include as the third player.”

  • Pingback: Open Thread: Making A Splash | River Avenue Blues