[Manny's Hammies]

We've all discussed the catcher situation by trading the likes of a a Buchholz for either Teagarden or Saltalamacchia. Count me as someone who likes the idea.

But given the Sox's broader needs—at SS, CF and C—our stock of young pitching, and the fact that Texas is still a ways away from competing, should Theo et al not shoot higher? Specifically, would the Sox consider moving, say, a package of Buchholz, Lowrie, Bowden, and Ellsbury for, say, one of the catchers, Michael Young and Josh Hamilton? Each of the Sox players is cost-controlled and young -- and while I recognize Hamilton (and Young to a slightly lesser extent) are big chips to part with, that would be quite a haul for Texas and possibly put them much closer to contention than they are today. It seems like it could be a win-win for both teams.

What say the geniuses at SoSH?

[mfried]

Manny, on Jan 9 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

We've all discussed the catcher situation by trading the likes of a a Buchholz for either Teagarden or Saltalamacchia. Count me as someone who likes the idea.

But given the Sox's broader needs—at SS, CF and C—our stock of young pitching, and the fact that Texas is still a ways away from competing, should Theo et al not shoot higher? Specifically, would the Sox consider moving, say, a package of Buchholz, Lowrie, Bowden, and Ellsbury for, say, one of the catchers, Michael Young and Josh Hamilton? Each of the Sox players is cost-controlled and young -- and while I recognize Hamilton (and Young to a slightly lesser extent) are big chips to part with, that would be quite a haul for Texas and possibly put them much closer to contention than they are today. It seems like it could be a win-win for both teams.

What say the geniuses at SoSH?

This is a grandiose trade, but I think the Sox are too invested in both Lowrie and Ellsbury to do this, esp. since Michael Young is not a very good defender. It might not be a bad outcome, but I feel safe in thinking it won't happen.

[Rough Carrigan]

Michael Young has negative value. His hitting has declined dramatically. He has a huge contract with several years to run and he's now ensconced in the Jeter seat as the totally undeserving AL gold glove winner. No thank you. I'd rather have Lowrie even if their contracts were the same.

[Manny's Hammies]

Rough Carrigan, on Jan 9 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

Michael Young has negative value. His hitting has declined dramatically. He has a huge contract with several years to run and he's now ensconced in the Jeter seat as the totally undeserving AL gold glove winner. No thank you. I'd rather have Lowrie even if their contracts were the same.

Even if I were to agree with this—and I think "negative value" may be putting it a little harshly—is that taking that contract and player on a price worth paying for an elite player at a premium position like Josh Hamilton?

[JayMags71]

Manny, on Jan 9 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

Even if I were to agree with this—and I think "negative value" may be putting it a little harshly—is that taking that contract and player on a price worth paying for an elite player at a premium position like Josh Hamilton?

Why on earth would the Rangers give anyone Josh Hamilton? He's not arbitration eligible until 2013. You think the Rangers just want to give him to us for the privilege of trading with the Red Sox?

This post has been edited by JayMags71: 09 January 2009 - 01:07 PM

[E5 Yaz]

Manny, on Jan 9 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

Specifically, would the Sox consider moving, say, a package of Buchholz, Lowrie, Bowden, and Ellsbury for, say, one of the catchers, Michael Young and Josh Hamilton?

What say the geniuses at SoSH?

You need not be a genius to understand that this is the sort of trade proposal that a poster should ponder, then decide not to post.

As far as can be deciphered, Texas has held firm for wanting Buchholz for a catcher. From the Rangers' perspective, therefore, they're hearing you say that Lowrie, Bowden and Ellsbury would equal Young and Hamilton.

At that point ...

[Gash Prex]

I would disagree we have "needs" at SS and CF. We have young, cost-controlled players who at worst will be replacement level players at those positions. We have a need at catcher.

[yecul]

This thread is still open? Is this a legitimate target or is the locking just waiting for a mod to notice it?

[SoxFanSince57]

I really don't see the Rangers as motivated to move bad contracts (Young and Catalanotto) as you do.

As I posted before, if the Sox signed MT, there would have been a possibility of moving Lowell (Texas is looking a Joe Crede now to improve their power production at 3B) along with Buchholz/Bowden for one of their catching prospects and Catalanotto. But I see no reason why the Rangers would be interested in moving Hamilton for a package of prospects.

IMO, the Rangers don't get anywhere near equal value in a trade of Buchholz, Bowden, Lowrie and Ellsbury for Salty, Hamilton, Catalanotta (a man without a position) and Young. I think the Rangers expect Salty to fetch Buchholz by himself. That would leave your trade as Bowden/Lowrie/Ellsbury for Hamilton/Young/Catalanotto (salary dump) which is not advantageous for Texas IMO.

Also, I think you are ignoring or discounting the value the Sox place in RETAINING Buchholz and Bowden. It seems like the Sox are really counting on these two to join the rotation in 2010/2011. IMO, your trade strips the Sox of pitching depth and forces them into the FA market in out years.

I am increasingly of the opinion that the Sox will not trade their pitching prospects for catching PROSPECTS.

This post has been edited by SoxFanSince57: 09 January 2009 - 01:32 PM

[Quintanariffic]

yecul, on Jan 9 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

This thread is still open? Is this a legitimate target or is the locking just waiting for a mod to notice it?

+1

this is an abortion of a thread idea.