July 9, 200817 yr i was looking back on some old articles, and when we traded Delgado to the mets we had 2 options. Delgado for Jake, Petit or Delgado for Milledge It's wierd to think what would've happened if we traded for Milledge. The Detroit deal would've never happened, and we would be searchign for 1B instead of CF. but we could've hypothetically had this. C- Still a mess 1B- Cantu 2B- Uggla SS- Hanley 3B- McPherson LF- Hammer CF- Milledge RF- Hermida The best trade IMO was Pierre to CHC for Mitre, Nolasco, Pinto.
July 9, 200817 yr rather hav the boss cody ross in center and the best trade was most def 4 mitre and nolasco pinto meh
July 9, 200817 yr Hey, Pierre for Nolasco would have been a steal of a trade at this point. Considering we can look at Pinto and Mitre as "throw ins" is pretty sweet.
July 9, 200817 yr I like Milledge, he's got so many tools. He just needs to be put in a good situation.
July 10, 200817 yr The trade with the Tigers was the best IMO. The Mitre Nolasco and Pinto for Pierre deal would be second.
July 10, 200817 yr The best deal that i know of is the Pierre deal for nolasco, mitre, and pinto. and the best part is pierre isnt even with the cubs anymore.
July 10, 200817 yr Just curious if the Detroit deal never happened then wouldn't we still have Miggy at 3B and not McPherson? i was looking back on some old articles, and when we traded Delgado to the mets we had 2 options. Delgado for Jake, Petit or Delgado for Milledge It's wierd to think what would've happened if we traded for Milledge. The Detroit deal would've never happened, and we would be searchign for 1B instead of CF. but we could've hypothetically had this. C- Still a mess 1B- Cantu 2B- Uggla SS- Hanley 3B- McPherson LF- Hammer CF- Milledge RF- Hermida The best trade IMO was Pierre to CHC for Mitre, Nolasco, Pinto.
July 10, 200817 yr I must disagree. The Red Sox got an all star (lowell) and a stud (Beckett) and a world series. The Marlins got a stud (Ramirez). The studs cancel each other out (little algebra here) leaving the Sox ahead. IF Anibel becomes a dominant pitcher (operationally defined as 15 or more wins for 5 or more years) then the Marlins have the advantage. The question in that deal is - who would you rather have Ramirez or Beckett? Hanley, he plays every day, Beckett doesn't.
July 10, 200817 yr The question in that deal is - who would you rather have Ramirez or Beckett? Ramirez in an everyday player so i'll take him.
July 10, 200817 yr Josh was great for us, but I'd take Hanley any day. Plus Beckett was blister-prone as a Fish.
July 10, 200817 yr The Hanley trade was better than all those. I think at the end of the day the trade will be a wash. If Sanchez doesnt turn out to be any good, then the advantage goes to the redsox. If Sanchez turns out to be pretty decent then you could argue we got the better end.
July 10, 200817 yr The Hanley trade was better than all those. I think at the end of the day the trade will be a wash. If Sanchez doesnt turn out to be any good, then the advantage goes to the redsox. If Sanchez turns out to be pretty decent then you could argue we got the better end. I agree, although, I would like to have that World Series they got with those players. I will say that in 10 or so years, if we have not won a World Series then the Red Sox owned us on that trade.
July 10, 200817 yr The Hanley trade was better than all those. I think at the end of the day the trade will be a wash. If Sanchez doesnt turn out to be any good, then the advantage goes to the redsox. If Sanchez turns out to be pretty decent then you could argue we got the better end. I agree, although, I would like to have that World Series they got with those players. I will say that in 10 or so years, if we have not won a World Series then the Red Sox owned us on that trade. Not even close. Beckett and Lowell were not going to bring us another WS in all likelihood.
July 10, 200817 yr The Hanley trade was better than all those. I think at the end of the day the trade will be a wash. If Sanchez doesnt turn out to be any good, then the advantage goes to the redsox. If Sanchez turns out to be pretty decent then you could argue we got the better end. I agree, although, I would like to have that World Series they got with those players. I will say that in 10 or so years, if we have not won a World Series then the Red Sox owned us on that trade. Not even close. Beckett and Lowell were not going to bring us another WS in all likelihood. Thats not certain. Who's to say we will even win another one without them? Look at 2006. We were right in the race until september. What if we had Josh Beckett who won 16 games that year and 20 games the following year? What about Mike Lowell and his 20 homers? Or imagine a 2008 rotation of Beckett, Olsen, Nolasco, Johnson and Mitre/Sanchez/Miller/whoever
July 10, 200817 yr The Hanley trade was better than all those. I think at the end of the day the trade will be a wash. If Sanchez doesnt turn out to be any good, then the advantage goes to the redsox. If Sanchez turns out to be pretty decent then you could argue we got the better end. I agree, although, I would like to have that World Series they got with those players. I will say that in 10 or so years, if we have not won a World Series then the Red Sox owned us on that trade. Not even close. Beckett and Lowell were not going to bring us another WS in all likelihood. Thats not certain. Who's to say we will even win another one without them? Look at 2006. We were right in the race until september. What if we had Josh Beckett who won 16 games that year and 20 games the following year? What about Mike Lowell and his 20 homers? Or imagine a 2008 rotation of Beckett, Olsen, Nolasco, Johnson and Mitre/Sanchez/Miller/whoever 2006. Fine. You add Beckett's 16 wins (which the Red Sox offense aided, you know), you take out Anibal's 10 wins. You add Mike Lowells 20 homers, you move Cabrera back to left. There, you take out Josh Willingham's 26 homers. And who is playing shortstop? Robert Andino. Might aswell take out Hanley's 17 homers, maybe add 3 for Andino. So you add 6 wins (still ridiculously arguable, with Becketts 5.01 ERA in 2006). You also take out a Rookie of the Year in short, a no-hitter, and 20 homers. In the end, we would have broken even. Beckett and Lowell didn't win the Red Sox a WS. Beckett, Lowell, Ortiz, Youkilis, Varitek, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Ramirez, Drew, Papelbon, Shilling, Okajima, and Matsuzaka won them a World Series.
July 10, 200817 yr The Hanley trade was better than all those. I think at the end of the day the trade will be a wash. If Sanchez doesnt turn out to be any good, then the advantage goes to the redsox. If Sanchez turns out to be pretty decent then you could argue we got the better end. I agree, although, I would like to have that World Series they got with those players. I will say that in 10 or so years, if we have not won a World Series then the Red Sox owned us on that trade. Not even close. Beckett and Lowell were not going to bring us another WS in all likelihood. Thats not certain. Who's to say we will even win another one without them? Look at 2006. We were right in the race until september. What if we had Josh Beckett who won 16 games that year and 20 games the following year? What about Mike Lowell and his 20 homers? Or imagine a 2008 rotation of Beckett, Olsen, Nolasco, Johnson and Mitre/Sanchez/Miller/whoever 2006. Fine. You add Beckett's 16 wins (which the Red Sox offense aided, you know), you take out Anibal's 10 wins. You add Mike Lowells 20 homers, you move Cabrera back to left. There, you take out Josh Willingham's 26 homers. And who is playing shortstop? Robert Andino. Might aswell take out Hanley's 17 homers, maybe add 3 for Andino. So you add 6 wins (still ridiculously arguable, with Becketts 5.01 ERA in 2006). You also take out a Rookie of the Year in short, a no-hitter, and 20 homers. In the end, we would have broken even. Beckett and Lowell didn't win the Red Sox a WS. Beckett, Lowell, Ortiz, Youkilis, Varitek, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Ramirez, Drew, Papelbon, Shilling, Okajima, and Matsuzaka won them a World Series. We have to look at it for more than just one year. Lowell gave them 21 homers, 120 RBI and World Series MVP. Becket won 20 games with an era under 3.5, then went 3-0 in the postseason with an era under 2. They helped the redsox a lot and they might have not won the world series without them. I think its fair to say that Hanley and Beckett are washes. Hanley is one of the best players in the game and beckett is one of the best pitchers. Like I said earlier Anibal is the wild card. He was great in 2006. However he did not play well in 2007 before he got hurt. If I recall he got demoted to the minor leagues. If he bounces back and becomes anything near 2006, then I think the marlins got a the better end of the deal.
July 10, 200817 yr The Hanley trade was better than all those. I think at the end of the day the trade will be a wash. If Sanchez doesnt turn out to be any good, then the advantage goes to the redsox. If Sanchez turns out to be pretty decent then you could argue we got the better end. I agree, although, I would like to have that World Series they got with those players. I will say that in 10 or so years, if we have not won a World Series then the Red Sox owned us on that trade. Not even close. Beckett and Lowell were not going to bring us another WS in all likelihood. Thats not certain. Who's to say we will even win another one without them? Look at 2006. We were right in the race until september. What if we had Josh Beckett who won 16 games that year and 20 games the following year? What about Mike Lowell and his 20 homers? Or imagine a 2008 rotation of Beckett, Olsen, Nolasco, Johnson and Mitre/Sanchez/Miller/whoever 2006. Fine. You add Beckett's 16 wins (which the Red Sox offense aided, you know), you take out Anibal's 10 wins. You add Mike Lowells 20 homers, you move Cabrera back to left. There, you take out Josh Willingham's 26 homers. And who is playing shortstop? Robert Andino. Might aswell take out Hanley's 17 homers, maybe add 3 for Andino. So you add 6 wins (still ridiculously arguable, with Becketts 5.01 ERA in 2006). You also take out a Rookie of the Year in short, a no-hitter, and 20 homers. In the end, we would have broken even. Beckett and Lowell didn't win the Red Sox a WS. Beckett, Lowell, Ortiz, Youkilis, Varitek, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Ramirez, Drew, Papelbon, Shilling, Okajima, and Matsuzaka won them a World Series. We have to look at it for more than just one year. Lowell gave them 21 homers, 120 RBI and World Series MVP. Becket won 20 games with an era under 3.5, then went 3-0 in the postseason with an era under 2. They helped the redsox a lot and they might have not won the world series without them. I think its fair to say that Hanley and Beckett are washes. Hanley is one of the best players in the game and beckett is one of the best pitchers. Like I said earlier Anibal is the wild card. He was great in 2006. However he did not play well in 2007 before he got hurt. If I recall he got demoted to the minor leagues. If he bounces back and becomes anything near 2006, then I think the marlins got a the better end of the deal. I agree on one thing, it is about the future. And I always felt that Beckett thought he was destined for bigger and better things than the Florida Marlins. I think he would have been a free agent for the 2008 season.
July 10, 200817 yr Beckett for Hanley is not a wash. Beckett only contributes every 5 days. Hanley is an allstar every day.
July 10, 200817 yr Hey would you guys rather have miggy or hanley right now and for the rest of their careers?
July 10, 200817 yr Hey would you guys rather have miggy or hanley right now and for the rest of their careers? That's a really tough one but I guess i'd have to go with Hanley because he plays better defense and hasn't let his weight get out of control.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.