Screeching from Dustin on the diamond…

Just noticed this, since I tend to stay away from the Yankee/Red Sox stuff, but I thought I'd throw this little tidbit out there.

Dustin Diamond is appearing on this season's edition of the Celebrity Fit Club (kind of a guilty pleasure for Paula and me) on VH-1, and I've never seen such a self-obsessed, self-destructive personality in my life. Everything - everything - is about him. He's never wrong, he never screws up, and everyone else on the show is out to get him. Now maybe some of this is for the show, but based on what I've seen, I'd never hire him for anything.

-- MWE

Unknowable, anyway. Let's say the Sox win the WS this year. Until we figure out how to peek into the alternative universe in which the Sox kept Hanley and see how many titles they won with him, we can't really know if they were 1 world title to the good with Beckett, or five to the bad without Hanley.


Nope, nor can you figure out if Hanley would have produced that well in the Fenway environment or Beckett in the swamp, etc.

Nevertheless, if the Sox get dominant playoff performaces out of Beckett, and those lead to a world championship, I think the organization will say its worth it.

Face it, since Jordan left the East as a whole has been pathetic

I think the Pistons have comported themselves well over the last few years.

I think the Pistons have comported themselves well over the last few years.

The Heat weren't bad last year, either. There's definitely a lack of depth in the east, though.

Nevertheless, if the Sox get dominant playoff performaces out of Beckett, and those lead to a world championship, I think the organization will say its worth it.

Perhaps, but that depends somewhat on how good/great Ramirez becomes. If he becomes an inner circle HOFer, for example, and they gave that all up for a moment of glory (Beckett, let's say, thereafter flaming out in a Pavano-worthy series of injuries), then I for one would say they would be quite foolish to believe it was worth it. Granted, we couldn't know if all those years of Hanley would (a) have been as great in Boston, and (b) whether they'd have produced even one world title (see Williams, Ted), but that's a chance any rational organization should be willing to take.

By "great", I interpret that to mean that his scoring ability helps his team win. Since Iversons scoring ability doesn't help his team win, then he isn't great.

That's a load of crap. Winning has nothing to do with the proposition. Iverson is a great scorer, even if in so doing he doesn't help his team as much as other players.

It's like saying that Dave Kingman wasn't a great HR hitter because all he did is swing for the fences and because most of his HRs come in blowouts. That's irrelevant.

Perhaps, but that depends somewhat on how good/great Ramirez becomes. If he becomes an inner circle HOFer, for example, and they gave that all up for a moment of glory

The proposition I answered was how much is 2 Pre FA years worth compared to 6 Pre FA years. Presumedly, Hanley can be bought back after those 4 years.

I think one world championship is worth it. What Hanley does after the indentured servitude years would not factor in my decision. Then, we can bid at market just like everyone else.

What Hanley does after the indentured servitude years would not factor in my decision. Then, we can bid at market just like everyone else.

Well, that's true enough. But getting Hanley back might be a little bit tougher after you traded him away. If it's close between the Sox and Team X, that memory might work against Theo and the gang.

But getting Hanley back might be a little bit tougher after you traded him away. If it's close between the Sox and Team X, that memory might work against Theo and the gang.


Yes, that is true, particularly if it was unceremonious dumping. I think that getting traded for a former World Series MVP, former all star third baseman, etc. wouldn't sting too bad. And money does tend to be a salve for those type of wounds.

The big problem you have is that Hanley hits FA about the time that Jeter might finally come off short, and Jose Reyes gets traded for the return of Scott Kazmir and the youngest member of the Pitching Zambrano family. You don't want to bid against the Yanks and Mets.

You don't want to bid against the Yanks and Mets.

Why not? Two words: Dice. K.

Face it, since Jordan left the East as a whole has been pathetic, and merely to reach the playoffs and get knocked off in the first round (twice) or second round (three times) isn't in itself all that great a feat in the context of that watered-down competition.

Which says a lot about the competition, I suppose. Those Sixers were a one-trick pony, designed to get into the post-season and hope that "anything can happen." That they were able to ride Iverson's offensive and get by for as long as they did is a testament to Iverson's brilliance with the ball.

Again, I still think Iverson's a great player, and one of my personal favorites. I just don't think that he's quite on the level that many of his biggest fans seem to assume he is.

I wouldn't put him in the top 10 of all-time #2 guards, but he's pretty close. His size makes him unique among great 2s, and it does present his team with match-up problems that they wouldn't have if he were four inches taller. Still, he's a great player, someone who literally gave me nightmares. That crossover step-back three against the Lakers in Game 1 of the 2001 Finals, I saw that in my sleep for weeks.

Face it, since Jordan left the East as a whole has been pathetic

I think the Pistons have comported themselves well over the last few years.

The Heat weren't bad last year, either. There's definitely a lack of depth in the east, though.

Both true, but neither of those teams were playing like that during the period in question, which was 1999-2003. I doubt seriously whether that 2001 Sixers team, which was the best of the run, would have been able to make it past either of those teams that you two mention, and quite possibly not past the Cavaliers of this year or last year, either.

Face it, since Jordan left the East as a whole has been pathetic, and merely to reach the playoffs and get knocked off in the first round (twice) or second round (three times) isn't in itself all that great a feat in the context of that watered-down competition.

Which says a lot about the competition, I suppose. Those Sixers were a one-trick pony, designed to get into the post-season and hope that "anything can happen." That they were able to ride Iverson's offensive and get by for as long as they did is a testament to Iverson's brilliance with the ball.

Again, I still think Iverson's a great player, and one of my personal favorites. I just don't think that he's quite on the level that many of his biggest fans seem to assume he is.

I wouldn't put him in the top 10 of all-time #2 guards, but he's pretty close. His size makes him unique among great 2s, and it does present his team with match-up problems that they wouldn't have if he were four inches taller. Still, he's a great player, someone who literally gave me nightmares. That crossover step-back three against the Lakers in Game 1 of the 2001 Finals, I saw that in my sleep for weeks.

I'd say that all of those sentiments pretty much reflect my own take on Iverson: Great, but not on the impact level of those above him, which include some not as well remembered as others. My closest intuitive comparison, though he was a much better shooter but had a shorter peak as a scorer, would be Tiny Archibald.

Of course, you could also argue that he Beckett trade and subsequent deals as a result were a factor in them not making the playoffs last year. Beckett and AGon versus Arroyo and Ramirez...quick and dirty, that's a difference of about 67 vorp.

That crossover step-back three against the Lakers in Game 1 of the 2001 Finals

IIRC, that game was the only one the Lakers lost that postseason.

Sam,

I don't want to poop on your Kevin-needling party, but your hyperbolic praise of Hanley and ripping of the trade is a little nutty. He's definitely hitting like a madman, but he's the worst defensive shortstop in the game according to John Dewan.

If I'm in error, I'd appreciate an explanation--but is a dominant, 27 yr.-old #1 starting pitcher really worth less than an all bat, no glove 23/24-yr.-old SS? Even taking cost control into account? (though it's presumably less an issue for Boston than for the Marlins). I can see that Hanley is doing really well; I guess I'm just not convinced that he's worth more than Beckett.

I don't want to poop on your Kevin-needling party, but your hyperbolic praise of Hanley and ripping of the trade is a little nutty. He's definitely hitting like a madman, but he's the worst defensive shortstop in the game according to John Dewan.

If I'm in error, I'd appreciate an explanation--but is a dominant, 27 yr.-old #1 starting pitcher really worth less than an all bat, no glove 23/24-yr.-old SS?

Some people don't let me have any fun! See, now if Kevin came back with reasonable arguments like that, people wouldn't have nearly the same reaction to him they do.

Yes, Hanley has to improve defensively. It was reasonable last year to argue that it was an adjustment year for him, he's a rookie at the most demanding defensive position that doesn't face the center fielder, he'll improve, etc. But now is the time to start expecting to see some development, at least by the end of the season.

Nevertheless, with all that acknowledged, I don't agree that Beckett is a reliable "dominant, 27 yr.-old #1 starting pitcher." He's never had a consistently dominant season at any point in his career, and it's not like he's just starting out -- by the end of this season (if all goes well), he'll break 1,000 career innings. Just when is this supposed to happen? OK, maybe we're seeing it unfold before our very eyes, but I've got to see more than 60 innings before I'll believe it, and before I'll believe that the Sox are making up ground on a trade I still see as a mistake (and which I saw as a mistake from the day it was made). It's very nice for them that Beckett's given 'em a wonderful eight starts. But it doesn't change my fundamental view of who he is.

Hanley needs to improve with the glove, certainly. Even as he is, he's worth much more than Beckett. And of course, making a LOT less, which easily clinches the deal.

When did Beckett become reliable?

How long before Henry breaks out into "who will rid me of this tiresome starter"?

That seems reasonable, though the money seems like less of an issue for Boston than it might be for other teams, i.e. 3 yrs. of 180 IP @ around a 3.7 ERA (which lines up with his Fip and XFip) for $6-9 mil a year is worth more to the Red Sox than 6 yrs of a developing glove and .800-ish OPS for the League minimum at short.

I can see Boston front office personnel thinking that Schilling is old and soon to be gone, the SP talent on the farm is a couple-few years away, Lugo (in whom they've seemed perpetually interested) is coming up on free agency-- you trade Hanley et. al. for a young #1, pay him half or less than you'd have to pay a FA #1 starter, sign Lugo for similar money and you've spent the same money you would have spent on one SP on two different players, minimizing risk to some degree by spreading the money out.

Now you've also shored up the top of the rotation and created less pressure to push your pitching prospects through the system. You can let them develop and join an already solid staff, rather than put your white-knuckled trust in them in July of this year, or whatever.

I also think that Boston is not the place for Hanley to figure out how to use a glove. Those fans will tolerate slow starts with the bat from their home-grown guys (see Nixon, Trot); but defensive ineptitude will quickly earn you some goat horns. If the FO figured they'd have to keep him on the farm to work on his glove, then signing a SS was already in the cards.

I think the deal works out for Boston, but if Beckett continues to flay his right hand and Hanley puts together ten years like the last 1.25, then yes this deal will look very bad for them.