Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Over the weekend, Pedroia had a streak of hits in seven straight at bats. He was asked (by Steve Hyder, I think) if he'd ever had such a streak before and he said (paraphrasing) "Yeah, last year in Portland. I got a hit in nine straight at bats."
2. OCD SS
Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:37 PM (#2103805)
I think a lot of us expected a lot more from Loretta. It was easy to chalk his '05 up to his thumb injury, but it seems to me that the lower walk and power numbers might indicate a difference in approach rather than age creeping in (although might be a culprit as well).
Who on a contender needs a 2Bman? Looking to the Mets, I think the Sox could unload Loretta for less than the DRays would ask for Lugo. He wouldn't bring much in return (and the Mets don't have much) but I suspect Cora and Pedroia could cover Loretta's production pretty easily.
3. Darren
Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:50 PM (#2103815)
I expected more. As it is he's got an average bat at 2B with below average d. That's a bad combo.
The problem with the Mets is that they have the same needs we do. What about St. Louis?
4. PJ Martinez
Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:52 PM (#2103816)
I agree ocd, but if Loretta won't fetch much, he's not worth dealing (though I would guess the Sox might not offer him arbitration, in which case a trade makes that much more sense).
Since this is a ml thread, perhaps I can mention here that Lopez is back down there and Van Buren up (along with Wily Mo). When's the next time we can call up Lopez? Seems like we might have use for a loogy at some point in the near future-- though, with our starters going this way, we need a bunch of guys who can face more than one or two batters at a time.
5. DCA
Posted: July 18, 2006 at 09:54 PM (#2103818)
What about St. Louis?
Luna's doing okay. Also complicating things is that the Royals have either Graffanino or Grudzielanek to spare, both of whom are probably cheaper than Loretta, and they have needs everywhere but 3B.
6. Josh
Posted: July 18, 2006 at 11:41 PM (#2103933)
When's the next time we can call up Lopez?
Ten days from today -- after KC (off day) Seattle and Oakland, but before the LAA series (unless there is an injury, then before).
I'm not going to propose any trades, because the unknowables there are just staggering. I want the Red Sox to at least make a trade for a 90-95 ERA+ starting pitcher of reasonable durability. I'm concerned that the Sox don't have the minor league pieces to make such a trade, and I wouldn't trade Pedroia or Ellsbury for such a pitcher. I can't quite tell whether I'm cutting off all possibility for a reasonable trade, as it all depends on the market and the individual pitcher.
The possibility of trading Loretta sounds interesting, but it would require a confluence of situations that I don't really love. First, there would need to be a team willing to trade a reasonable SP for Loretta. Second, the Sox would need to be sucking pretty bad. That's the only way to justify trading a solid veteran at the deadline - you're not only trading for an upgrade for a weakness, but you're also shaking up the roster. Do it during a win streak or just a period of general success, and you could really risk screwing up the clubhouse. (The Nomar trade only worked because the team was playing like crap at the time, I think.)
I don't think Pedroia is currently that much better than Loretta, so the Sox aren't in a position where they need to call him up to improve hte roster. But I do think that if the circumstances outlined above arise, I'd like to see Loretta traded.
Spann's done a nice job of adding power, but it's come at the cost of a K-rate in the 25% range. That's going to be hard to overcome. He's getting it done right now with a .375 BABIP, and that number well outpaces his previous stats. He needs to cut down the Ks and maintain the power, which is a very tough twofer, but 22-year-olds in AA at least have a mild head start.
Murphy's interesting. It'd sure be nice if he turned into a ballplayer. I'd still trade him if he could fetch anything good.
9. Nasty Nate
Posted: July 20, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#2104922)
wake up sox therapy! the site is back up!
there is the Beckett extension to discuss and cause of the broken Wake-rib to discover!!
I like the Beckett deal. With the cost of starting pitching these days, I think the deal agreed upon was probably the best the FO could hope for.
They could have gotten Burnett without having to give up Ramirez and Sanchez, though. Yeah they would have had to pay a lot more, but performance-wise I don't know if there will be a huge difference over the next few years.
"We knew he was sore. We thought he slept wrong originally and he may have. When it turned into this, it's hard to tell," said Francona. (emphasis mine)
It seems that the current theory is that Wakefield somehow injured himself in his sleep.
12. Nasty Nate
Posted: July 20, 2006 at 11:44 PM (#2105535)
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. jim in providence Posted: July 18, 2006 at 01:36 AM (#2102817)Who on a contender needs a 2Bman? Looking to the Mets, I think the Sox could unload Loretta for less than the DRays would ask for Lugo. He wouldn't bring much in return (and the Mets don't have much) but I suspect Cora and Pedroia could cover Loretta's production pretty easily.
The problem with the Mets is that they have the same needs we do. What about St. Louis?
Since this is a ml thread, perhaps I can mention here that Lopez is back down there and Van Buren up (along with Wily Mo). When's the next time we can call up Lopez? Seems like we might have use for a loogy at some point in the near future-- though, with our starters going this way, we need a bunch of guys who can face more than one or two batters at a time.
Luna's doing okay. Also complicating things is that the Royals have either Graffanino or Grudzielanek to spare, both of whom are probably cheaper than Loretta, and they have needs everywhere but 3B.
Ten days from today -- after KC (off day) Seattle and Oakland, but before the LAA series (unless there is an injury, then before).
The possibility of trading Loretta sounds interesting, but it would require a confluence of situations that I don't really love. First, there would need to be a team willing to trade a reasonable SP for Loretta. Second, the Sox would need to be sucking pretty bad. That's the only way to justify trading a solid veteran at the deadline - you're not only trading for an upgrade for a weakness, but you're also shaking up the roster. Do it during a win streak or just a period of general success, and you could really risk screwing up the clubhouse. (The Nomar trade only worked because the team was playing like crap at the time, I think.)
I don't think Pedroia is currently that much better than Loretta, so the Sox aren't in a position where they need to call him up to improve hte roster. But I do think that if the circumstances outlined above arise, I'd like to see Loretta traded.
Murphy: 265/320/425 (AA: 250/285/375, AAA: 270/350/470)
Spann: 265/320/395
Spann's done a nice job of adding power, but it's come at the cost of a K-rate in the 25% range. That's going to be hard to overcome. He's getting it done right now with a .375 BABIP, and that number well outpaces his previous stats. He needs to cut down the Ks and maintain the power, which is a very tough twofer, but 22-year-olds in AA at least have a mild head start.
Murphy's interesting. It'd sure be nice if he turned into a ballplayer. I'd still trade him if he could fetch anything good.
there is the Beckett extension to discuss and cause of the broken Wake-rib to discover!!
They could have gotten Burnett without having to give up Ramirez and Sanchez, though. Yeah they would have had to pay a lot more, but performance-wise I don't know if there will be a huge difference over the next few years.
"We knew he was sore. We thought he slept wrong originally and he may have. When it turned into this, it's hard to tell," said Francona. (emphasis mine)
It seems that the current theory is that Wakefield somehow injured himself in his sleep.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main