That's why I said the Nats former ace. He's not a top 3 pitcher in the rotation, but he was technically their 'ace.' Anyways, he would be a decent 5th starter. Won't cost much.
this doesn't make sense.
my issue is the language you use. an "ace" pitcher is verlander, strasburg, felix, sabathia etc. guys who are more or less head and shoulders above the field on any given night.
john lannan has never been the "ace" of the nationals. throwing out 2007 when he pitched 34 innings, in 2008 he was their best starting pitcher but that is not an "ace". it's a default measure of "aw hell, we're probably going to win 59 games this year, better throw that 23 year old lefty out there". lannan was not much of an "ace" in 2008. he didn't throw 200 innings, he had a 1.6 k/bb and he was just a generally average pitcher. was he the best on the team? sure. does that make him a "nationals ace"? no. it makes him a good pitcher on a ****** team.
he got worse in 2009, throwing over 200 innings and seeing his k/bb drop and almost walk as many as he struck out. is that an "ace"? or in 2010 when he was demoted to double a? 2011 when he pitched above league average w/r/t era+ but still saw his k/bb drop? or this past year when he failed to crack a nationals rotation that saw chien-ming wang make five starts?
i realize that this seems like piling on. he got knocked around a bit after the nationals used him to fill in for strasburg. but at this point, he'd basically be a "hey, we have this guy we're going to do nothing with...want him for lannan?" kind of trade since lannan is likely headed to non-tender status. he's the kind of pitcher that a ****** team like the twins will pick up and hope to flip into something decent. he won't help the red sox. his hr/fb % was above league average pitching in a middle-of-the-road to neutral pitcher's park in dc.
he's just not a good pitcher.
and the lackey comparison was just me ****ing around during a boring work conference call.
Myers, Hamilton, Ortiz, WMB, Bogaerts, JBJ in 2014 sounds good to me.
Ortiz should be a 20-25 homer 85 Rbi guy by then and who knows he might just drop of a cliff before or durring 2014, He is not a sure thing but if he is still productive protected by Hamilton behind him maybe he will still put up big numbers but he is not a for sure guy in 2014
my issue is the language you use. an "ace" pitcher is verlander, strasburg, felix, sabathia etc. guys who are more or less head and shoulders above the field on any given night.
john lannan has never been the "ace" of the nationals. throwing out 2007 when he pitched 34 innings, in 2008 he was their best starting pitcher but that is not an "ace". it's a default measure of "aw hell, we're probably going to win 59 games this year, better throw that 23 year old lefty out there". lannan was not much of an "ace" in 2008. he didn't throw 200 innings, he had a 1.6 k/bb and he was just a generally average pitcher. was he the best on the team? sure. does that make him a "nationals ace"? no. it makes him a good pitcher on a ****** team.
he got worse in 2009, throwing over 200 innings and seeing his k/bb drop and almost walk as many as he struck out. is that an "ace"? or in 2010 when he was demoted to double a? 2011 when he pitched above league average w/r/t era+ but still saw his k/bb drop? or this past year when he failed to crack a nationals rotation that saw chien-ming wang make five starts?
i realize that this seems like piling on. he got knocked around a bit after the nationals used him to fill in for strasburg. but at this point, he'd basically be a "hey, we have this guy we're going to do nothing with...want him for lannan?" kind of trade since lannan is likely headed to non-tender status. he's the kind of pitcher that a ****** team like the twins will pick up and hope to flip into something decent. he won't help the red sox. his hr/fb % was above league average pitching in a middle-of-the-road to neutral pitcher's park in dc.
he's just not a good pitcher.
and the lackey comparison was just me ****ing around during a boring work conference call.
Lannan is one of those average journeyman inning eating starters that bounce around the league, no one really desperate to own or keep them but they are worth a shot for any team when they happen to have an empty slot.
Guess what.
We have an empty slot.
Oh and he's 28. Not exactly decripit. I'd consider him a good analogue with Jeremy Guthrie actually.
my issue is the language you use. an "ace" pitcher is verlander, strasburg, felix, sabathia etc. guys who are more or less head and shoulders above the field on any given night.
john lannan has never been the "ace" of the nationals. throwing out 2007 when he pitched 34 innings, in 2008 he was their best starting pitcher but that is not an "ace". it's a default measure of "aw hell, we're probably going to win 59 games this year, better throw that 23 year old lefty out there". lannan was not much of an "ace" in 2008. he didn't throw 200 innings, he had a 1.6 k/bb and he was just a generally average pitcher. was he the best on the team? sure. does that make him a "nationals ace"? no. it makes him a good pitcher on a ****** team.
he got worse in 2009, throwing over 200 innings and seeing his k/bb drop and almost walk as many as he struck out. is that an "ace"? or in 2010 when he was demoted to double a? 2011 when he pitched above league average w/r/t era+ but still saw his k/bb drop? or this past year when he failed to crack a nationals rotation that saw chien-ming wang make five starts?
i realize that this seems like piling on. he got knocked around a bit after the nationals used him to fill in for strasburg. but at this point, he'd basically be a "hey, we have this guy we're going to do nothing with...want him for lannan?" kind of trade since lannan is likely headed to non-tender status. he's the kind of pitcher that a ****** team like the twins will pick up and hope to flip into something decent. he won't help the red sox. his hr/fb % was above league average pitching in a middle-of-the-road to neutral pitcher's park in dc.
he's just not a good pitcher.
and the lackey comparison was just me ****ing around during a boring work conference call.
I think the joke was lost on you this time. Obviously Lannan has never been a true ace, but nationals staff was so bad that he was their best pitcher, or their "ace".
I think the joke was lost on you this time. Obviously Lannan has never been a true ace, but nationals staff was so bad that he was their best pitcher, or their "ace".
That was my point. He's not considered "hot" stuff by any means, but as a fifth starter in Boston I don't think it would be bad. It wouldn't cost us a thing. Plus, he's still young.
The real point here is that we DEFINITELY had worse starters than John Lannan at many points in Boston last year. Adding him to the mix is unstupid. Refusing to add him to the mix because he isn't Randy Johnson in his prime is not unstupid.
Can someone please explain why you would trade Lester for a prospect, even if that prospect is Myers?
This team does not need offense, it needs pitching, namely starting pitching. Lester had a mediocre year, but the fact is, he's a #2 LHP. You don't deal that away for an OF prospect period. It's not like Lester is 34 or something, he's 29 and still under contract for 2 more seasons.
^ people tend to forget he's still our ace pitcher. While he had one bad year, everyone did as well. You keep him to see if he bounces back with Farrell. You don't trade a guy like that.
Especially with a guy who's stats are inflated due to playing in the PCL.
Emotions. Lester is "part of the losing" and Myers is exciting and new. There is literally no other reason. There is nothing rational about this.
Disagree completely. They are at least a year, maybe even 2-3 years, away from contending for a title. Lester can leave in 2 years, so you'd be swapping a guy who can help you on his own while your team struggles for a guy that can be a key piece to your team for 6 years while they contend. If you hang onto Lester to the point where he can leave, like ellsbury can next winter, all you get is a supplementary pick that is a few more years off. I'm not sure how that's based on emotion.
Also, they have had success developing pitchers (lester, buchholz, doubront, papelbon) and no luck at all developing a legit power hitter. Myers helps in that department.
Can someone please explain why you would trade Lester for a prospect, even if that prospect is Myers?
This team does not need offense, it needs pitching, namely starting pitching. Lester had a mediocre year, but the fact is, he's a #2 LHP. You don't deal that away for an OF prospect period. It's not like Lester is 34 or something, he's 29 and still under contract for 2 more seasons.
Not sure the Sox have a shot with or without Lester in the next two years. Rather have an every day, almost surefire stud corner OF and control for 6 years. In two years you then have to decide what to do with Lester. Tough decision if he doesnt come back strong.
Myers put up similar numbers to Anthony Rizzo, albeit in more games. Rizzo is a year older, and both were in the same league. Would you take Sands over Rizzo?
Any interest in adding Reynolds...he was non-tendered by Baltimore...would bring some power (and a ton of strikeouts) to the line-up...and by all accounts he plays decent D at first.
