Xander Bogaerts

[rjortiz]

Originally Posted by Palodios

Middlebrooks is far too valuable to be traded. Right now, I wouldn't move him for anyone not named Verlander, Weaver, Price, or Kershaw.

Harper, Trout, Stanton, Profar, Bundy, Tavares, Hernandez,............

[Palodios]

Originally Posted by rjortiz

Harper, Trout, Stanton, Profar, Bundy, Tavares

Don't care, need pitching.

Hernandez

I left him off my initial list because he has an insane contract, and isn't going anywhere.

[rjortiz]

Originally Posted by Palodios

Don't care, need pitching.

Hard to argue with this logic, even if it means you'd reject a trade for a 10 WAR player because he isn't a pitcher.

I left him off my initial list because he has an insane contract, and isn't going anywhere.

All of the pitchers you just listed are going to require contracts of that size to retain them.

[Palodios]

Originally Posted by rjortiz

Hard to argue with this logic, even if it means you'd reject a trade for a 10 WAR player because he isn't a pitcher.

If the Red Sox make a high-risk mega-trade with a high value trade chip like Middlebrooks, it needs to be for an ace. Trading for Trout or Stanton doesn't fix this team's problems.

[rjortiz]

Originally Posted by Palodios

If the Red Sox make a high-risk mega-trade with a high value trade chip like Middlebrooks, it needs to be for an ace. Trading for Trout or Stanton doesn't fix this team's problems.

Trout would make the team considerably better, regardless if they did anything with the pitching.

[Palodios]

Originally Posted by rjortiz

Trout would make the team considerably better, regardless if they did anything with the pitching.

One for one, sure it makes sense. But if you throw in Bogaertz or Bradley to make it happen, why bother?

[rjortiz]

I'd give up all three for Trout.

[Palodios]

Originally Posted by rjortiz

I'd give up all three for Trout.

And for the next five years, you'd be doing what the Angels did with him last year... watching the playoffs on a bigscreen at home.

[Dom]

Trout reported to Spring Training this year weighing 240 pounds with 9% body fat. What are the chances he's clean?

[rjortiz]

Originally Posted by Palodios

And for the next five years, you'd be doing what the Angels did with him last year... watching the playoffs on a bigscreen at home.

Really? Adding a 10 WAR player would increase the likeliness of missing the playoffs?

[Palodios]

Originally Posted by rjortiz

Really? Adding a 10 WAR player would increase the likeliness of missing the playoffs?

Nope, but trading three potential all-stars, and mortgaging your entire team's future on one player will.

[BSN07]

Originally Posted by Dom

Trout reported to Spring Training this year weighing 240 pounds with 9% body fat. What are the chances he's clean?

It's a big gain but I will give the benefit of the doubt. My first impression when I saw him last year in Boston was surprised at how big he was. You wouldn't expect someone that big to be as speedy as him. That's what separates him from the rest physically. I also remember thinking this guy will be a monster when he filled out. At his age and with his frame a 5,000 calorie a day diet plus off season training I don't put it out of the realm of possibilities he put the extra muscle on without illegal help. But you never know.

[Dom]

Here's Trout on photo day in spring of 2012. (put .jpg at the end of these links and that will give you the url)

megasportsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Mike-Trout-LAA-full-courtesy-MLBpressbox.com_-268x300

Here he is now.

binaryapi.ap.org/d5320be84d8146b59d5319217c934278/512x

[Dojji]

Originally Posted by Dom

Here's Trout on photo day in spring of 2012.




Here he is now.

Cleaned that up a bit for ya.

[jacksonianmarch]

They said he was going to look like Urlacher during his prime. This is a little early, but so be it. Bulking up might actually decrease his worth, though