RagahRagah

You're still not getting the point. Trading control of a quality player for one year of someone is a win now move. Listing other players has nothing to do with this. And the Sox aren't even going to compliment that move with any other starters? So who are we kidding? Has it also occurred to you that when Lynn is long gone that if Dunning has blossomed and we now have him in addition to those other names? That is how you build a roster and a farm system and make moves like the ones the Padres have made. And guess what? They still have a plentiful farm system. And they made numerous moves to make a push. That is not what we are apparently doing when it's what we need to do, and apparently the narrative the Sox are trying to sell us (If we make further impact moves I will apologize to you). I get where you are coming from, I really do. But it's shortsighted.

I love when people need to play stupid like this. Some of you are so good at being selective and dodging. Like I said, give me an example of what "all our chips" would be. We can't even sign a quality starter to complement Lynn. Why not just let Dunning pitch then? He would likely keep improving. But again, this is all moot because JR just won't have any balls.

You're highlighting the entire problem: not spending money. They can spend it, they just don't want to. Which pretty much renders ALL of this pointless.

That all remains to be seen. What is the point? Just spend some fucking money and sign Bauer. Then it makes some sense. 6 years of a ptlotential great starter for a good pitcher who will not be complimented well enough is pointless. Again, the point here again is cheaping out.

If they won't pay money to acquire a quality arm now, why wouldn't they give him the opportunity? Who is gonna take Lynn's spot in 2022? He was quality from the get-go and seemed likely to get better. Notice that what this all winds around to is the Sox being cheap.

If they sign him to an extension I'll gladly rescind. He is super solid. But he isn't going to be enough. If it's just merely "he improves our rotation" I would have rather continued developing Dunning.

Because that's not smart.

What would constitute putting all the chips in? We traded 6 years of a young pitcher who was owing along well and had high potential and more for 1 year. Trazing that kind of quality control for 1 year of someone is either going all in or being stupid. Pick 1.

It is all-in. He's 34 and here for 1 year. Dunning was coming along well. If we aren't all in then just let him pitch. Pick a street.

I absolutely believe it can happen. But we can't bank on it, not in a "go for it" year.

This is all I've been saying. I'm not sure how and why anyone can think otherwise. It is mind boggling.

Not sure what you mean but it's another thing when you clarify and examine something and then... the person being challenged completely ignores what you say, makes a bitter remark and then just leaves. This seems to happen a lot. Some people simply cannot just admit they didn't think something through. I dont care if that's the case, it's the resistance to admitting it that bothers me. Again I ask any of you challenging me... do you really think trading for 1 year of Lynn isn't a win now move? Of fucking course it is.

Define "everyone." Hey, I can do that, too! Why does "everyone" have to resort to hyperbole? ?

Trading Dunning for a "shot" where you aren't even gonna compliment Lynn is just stupid.

There is no "style." I'm merely pointing out things anyone should be able to put together. If you don't agree Lynn is a "win now" move, you are lacking comprehension.

There is nothing abstract. It's 100% clear cut. Lynn is a clear "win now" move. Otherwise it is a stupid trade. So keeping with that logic, you need more than that because the rotation is still tenuous. It only makes no sense if you lack comprehension. Or if you are one of those easily fooled fans that see any move and get excited without analyzing it.

Super teams? None of whom have anyone who is anything less than a superstar? I don't know why you are so blatantly lying to yourself about so many things. And again... 20 games is not 2 years. Stop.

You can keep telling yourself this, but it's wrong. The fact you have to, on numerous occasions, compare a 29 game period to "2 years" shows that your argument has no merit. And to suggest there is never room for a growing player on a championship team is just a blatant disregard of truth.

Everyone? There are differences between different people. Gio seems solidified. Lynn is 34. Keuchel was almost bad 2 or 3 years prior. Analyze things instead of thinking in black and white.

Follow the quotes.

They added 1 (admittedly fantastic) reliever. You're dancing around the point. They have not optimized and they really haven't spent much. I totally look at Lynn as a red herring here.

Oh God get off it with this. 29 games is not 2 freakin' years. How on earth are you seeing parallells with these absurd comparisons? If our lineup is as good as advertised, Madrigal's growing pains are not likely to cost us the big prize, lol.

At best we're looking at a crapshoot. We are not going to optimize. And that makes the Lynn trade terrible alone.

Dammit, guys. Get out of here with all this sensibility garbage.