RagahRagah

"Being active" is clearly not the problem or even suggested to be.

This is such a ridiculous blanket statement it's not even funny.

At this point I'm almost convinced if I told you that 2 and 2 is 4 you'd disagree with that, too. This move is conducive with an all-in mentality, otherwise we could have traded some lesser assets or used Dunning to help land someone with a longer contract. It just wasn't a good trade if they aren't going to do their best to win it all this year.

He has 6 years of control IIRC and he got off to a good start and is developing well. I'm not sure why some people are blatantly ignoring this.

People are being really disillusioned about our rotation.

What a schmuck.

To me, the fact it was an obviously bad idea is actually overshadowed by how bush league and embarrassing it makes the organization look. Laughing stock type of foolishness.

Kluber was signed by the Yanks.

And someone who is under control for more than a year. If we are intent on keeping guys like Vaughn and Kopech Then we need to make our prospects count when it comes to trades. Trading one of our best prospects who is under control for several years for 1 rental of a 34 year old is not smart if they aren't pushing for it all this season. Dunning should have been used then for someone closer to who you are referring to. Now, that's not to say that couldn't still happen but if it doesn't, it just reeks of the usual Sox stupidity.

One year rentals are for an all-in moves. There's literally no other point. You even just said yourself it's to advance deeper into the postseason. There are other moves we could get done simply just to get deeper, as are apparently being discussed. Unless you're looking to win it all now, there's just simply no point in doing this.

I'd say Cease is arguable. Dunning is still a valuable asset who is coming along well. There is no point in trading that for a mere rental if it's not a win now move. Period.

We all know improving your chances is not enough. You have to follow through. Teams don't trade quality controlled players for 1 year rentals unless they are going for it. You can keep contradicting me all you want, but it's contrary.

If it's not an all in season, then you don't trade a potential quality starter who is developing that could just pitch that year for one year of a 34 year old. I am not sure why this has to be repeated constantly and it is getting tiresome.

Lynn is supposed to move the needle, and he very well might. It's a one year deal and he is 34 years old. It's definitely an all in move, I don't see how that's even an argument. If it's not an all in move, then you keep Dunning, who had control and was developing well. There's no logical way around that.

It wasn't worth the shot. Because it was pathetic and bush league. The Sox knew what he wanted and instead tried to be cute. Sorry, there is no defending something so foolish.

The "past few" seasons were not this one. This one has been treated as an all in season. The Lynn trade was an all in move. Yet apparently we are not going all in. Having a "pretty good team" is entirely irrelevant to the point here. We were a pretty good team without the trade.. Trading for Lynn is a win now move yet we are apparently not going to spend enough on our other needs to solidify that notion. Which makes the trade a waste. It would be different if he had multiple years left. It's not hard to understand.

That's just ridiculous. We ended up with 2 shit players we wasted money on and looked like desperate idiots in the process. The money could have just gone towards the offer. It was pathetic.

Absolutely right on with B.

I definitely don't expect it.

I figure that. Even if Bauer is forced to go less. Hendriks is a great get but if this plays out the way it is looking then the "all in" narrative was a complete sham and they screwed the pooch. Again.

Yet this will not happen. I fully expect this offseason to ultimately fall in line with the typical FO failures we are used to.

But we aren't going to spend more than 8 mil on a starter (LOL), apparently.

Actually, we do. That would be Dallas. However, Dallas is a regression candidate. Yet, so is the guy we traded Dunning for. And we need more than just 1 starter. So why trade the most viable possible starter prospect who is coming along nicely for ONE year of said older regression candidate? That would have been better saved for someone more on a long term basis as we supposedly are seeking now. Especially if we really don't plan on signing anyone else and go dumpster diving. If we really aren't in a position to seriously go for it all this season, then we just need to wait and save our asset rather than roll the dice unnecessarily. It's rather simple. Your seeming assertion that we *needed* to do this, specifically for this specific pitcher, seemingly just to say we added a starter, is just silly. There is a wide spectrum of things we can do. Acting like Dunning had to be traded specially for Lynn is head-scratching. The fact we're talking about going after Richards is a clear indicator we shouldn't be pushing all our chips in as we don't have enough to win a big enough prize. Just sit back and wait to accumulate more chips first. This is just clearly gross mismanagement.

How the hell would not trading for Lynn been equivalent to punting the season?