<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>ETBlogs Sports - Latest Comments in Wow &amp;#8230; a little bombastic are we?</title><link>http://etblogs-sports.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://etblogs-sports.disqus.com/wow_8230_a_little_bombastic_are_we/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:16:19 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Wow &amp;#8230; a little bombastic are we?</title><link>http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/11/07/wow-a-little-bombastic-are-we/#comment-5697245</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I hope the Red Sox make no attempt to trade for Santana unless it is like the Rangers trade and they end up giving away stuff they don't want/need. As much as that deal didn't work out, what did the Sox lose? An outfielder who would never be used except in pinch running opportunities and a pitcher they thought was in the ultimate sell-high situation. If getting Santana meant losing Coco Crisp, Craig Hansen, Abe Alvarez, Julian Tavarez and a draft pick, I say do it. Otherwise, wait till next year and sign his as a free agent and keep all the players that have a future as stars or MAJOR trade chips. There is no guarantee the Yankees are getting him after this year, and why trade for him when there is no guarantee that he will sign an extension to stay in Boston?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Patrick MacKenzie</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:16:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Wow &amp;#8230; a little bombastic are we?</title><link>http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/11/07/wow-a-little-bombastic-are-we/#comment-5697247</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Bill--&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Just wondering if you were able to get the answers to those reader questions to our World Champion Sox that you promised during the early rounds of the playoffs.  Maybe I missed the blog entry that day.  Just curious what the answers were.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;You down with OCB?  Yeah, you know me!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Can&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Oil Can Boyd</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:08:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Wow &amp;#8230; a little bombastic are we?</title><link>http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/11/07/wow-a-little-bombastic-are-we/#comment-5697246</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Lester still has #2 upside.  He was back to throwing 92-93 towards the end of the year, and, if can attack the strike zone more consistently, has some of the best stuff on the staff.  Righty or lefty.  Also, I don't understand why Ellsbury would be untouchable.  No one has ever considered Lofton to be untouchable and they're basically the same player, minus ages of course.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Marcel</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:02:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Wow &amp;#8230; a little bombastic are we?</title><link>http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/11/07/wow-a-little-bombastic-are-we/#comment-5697248</link><description>&lt;p&gt;To me there are two untouchables among the youngsters.  Buchholz and Ellsbury.   My trade would be Coco, Moss, Lester (a marginal 3rd starter, more likely a 4th and that is only because he is a lefty) and Lowrie for Santana.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">s1c</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:33:36 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>