SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2013 11:41:54 GMT -5
I just can't see the Sox keeping Dempster if he's projected to be in the bullpen. Waste of money. They could trade him for something useful if that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 31, 2013 12:07:41 GMT -5
I agree on some level. But you can never have too much pitching. Without Dempster, it makes Workman the #6 and then Webster, Barnes, RDLR, Wright. I guess Wright has been impressive. Webster and RDLR haven't done anything to inspire confidence this year. They can't command anything, so they may or may not be ready to step in. And Barnes is likely 1/2 season to a full season from being capable - depends on how he finishes the year.
I think it would depend on what you get for Dempster.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2013 12:14:31 GMT -5
I agree on some level. But you can never have too much pitching. Without Dempster, it makes Workman the #6 and then Webster, Barnes, RDLR, Wright. I guess Wright has been impressive. Webster and RDLR haven't done anything to inspire confidence this year. They can't command anything, so they may or may not be ready to step in. And Barnes is likely 1/2 season to a full season from being capable - depends on how he finishes the year. I think it would depend on what you get for Dempster. But you could sign 2-3 decent RP for the same money Dempster is getting plus whatever they could get in a trade. Since he likely wouldn't be woth a comp pick, I'd deal him.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 31, 2013 12:20:06 GMT -5
I don't disagree. I'd certainly look for deals. Just not sure what you'd get in return. I wouldn't just unload for teh sake of unloading him.
You're right, you could get 2-3 relievers for his salary, but I'm thinking of him as someone who could start if you needed him to.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 31, 2013 12:28:33 GMT -5
Dempster is not a waste of money in the pen rotation insurance. Remember, roster spots are at a premium so 3-4 good relievers isn't even possible to add and if you trade him in the offseason then he's gone. If not, he goes through Spring as a starter to protect against injury. That's valuable. Plus, he's a good closer option and 12m for 1 year of a closer isn't a lot.
No point in giving up your depth when it's not necessary.
Obviously, it depends what you can get in trade for guys so you explore it, but Dempster probably won't net a return more valuable then what he brings.
Lester could but if he pitches well the rest of the year then you want him on a contending team.
The squad is set up to be able to carry these salaries no problem so why do we care about what they bring for the money? It's about what they bring vs what you'd get by moving on. One year deals for Lester, Dempster, Peavy and Lackey. That's great flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 31, 2013 12:31:01 GMT -5
I don't see how Doubront gets taken out of rotation, doesn't make a lot of sense since he's young and improving - cant mess with him. He's a valuable part of the rotation long term and equally or more effective then Dempster.
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Jul 31, 2013 12:38:11 GMT -5
I'm so sick of Buchholz, please trade him this offseason. Smart
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Aug 1, 2013 16:00:18 GMT -5
Move Lackey in the off season to a fringe contender in the National League for a mid-level prospect and cash relief or some bullpen help.
1. Buchholz (R) 2. Lester (L) 3. Peavy (R) 4. Doubront (L) 5. Dempster (R)
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 1, 2013 16:11:28 GMT -5
I think it is too early to know who will be moved, but I would be really surprised if a move isn't made. You never know how the off-season will play out, but if a Shields-for-Myers type deal is available the Red Sox are primed to take advantage. I've never seen a Red Sox team with the pitching depth this team projects to have next year.
Just think about this: Allan Webster, Rubby de la Rosa, Matt Barnes, Anthony Ranaudo, Brandon Workman, and Henry Owens COULD all be ready for the majors by this time next year. That is on top of the 6 major league starters. Odds are that everything doesn't go smoothly and some of these guys have hiccups along the way, but to have that kind of depth in the upper minors in incredible. Year-after-year we see the value of pitching depth. This may be the first year I can remember that we don't have to bring in AAAA pitchers and MLB retreads with early opt-out dates to provide that depth.
Edit: Also, the value of your 6th-8th starters all having options is significant. It seems that we are often juggling calling pitchers up with the fact that they are out of options. That isn't an issue for this team and the flexibility really helps when early season spot-starts are needed.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 1, 2013 16:14:50 GMT -5
I think it is too early to know who will be moved, but I would be really surprised if a move isn't made. You never know how the off-season will play out, but if a Shields-for-Myers type deal is available the Red Sox are primed to take advantage. I've never seen a Red Sox team with the pitching depth this team projects to have next year. Just think about this: Allan Webster, Rubby de la Rosa, Matt Barnes, Anthony Ranaudo, Brandon Workman, and Henry Owens COULD all be ready for the majors by this time next year. That is on top of the 6 major league starters. Odds are that everything doesn't go smoothly and some of these guys have hiccups along the way, but to have that kind of depth in the upper minors in incredible. Year-after-year we see the value of pitching depth. This may be the first year I can remember that we don't have to bring in AAAA pitchers and MLB retreads with early opt-out dates to provide that depth. I think it'll be Dempster, but a team could blow us away for Lester.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Aug 1, 2013 16:31:44 GMT -5
Move Lackey your best pitcher this year in the off season to a fringe contender in the National League for a mid-level prospect and cash relief or some bullpen help peanuts. No thanks.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Aug 1, 2013 16:46:59 GMT -5
Move Lackey your best pitcher this year in the off season to a fringe contender in the National League for a mid-level prospect and cash relief or some bullpen help peanuts. No thanks. You want to bet on him being the same guy next year that he is being this year so far? I would put my money on this being the outlier and him being more like the guy he has been the previous 3 years here. Plus, he is making the most money.
|
|
|
Post by izzy on Aug 1, 2013 17:13:22 GMT -5
You want to bet on him being the same guy next year that he is being this year so far? I would put my money on this being the outlier and him being more like the guy he has been the previous 3 years here. Plus, he is making the most money. Yeah, but he's making the league minimum in 2015. His contract from here on out is actually a really good deal for the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Aug 1, 2013 17:34:44 GMT -5
I think it is too early to know who will be moved, but I would be really surprised if a move isn't made. You never know how the off-season will play out, but if a Shields-for-Myers type deal is available the Red Sox are primed to take advantage. I've never seen a Red Sox team with the pitching depth this team projects to have next year. I could've sworn two days ago we were a "BIG market team" and "didn't participate in these trades" because we need the established vets who make lots of money rather than prospects who may or may not pan out.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Aug 1, 2013 17:36:59 GMT -5
Don't be surprised if there is actually an extension worked out with Lackey. I doubt anyone other than xxdamgoodxx would be surprised, in fact I would welcome it. Dempster on the other hand, I would trade him for a "B Prospect". You don't get a "B Prospect" for a #5 starter
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Aug 1, 2013 17:39:13 GMT -5
You want to bet on him being the same guy next year that he is being this year so far? I would put my money on this being the outlier and him being more like the guy he has been the previous 3 years here. Plus, he is making the most money. Yeah, but he's making the league minimum in 2015. His contract from here on out is actually a really good deal for the Red Sox. In 2015, yes, but next season he is making almost 16 million.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Aug 1, 2013 18:20:09 GMT -5
Yeah, but he's making the league minimum in 2015. His contract from here on out is actually a really good deal for the Red Sox. In 2015, yes, but next season he is making almost 16 million. So? It's not like that's a crazy amount of money, the Red Sox have plenty of money to spend next year, and I would definitely bet on him being closer to what he was/is this year than what he was in 2011. It's a simple fact that he was pitching injured back then, and he's healthy now; maybe he won't be this good, but he'll be a lot better than he was. Plus, you're talking about trading him for pennies on the dollar (a mid-level prospect or a reliever? Seriously?).
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Aug 1, 2013 18:24:07 GMT -5
In 2015, yes, but next season he is making almost 16 million. So? It's not like that's a crazy amount of money, the Red Sox have plenty of money to spend next year, and I would definitely bet on him being closer to what he was/is this year than what he was in 2011. It's a simple fact that he was pitching injured back then, and he's healthy now; maybe he won't be this good, but he'll be a lot better than he was. Plus, you're talking about trading him for pennies on the dollar (a mid-level prospect or a reliever? Seriously?). With the rotation as stacked as it is I would rather put that money to use on a bat. Plus IMO he is just not a good guy. So if it comes down to moving him or Dempster, ya I am gonna move Lackey.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 1, 2013 18:33:45 GMT -5
So? It's not like that's a crazy amount of money, the Red Sox have plenty of money to spend next year, and I would definitely bet on him being closer to what he was/is this year than what he was in 2011. It's a simple fact that he was pitching injured back then, and he's healthy now; maybe he won't be this good, but he'll be a lot better than he was. Plus, you're talking about trading him for pennies on the dollar (a mid-level prospect or a reliever? Seriously?). With the rotation as stacked as it is I would rather put that money to use on a bat. Plus IMO he is just not a good guy. So if it comes down to moving him or Dempster, ya I am gonna move Lackey. [
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 1, 2013 18:48:08 GMT -5
The Red Sox are far enough from the luxury tax in 2014 that I cannot see them trading a pitcher who is unambiguously one of the five best in their rotation (read: not Dempster) solely to save money. They have to get enough in return to make the downgrade worth it, and that certainly isn't a Marrero-level prospect or a reliever. Plus, name some free agent bats that you'd like them to spend that cash on. Ellsbury? Choo? McCann? This front office has consistently reiterated their unwillingness to commit long-term, big-money contracts to free agents entering their 30s. They're not going to break that pledge for those guys unless they're coming cheaper than expected. If you're talking about the likes of Morales or Hart or Morse, the Red Sox certainly don't need to move cash to get one of those guys.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Aug 1, 2013 18:57:09 GMT -5
The Red Sox are far enough from the luxury tax in 2014 that I cannot see them trading a pitcher who is unambiguously one of the five best in their rotation (read: not Dempster) solely to save money. They have to get enough in return to make the downgrade worth it, and that certainly isn't a Marrero-level prospect or a reliever. Plus, name some free agent bats that you'd like them to spend that cash on. Ellsbury? Choo? McCann? This front office has consistently reiterated their unwillingness to commit long-term, big-money contracts to free agents entering their 30s. They're not going to break that pledge for those guys unless they're coming cheaper than expected. If you're talking about the likes of Morales or Hart or Morse, the Red Sox certainly don't need to move cash to get one of those guys. Ellsbury and McCann. I would estimate that between the two, you'd be looking at around $30 million a year, so Lackey's salary off the books would replace half that. The other half, as you said, they could pay since they are not that close to the tax. As for "jumping the shark", I don't quite get it. I still don't like the guy, he has had a spotty work ethic at best, is a jerk in interviews, treated his wife like crap while she was going through cancer treatment, etc., etc., etc. In reality, we have 4 starters locked in for next year's rotation and it really comes down to Dempster or Lackey. Just my personal preference, but I'd rather have Dempster as my 5th starter than Lackey.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 1, 2013 18:59:35 GMT -5
With the rotation as stacked as it is I would rather put that money to use on a bat. Plus IMO he is just not a good guy. So if it comes down to moving him or Dempster, ya I am gonna move Lackey. You're working with some hot sports opinions there bro.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 1, 2013 19:01:01 GMT -5
In reality, we have 4 starters locked in for next year's rotation and it really comes down to Dempster or Lackey. Just my personal preference, but I'd rather have Dempster as my 5th starter than Lackey. Yeah, good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Aug 1, 2013 19:03:02 GMT -5
With the rotation as stacked as it is I would rather put that money to use on a bat. Plus IMO he is just not a good guy. So if it comes down to moving him or Dempster, ya I am gonna move Lackey. You're working with some hot sports opinions there bro. Thanks "bro", just saying when deciding which starter has to go, that's a negative on the Lackey side, especially after they have worked so hard to improve the clubhouse and Dempster is considered one of those good chemistry guys whereas Lackey is the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Aug 1, 2013 19:03:21 GMT -5
Because you'd rather lose than have a big jerk-face on the team...
Regardless, I think it is a fools errand to try and define which starter you would like to trade at this point. The depth this team has with starting pitching will give them the flexibility to pounce on any opportunities that comes up. In a vacuum, I would rather move Dempster, but if the option is moving Lester for Oscar Taveras or dumping Dempster for a B prospect, I trade Lester every time.
|
|
|