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.
4/22-4/24 Red Sox vs. Yankees Series Thread
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 24, 2014 22:45:14 GMT -5
Basically the Sox have two reliable starters. Workman and ... Lackey? Lester and Lackey. Same two reliable starters that they had during the World Series. Not sure why you're bringing up Workman. He's going to ride the Pawtucket/Boston shuttle this season. Lester and Lackey for the most part have been effective this season. Both had one stinker but were pretty good in their other starts.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Apr 24, 2014 22:45:21 GMT -5
We all love dream lineups but as we're seeing defense matters. Odds are Xander will be at 3b by 2015 or 2016. Then one of WMB or Cecchini will wind up getting dealt. Agreed, and perhaps it's because I just see too damn much Alex Gordon in him but I always thought Cecchini could be the LF of the future.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 24, 2014 22:47:39 GMT -5
Not sure why you're bringing up Workman. He's going to ride the Pawtucket/Boston shuttle this season. Workman has gone 6 innings or more in 100% of his starts in the majors. Is that not reliable?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 24, 2014 22:47:43 GMT -5
We all love dream lineups but as we're seeing defense matters. Odds are Xander will be at 3b by 2015 or 2016. Then one of WMB or Cecchini will wind up getting dealt. Agreed, and perhaps it's because I just see too damn much Alex Gordon in him but I always thought Cecchini could be the LF of the future. I have the same feeling about Cecchini, too, but at this point the Sox might wind up with Betts in LF since 2b is blocked. In our dreams he's the SS that moves Bogaerts to 3b, but the reality is that he doesn't have the arm for SS and Marrero will probably be the guy that bumps Xander to 3b as it's obvious that having sub-par defense at SS is a really bad thing. Maybe that's what's keeping the Yankees from running away with the division.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 24, 2014 22:49:24 GMT -5
Not sure why you're bringing up Workman. He's going to ride the Pawtucket/Boston shuttle this season. Workman has gone 6 innings or more in 100% of his starts in the majors. Is that not reliable? And after two starts in the majors Vaughn Eshelman was unscored upon. Does that mean he was going to be Pedro in his prime? The way 2013 went, of course Workman would give them 3 good starts and pitch great in the post-season. Of course the way 2014 is going I wouldn't be so sure. He'll get his chance, though.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Apr 24, 2014 22:49:34 GMT -5
Guess you didn't see much of him at AAA last year. He must have been better at lower levels because this is what I saw last year. So, I guess we're gonna ignore the fact that he was always one of the youngest players in the league? Okay then. First it was number of games ,now age. Maybe his first step gets better as he ages. On a lighter note , I'm sure you were thrilled with Carp's off speed pitch.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 24, 2014 22:49:35 GMT -5
I still think this obsession with certain types of position-specific value can create big blind spots. Wouldn't it be great if Xander was a league average defensive SS or just under while being a well above average offensive SS? Sure it would, But even with another full year in minor league ball it may never happen just like Lavarnway will never be a catcher even if you give him the gear and set him up behind the plate. I'd rather have Xander as a .300/360/480 LF with 20+ HRs and get average value and have 1 year of Drew at slightly above ave D and ave or slightly below ave offense, followed by Marrero with above average to plus D at SS with a .260/.330/.390 line. As long as he's saving runs and getting on at aproughly a 33% rate he is ostensibly keeping games close and helping pitchers keep their counts down.
Xander is not a MLB SS now, and may never be. But this team needs one now - and an MLB catcher - or they'll be looking up at this division all summer long.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 24, 2014 22:55:49 GMT -5
I still think this obsession with certain types of position-specific value can create big blind spots. Wouldn't it be great if Xander was a league average defensive SS or just under while being a well above average offensive SS? Sure it would, But even with another full year in minor league ball it may never happen just like Lavarnway will never be a catcher ev en if you give him the gear and set him up behind the plate. I'd rather have Xander as a .300/360/480 LF with 20+ HRs and get average value and have 1 year of Drew at slightly above ave D and ave or slightly below ave offense, followed by Marrero with above average to plus D at SS with a .260/.330/.390 line. As long as he's saving runs and gitting on at 33% rate he is ostensibly keeping games close and helping pitchers keep their counts down. Xander is not a MLB SS now, and may never be. But this team needs one now - and an MLB catcher - or they'll be looking up at this division all summer long. Sadly I agree. I really didn't care to have Drew back because I felt that Bogaerts deserved the chance to become a major league SS and I still feel that way. Can't give up on a young guy after 20 games but it's obvious the odds are against him staying at SS long-term and there is an effect on the pitching staff. I think the Drew thing wouldn't have worked, though, because Boras/Drew would have been looking for a multi-year deal and the Sox really didn't need to go there and after winning the Series the Sox need to know what they have in WMB and Xander. Can't fault the Sox for that, but yes, Drew at SS would look great. As far as catcher goes, I'm with you. I hated the AJP signing from the get-go and he's done nothing to change my opinion. Hope Vazquez heats up and I am thrilled to see Swihart taking a step forward in his development. One thing that struck me in the post-season last year was how often the Sox benefitted from wild pitches in the dirt while Salty and Ross blocked just about everything. That's not the case this year with AJP around. Salty had an inaccurate arm but he was pretty good at framing pitches, or at least I thought he was, and I think he was decent at calling a game, but Ross was better in those categories, which is why with everything on the line last year it was Ross who got the call.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Apr 24, 2014 23:06:39 GMT -5
Mike Carp has a .000 BA against on the season vs major league hitters
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 24, 2014 23:36:02 GMT -5
"You're never as bad as you look when you lose...."
I think having WBM back will help a bit.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Apr 25, 2014 0:49:17 GMT -5
Have we hit bottom yet? Na. Usually when a team plays this bad, a shake up is due. Signing Drew would stabilize the infield. Any trade possibilities? Also finding a time machine to go back in time and sign Ellsbury and Salty would help. You have to wonder about their judgement and thinking or were they trapped by JH FA philosophy. Many said he left side of the infield could be a noose, and that hey underestimated Ellsbury effect on the lineup and offensive game. Financial flexibility is bs.
BTW will Bradley continue to receive walks if he can't even hit the dam ball?
I usually say patience. That was the case last year when they hit some speed bumps. But this team may have too many flaws ( bad defense that is now contagious , no lead off hitter, black holes in the lineup, a catcher that is close to being shipped to an old people's home). Sometimes things can turn on a dime, but this team right now is not worth a dime ( but it has financial flexibility).
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 25, 2014 1:30:43 GMT -5
Have we hit bottom yet? Na. Usually when a team plays this bad, a shake up is due. Signing Drew would stabilize the infield. Any trade possibilities? Also finding a time machine to go back in time and s ign Ellsbury and Salty would help. You have to wonder about their judgement and thinking or were they trapped by JH FA philosophy. Many said he left side of the infield could be a noose, and that hey underestimated Ellsbury effect on the lineup and offensive game. Financial flexibility is bs. BTW will Bradley continue to receive walks if he can't even hit the dam ball? I usually say patience. That was the case last year when they hit some speed bumps. But this team may have too many flaws ( bad defense that is now contagious , no lead off hitter, black holes in the lineup, a catcher that is close to being shipped to an old people's home). Sometimes things can turn on a dime, but this team right now is not worth a dime ( but it has financial flexibility). Getting into a bidding war with the yankees is a HORRIBLE idea… So im fine with not re-upping Ellsbury
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Apr 25, 2014 6:27:10 GMT -5
Have we hit bottom yet? Na. Usually when a team plays this bad, a shake up is due. Signing Drew would stabilize the infield. Any trade possibilities? Also finding a time machine to go back in time and s ign Ellsbury and Salty would help. You have to wonder about their judgement and thinking or were they trapped by JH FA philosophy. Many said he left side of the infield could be a noose, and that hey underestimated Ellsbury effect on the lineup and offensive game. Financial flexibility is bs. BTW will Bradley continue to receive walks if he can't even hit the dam ball? I usually say patience. That was the case last year when they hit some speed bumps. But this team may have too many flaws ( bad defense that is now contagious , no lead off hitter, black holes in the lineup, a catcher that is close to being shipped to an old people's home). Sometimes things can turn on a dime, but this team right now is not worth a dime ( but it has financial flexibility). Getting into a bidding war with the yankees is a HORRIBLE idea… So im fine with not re-upping Ellsbury It isn't a horrible idea as long as you end up losing the war .... which you usually do for players the Yankees really want.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Apr 25, 2014 8:19:43 GMT -5
JH and company have done wonders, and I am glad they are the owners. However, he is not the Pope or God. He can make mistakes, which he freely admits, and there may be some flaws to his philosophy, which also has very sound parts. That's life, muddy. No doubt, he brings his hedge fund and market experience and background into the game. He used mathematical formulas for his buying decisions, and his hedge funds made great money in some years, while losing in others. One story on his Fund reported that most of his trades lost money, and his profits came in periodic breakouts. He has said the volatility may not be for all and sought out institutional investors who could stand it. Sounds like the Sox of late, no.
Seems his experiences told him that he was right in the long run, a belief his he carried over to running the Sox. As he said, " fans usually won't like what sometimes are the best moves". True, but it is based on a faith for his formulas and perhaps the inherent volatility of the market. It is clear he did not believe in the "efficacy of the markets" ( correct there), which were often driven by "animal spirits". Thus, his hatred for competing in the free agency market. People over pay for products that do not have a long shelf life. (generally true). So how does he determine the value of a player? Well, back to his hedge fund experience, as this report shows:
Henry says the Red Sox use as many as three “nonbaseball financial experts” to determine how much to spend on a particular player. Gennaro, the sabermetrician, is trying to adapt the Black-Scholes Option Pricing model to value aging stars.
There is great wisdom in his view of paying too much and giving long contracts for guys who are stating to be over their prime years, but it is a general rule, and there are black swans. You really need to go case by case and be leery of applying a formula to a specific situation. People and players are not all alike and are not predictable. This is why we have brains,- to figure out what to do in a specific situation based on the particulars of that situation, not necessarily some general rule that you can apply to everything. Likewise, over the past century, there as been a growing discontent about using the math and statistical methodological of the physical sciences for the prime truth criteria for other fields of inquiry. But that is another story.
With regards to Ellsbury, he is reported to say that it made sense not to sign him in the long run;the money he saves ( by just paying Jr. and Sizemore) will help buy wins in the future. Good luck, as he should know, we cannot predict the future. Part of his philosophy is to develop from within so he will not have to pay ransom fees. Easier said then done, and it is hard to predict "prospects". It looks like Sizemore can't play center, and Bradley so far is not showing to be an offensive replacement for Ellsbury, maybe Gary Geiger. His supporters are now defending him by saying he walks. And as they are now finding out, there was a synergy to Ellsbury placed in the line up that can't be replaced by a faith that everyone else will hit and somehow the table setters will get on base. Ellsbury is a unique offensive player, and maybe can't be replace or his loss minimized. Why not keep him?
Many believe they were right in not chasing him in the market, but they had a chance before he went into free agency. How serious were they though. Look, the market is nuts, but in this business if you want certain players then you have to deal with it and pay more than you want to. You have to really think it out, and good luck with faith. Besides their judgement on prospects is suspect.( X-Man a shortstop? Hey, what stability did Drew actually give the team?) The market does not uses formulas) .
Maybe John Henry is right, but you know what they say about a bird in the hand, especially when the two in the bush may be bush.
Overall, glad that JH is at the helm, but he is not beyond some questions. Besides, if this is true, you have to like the guy:
It took a while for these talents to blossom, because Henry’s passion shifted to music, girls, and mysticism. After stints at four different California colleges studying philosophy and Jungian individuation, he dropped out to play bass in a prog-rock band called Elysian Fields that performed a rock opera about aliens from the constellation Cassiopeia. To support himself, he devised a card-counting system and earned money playing blackjack in Las Vegas. Life was pleasantly aimless.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 25, 2014 8:21:10 GMT -5
The better way to solve the K problem is to call the actual strike zone against lefties instead of giving an extra 4 inches, making it really difficult for lefties to hit. You mean like this? (That one extreme lefty strike was on a knuckleball.)
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 25, 2014 8:33:32 GMT -5
Have we hit bottom yet? Na. Usually when a team plays this bad, a shake up is due. Signing Drew would stabilize the infield. Any trade possibilities? Also finding a time machine to go back in time and sign Ellsbury and Salty would help. You have to wonder about their judgement and thinking or were they trapped by JH FA philosophy. Many said he left side of the infield could be a noose, and that hey underestimated Ellsbury effect on the lineup and offensive game. Financial flexibility is bs. BTW will Bradley continue to receive walks if he can't even hit the dam ball? I usually say patience. That was the case last year when they hit some speed bumps. But this team may have too many flaws ( bad defense that is now contagious , no lead off hitter, black holes in the lineup, a catcher that is close to being shipped to an old people's home). Sometimes things can turn on a dime, but this team right now is not worth a dime ( but it has financial flexibility). Letting free agents go and taking compensation was what got us Ellsbury in the first place. Spending big on free agents isnt really a viable long term strategy against the Yankees. This team is going to have growing pains, but there have been several key injuries. A trade may be necessary but a 7 year 157 million dollar contract to ellsbury or a 4 year 40 million dollar contract for Drew just aren't worth it, especially looking at the injury history of those two. I think this team is willing to spend but only on free agents they're more sure about. I trust Ben on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 25, 2014 9:21:54 GMT -5
Have we hit bottom yet? Na. Usually when a team plays this bad, a shake up is due. Signing Drew would stabilize the infield. Any trade possibilities? Also finding a time machine to go back in time and sign Ellsbury and Salty would help. You have to wonder about their judgement and thinking or were they trapped by JH FA philosophy. Many said he left side of the infield could be a noose, and that hey underestimated Ellsbury effect on the lineup and offensive game. Financial flexibility is bs. BTW will Bradley continue to receive walks if he can't even hit the dam ball? I usually say patience. That was the case last year when they hit some speed bumps. But this team may have too many flaws ( bad defense that is now contagious , no lead off hitter, black holes in the lineup, a catcher that is close to being shipped to an old people's home). Sometimes things can turn on a dime, but this team right now is not worth a dime ( but it has financial flexibility). Letting free agents go and taking compensation was what got us Ellsbury in the first place. Spending big on free agents isnt really a viable long term strategy against the Yankees. This team is going to have growing pains, but there have been several key injuries. A trade may be necessary but a 7 year 157 million dollar contract to ellsbury or a 4 year 40 million dollar contract for Drew just aren't worth it, especially looking at the injury history of those two. I think this team is willing to spend but only on free agents they're more sure about. I trust Ben on this one. I agree with dcsoxfan1989 to a large degree, and I was all in on Ells - but not at that price. However, I also believe it is practically impossible to build a championship team in this era solely with home-grown talent. Also, without a true salary cap, this team has an advantage that many others have but are unwilling to access; specifically, the billionaires who own the Red Sox are willing to spend up to the luxury tax, and even on occasion, above. It's great to have savings and value, but virtually no one goes to game to see value. We are fans, we want to win, and we all have opinions on how to do this. And really, what are they going to do with those savings this off-season? Does anyone see any Free Agents they either think will significantly improve this team - and if you do, do you think given recent statements and actions, this team will pay top dollar for them? The potential exists for a big trade (the ubiquitous Cliff Lee and Giancarlo Stanton). But until those happen they are Sports Talk Radio dreams. A lot of people here have faith in Ben. Mine assessment of him is still tempered. He definitely hit a home run last year, but the year before was meh in my opinion and this past off season was only slightly better than that. In part, I wondered if that was the result of the organization giving itself a bit of "a bridge year" pass since it won the World Series. That works, I guess. My real worry, however, is they actually bought into the lunacy of "This was a 100 win pythag team - even if we lose a few guys we should be a 93-95 win team!" That thinking may have validity if the team's average age was closer to 27 and most of the players are still ascendent in their skill levels, but that was not and is not this team. At the corners they had a career year from Nava and an atypical year from Victorino, who played like he was 5 years younger (when he did play). They lost 3 of their 4 up the middle players and gained defensively in only one position (CF), while losing offensively at two and, so far, not gaining enough offensively at the third to cancel out the defensive decline. I don't think any realistic GM would think the team he assembled this year is within 5-7 games of the pythag from last year. Prob not even within 10 (If he did that is concerning). Which is why I'm thinking this was a premeditated bridge year using the WS glow as cover. Maybe that's just me and this April malaise - I hope so - because bottom line, pitching and defense win in this game. We have very little of either with this team right now.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 25, 2014 9:34:13 GMT -5
I don't think any realistic GM would think the team he assembled this year is within 5-7 games of the pythag from last year. Prob not even within 10 (If he did that is concerning). Virtually every projection system had the Red Sox in the 88-93 win range. If you think that they are a significantly worse team than that, it's you who has the unrealistic expectations. In this day and age, the best that most front offices can do is built a team that projects to with ~90 games and hope for good luck.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 25, 2014 10:22:02 GMT -5
I think a big trade or off season move is coming up. Maybe the Sox would feel more comfortable investing in other players. Maybe Scherzer this off season they really like? Who knows. There may be a method to their madness.
I'm going to reserve my judgment until the inevitable moves are made.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 25, 2014 10:32:31 GMT -5
I don't think any realistic GM would think the team he assembled this year is within 5-7 games of the pythag from last year. Prob not even within 10 (If he did that is concerning). Virtually every projection system had the Red Sox in the 88-93 win range. If you think that they are a significantly worse team than that, it's you who has the unrealistic expectations. In this day and age, the best that most front offices can do is built a team that projects to with ~90 games and hope for good luck. I had them at 90 until the Pierzynski move. That dropped them to 75.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 25, 2014 10:50:20 GMT -5
I think a big trade or off season move is coming up. Maybe the Sox would feel more comfortable investing in other players. Maybe Scherzer this off season they really like? Who knows. There may be a method to their madness. I'm going to reserve my judgment until the inevitable moves are made. Boras client. Yankees shedding about $51M or so in salary, including Kuroda. Dodgers shedding $62+M including Beckett, Haren and Billingsly. Scherzer to the Red Sox could happen. And Ted Cruz could be president in 2016, but neither looks remotely likely. I am guessing a trade of some sort based on who is out there (a few good starters in a market that will give the top 3 - Scherzer, Lester and Shields at least 5 (and more likely 6-7 for the first two) years. I'm wondering if they let Lester walk and gamble on giving away assets for 2 years of Cliff Lee and hope one of the youngsters, perhaps (insert your favorite ultra best case unicorn projection ceiling starting pitching prospect here) becomes more than a #3 starter over that period. btw, the MFY's very transparent planned/hoped for path to make their pitching staff younger (and damn the declining years of each deal!) 2014 Tanaka 2015 Scherzer and/or Lester 2016 Price
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Apr 25, 2014 11:49:37 GMT -5
I think a big trade or off season move is coming up. Maybe the Sox would feel more comfortable investing in other players. Maybe Scherzer this off season they really like? Who knows. There may be a method to their madness. I'm going to reserve my judgment until the inevitable moves are made. Boras client. Yankees shedding about $51M or so in salary, including Kuroda. Dodgers shedding $62+M including Beckett, Haren and Billingsly. Scherzer to the Red Sox could happen. And Ted Cruz could be president in 2016, but neither looks remotely likely. I am guessing a trade of some sort based on who is out there (a few good starters in a market that will give the top 3 - Scherzer, Lester and Shields at least 5 (and more likely 6-7 for the first two) years. I'm wondering if they let Lester walk and gamble on giving away assets for 2 years of Cliff Lee and hope one of the youngsters, perhaps (insert your favorite ultra best case unicorn projection ceiling starting pitching prospect here) becomes more than a #3 starter over that period. btw, the MFY's very transparent planned/hoped for path to make their pitching staff younger (and damn the declining years of each deal!) 2014 Tanaka 2015 Scherzer and/or Lester 2016 Price I was using him as an example kinda. I have no idea who the Red Sox secretly covet in free agency. I don't think Cliff Lee's declining years intrigue Henry or Ben too much but thats just my thought based on their past moves. Interesting you bring up the Dodgers money situation. Lester to the Dodgers for prospects at the trade deadline makes a ton of sense to me if the Red Sox keep struggling. Maybe thats worth starting a thread in the trade proposal subforum? I know its April but of course these things are hypothetical teasers.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Apr 25, 2014 12:11:06 GMT -5
Sounding like it will indeed be Wilson coming up tonight. EDIT: Anddd Speier has confirmed Nava is being optioned to AAA. So, you're boycotting the season then? Sarasoxer, you might want to check that out too. I'm only crowing about this because of how much $hit# I got when I suggested this might happen. It's circumstantial, sure, but it's happening now. Let's understand that and try not to make definitive statements again when we have no effing clue. I don't think anyone had an "effing clue" on March 12th (even given your apparent high measure of clairvoyance of which you are justifiably proud) that Nava would be struggling so badly. Based upon Nava's 'I have arrived' season, his strike zone judgment and proven ability to work counts as a grind-it-out dirt dog, there was little expectation that he would be hitting .150. Had he been hitting .250 or better he would still be here.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 25, 2014 12:48:13 GMT -5
JH and company have done wonders, and I am glad they are the owners. However, he is not the Pope or God. He can make mistakes, which he freely admits, and there may be some flaws to his philosophy, which also has very sound parts. That's life, muddy. No doubt, he brings his hedge fund and market experience and background into the game. He used mathematical formulas for his buying decisions, and his hedge funds made great money in some years, while losing in others. One story on his Fund reported that most of his trades lost money, and his profits came in periodic breakouts. He has said the volatility may not be for all and sought out institutional investors who could stand it. Sounds like the Sox of late, no. Seems his experiences told him that he was right in the long run, a belief his he carried over to running the Sox. As he said, " fans usually won't like what sometimes are the best moves". True, but it is based on a faith for his formulas and perhaps the inherent volatility of the market. It is clear he did not believe in the "efficacy of the markets" ( correct there), which were often driven by "animal spirits". Thus, his hatred for competing in the free agency market. People over pay for products that do not have a long shelf life. (generally true). So how does he determine the value of a player? Well, back to his hedge fund experience, as this report shows: Henry says the Red Sox use as many as three “nonbaseball financial experts” to determine how much to spend on a particular player. Gennaro, the sabermetrician, is trying to adapt the Black-Scholes Option Pricing model to value aging stars. There is great wisdom in his view of paying too much and giving long contracts for guys who are stating to be over their prime years, but it is a general rule, and there are black swans. You really need to go case by case and be leery of applying a formula to a specific situation. People and players are not all alike and are not predictable. This is why we have brains,- to figure out what to do in a specific situation based on the particulars of that situation, not necessarily some general rule that you can apply to everything. Likewise, over the past century, there as been a growing discontent about using the math and statistical methodological of the physical sciences for the prime truth criteria for other fields of inquiry. But that is another story. With regards to Ellsbury, he is reported to say that it made sense not to sign him in the long run;the money he saves ( by just paying Jr. and Sizemore) will help buy wins in the future. Good luck, as he should know, we cannot predict the future. Part of his philosophy is to develop from within so he will not have to pay ransom fees. Easier said then done, and it is hard to predict "prospects". It looks like Sizemore can't play center, and Bradley so far is not showing to be an offensive replacement for Ellsbury, maybe Gary Geiger. His supporters are now defending him by saying he walks. And as they are now finding out, there was a synergy to Ellsbury placed in the line up that can't be replaced by a faith that everyone else will hit and somehow the table setters will get on base. Ellsbury is a unique offensive player, and maybe can't be replace or his loss minimized. Why not keep him? Many believe they were right in not chasing him in the market, but they had a chance before he went into free agency. How serious were they though. Look, the market is nuts, but in this business if you want certain players then you have to deal with it and pay more than you want to. You have to really think it out, and good luck with faith. Besides their judgement on prospects is suspect.( X-Man a shortstop? Hey, what stability did Drew actually give the team?) The market does not uses formulas) . Maybe John Henry is right, but you know what they say about a bird in the hand, especially when the two in the bush may be bush. Overall, glad that JH is at the helm, but he is not beyond some questions. Besides, if this is true, you have to like the guy: It took a while for these talents to blossom, because Henry’s passion shifted to music, girls, and mysticism. After stints at four different California colleges studying philosophy and Jungian individuation, he dropped out to play bass in a prog-rock band called Elysian Fields that performed a rock opera about aliens from the constellation Cassiopeia. To support himself, he devised a card-counting system and earned money playing blackjack in Las Vegas. Life was pleasantly aimless. You have to weigh things in the long-term. Bradley isn't Ellsbury. That's true. However that contract Ellsbury signed for is for seven years. The question is how much better will he be than Bradley over that timespan? In 2014 he's clearly better than Bradley and most likely will be in 2015. After that the answer isn't so clear and you still have 5 years and a ton of money on that contract. The problem is that free agent signings are not so black and white. How much did we hate the Lackey signing in 2010, 2011, and 2012? Yet nobody was complaining last October about it. Hell, even an awful flop of a contract like Barry Zito found some moments of time where it didn't seem so bad - like the 2012 post-season when Zito seemingly remembered how to pitch before forgetting again in 2013. Again with Drew as much as I would have liked him in 2014 the Sox would have been giving him a multi-year deal had they re-signed him and I think the Sox need to take the plunge and see what they have in WMB and Xander. 2014 is most likely the growing pains of watching young players struggle in certain areas when first coming up (Bradley's offense and Xander's defense for instance) and we'll most likely see that again in 2015 with others, but in the long run I think it's worth it because when those big dollar long-term contracts are signed you might get some value out of those deals, but definitely nowhere near the money you sign those free agents for and when that happens there's a lot of dead money on the payroll you can't use for other problems.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Apr 25, 2014 13:05:11 GMT -5
"You have to weigh things in the long-term." Champs in the long run we are all dead. This is the only thing we can predict about the long run.
|
|
|