|
Post by soxfanatic on Sept 24, 2014 16:30:12 GMT -5
Not that it matters, but they got the pick in the Lackey trade. Not according to this and thisMea culpa. I didn't have my facts straight.
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on Sept 24, 2014 16:38:49 GMT -5
A rare sight on an internet message board. Good on you.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Sept 24, 2014 18:03:19 GMT -5
Can one be banned from the board as punishment for acknowledging an error? :-) I thought you were required to claim that it was sarcasm any time that you were factually wrong or stated a ridiculous opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 24, 2014 21:00:53 GMT -5
Can the Sox lose the competitive balance pick they received from Oakland in the Lester deal for signing a free agent? Not that it matters, but they got the pick in the Lackey trade. Yeah they definitely got the pick in the Cespedes trade. And yes, they can. You lose your earliest non-protected picks.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Sept 24, 2014 21:11:39 GMT -5
Not that it matters, but they got the pick in the Lackey trade. Yeah they definitely got the pick in the Cespedes trade. And yes, they can. You lose your earliest non-protected picks. Hmm .... does this fact give us a little hint about the Sox's FA strategy this winter? At the time the Sox obtained this pick they knew they were bailing on the season and would quite possibly be in a position where their first-round pick was protected. If that's so, why would they take a competitive balance pick in a trade if they knew it could be in jeopardy through signing a FA? If they were obtaining that pick you'd think they'd want to make it. Does this suggest that they aren't going to make big splashes in the market this winter?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 24, 2014 21:50:49 GMT -5
The pick they acquired is between the second and third rounds. They'd give up their second round pick if they signed a QO FA either way, so that interpretation doesn't make much sense.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Sept 24, 2014 21:56:28 GMT -5
Can't that competitive balance pick be traded by the Sox? A trade of that pick would create value even if Boston later signed one or more free agents who would require a draft choice to be forfeited.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Sept 24, 2014 23:29:11 GMT -5
Can't that competitive balance pick be traded by the Sox? A trade of that pick would create value even if Boston later signed one or more free agents who would require a draft choice to be forfeited. Those picks can only be traded once.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonsterwhalers on Sept 25, 2014 1:23:56 GMT -5
Wow, I didn't know you could lose a competitive balance pick. I looked it up and you guys are right, and you're also right that a competitive balance pick can only be traded once. Nice find.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Sept 25, 2014 6:51:34 GMT -5
1.Arizona 63 96 .396 2.Houston 3.Texas 65 93 .411 4.Colorado 66 93 .415 5.Minnesota 68 90 .430 Detroit 4 6.Houston 69 90 .434 Mets 3 7.Boston 69 89 .437 Tampa 1, NYY 3 8.Chicago Cubs 71 88 .447 Milw 3 9.Chicago Sox 72 86 .456 10.Philadelphia 72 86 .456
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Sept 25, 2014 8:18:37 GMT -5
Sox slipped to seventh because of last night's win. Damn those rookies, Ranaudo and Cecchini. How is the team going to improve if these kids keep playing that way?
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Sept 25, 2014 9:17:47 GMT -5
Sox slipped to seventh because of last night's win. Damn those rookies, Ranaudo and Cecchini. How is the team going to improve if these kids keep playing that way? Talk about being conflicted!!! On the one hand, I was very excited to see Cecchini (could he have had a better game?) and Mookie play and on the other, was almost hoping for some miracle comeback by the Rays. It appears that we are something of a lock for 8th pick to a max high of 5th. From what I've read though it does not appear to be a draft year where two or three slots apart will make much of a difference. The Sox obviously may feel otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Sept 25, 2014 9:42:20 GMT -5
The pick they acquired is between the second and third rounds. They'd give up their second round pick if they signed a QO FA either way, so that interpretation doesn't make much sense. So the move could mean that the Sox would sign no more than one QO FA? Perhaps a real limitation in an offseason where the Sox might be looking to add 2 top-shelf starters and perhaps upgrade at 3B?
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 25, 2014 9:48:03 GMT -5
The pick they acquired is between the second and third rounds. They'd give up their second round pick if they signed a QO FA either way, so that interpretation doesn't make much sense. So the move could mean that the Sox would sign no more than one QO FA? Perhaps a real limitation in an offseason where the Sox might be looking to add 2 top-shelf starters and perhaps upgrade at 3B? No, it doesn't. That pick is very close to a 3rd round pick anyway, so if we lose the pick, we'll keep the 3rd rounder which we wouldn't have if we didn't trade for the pick. Also Lester and Headley don't require QOs neither does miller or Koji, and Id guess someone like Masterson wouldn't require one. I think we can easily fill all our holes without more than 1 QO, and it's not a big deal if we give up more than 1
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 25, 2014 10:35:42 GMT -5
Yeah, what soxfan1615 said-- their third round pick will only be 10ish slots lower than the Oakland pick, so it's not like losing the Oakland pick would be some huge loss. Their acquiring the pick really presents no indication of their offseason plans. It was just another asset that Oakland was willing to give up for Lester and that the Red Sox wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 25, 2014 11:09:33 GMT -5
If anything, wouldn't acquiring another pick make them MORE willing to sign QO free agents? If you have more picks, you're losing less when you have to forfeit one.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Sept 25, 2014 11:23:58 GMT -5
If anything, wouldn't acquiring another pick make them MORE willing to sign QO free agents? If you have more picks, you're losing less when you have to forfeit one. Depends on how one values draft picks, and especially multiples toward the top of the draft, where finding significant contribution at the major league level is most likely, especially in a capped environment. This organization has had major success in past years in drafts with a larger cluster of picks toward the top. I could see where there would be a temptation to hit another draft "home run" in 2015. That of course might be tempered by the organization's view of the quality of the 2015 draft class.
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Sept 25, 2014 11:40:33 GMT -5
I was pretty pissed about last night's win, especially considering Minnesota won. It's now going to be extremely tough to land in the top five. Houston is anemic on offense right now. It's increasingly likely we pick 6 or 7.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 25, 2014 12:01:35 GMT -5
I was pretty pissed about last night's win, especially considering Minnesota won. It's now going to be extremely tough to land in the top five. Houston is anemic on offense right now. It's increasingly likely we pick 6 or 7. You're pretty pissed that Ranaudo, Cecchini, Bogaerts, and Betts lead the Sox to a win last night, and that we might drop one (or gasp, two) spots in the draft?
|
|
|
Post by greenmonsterwhalers on Sept 25, 2014 12:15:50 GMT -5
I was pretty pissed about last night's win, especially considering Minnesota won. It's now going to be extremely tough to land in the top five. Houston is anemic on offense right now. It's increasingly likely we pick 6 or 7. You're pretty pissed that Ranaudo, Cecchini, Bogaerts, and Betts lead the Sox to a win last night, and that we might drop one (or gasp, two) spots in the draft? Yeah, there's nothing wrong with being pissed about the Red Sox winning at this point in the season. Remember, it's not just being a pick or two higher in the first round- it's being a pick or two higher in all 50 rounds.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonsterwhalers on Sept 25, 2014 12:22:58 GMT -5
what the hell? Texas on a 10-1 streak to blow the #1 pick. I know that is crazy. I'd be FURIOUS if I were a Rangers fan. Far and away the worst team all year and just when it looks lke the #1 pick is locked up, go on an obscene run to blow a top 2-3 pick. "What the hell" and "FURIOUS" are exactly right. They're now 11-1 in their last twelve games and would currently have the #3 pick instead of the #1 pick. They're also only one win away from matching Colorado's record and thus dropping down to the #4 pick. Talk about a rough season!
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Sept 25, 2014 12:23:10 GMT -5
I'm much happier to see how well the rooks played. I'm more than fine with our top 8 pick this year, whether it's 6, 7, or 8.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 25, 2014 12:36:48 GMT -5
New projection:
69.4 Min 70.3 Hou 71.0 Bos (7) 72.3 ChN 74.0 Phi 74.0 ChA
It would be good to pick ahead of the Cubs, whose FO is likelier than others to value the same player left on the board at that point.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Sept 25, 2014 12:50:23 GMT -5
I understand the ambivalence, nightly I root for the young guys and young starters, then want a vet or vet reliever to blow the lead- best of both worlds. Wonder how likely the draft picture changes between then and now re: differential of several picks/quality in general?
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Sept 25, 2014 13:35:32 GMT -5
You're pretty pissed that Ranaudo, Cecchini, Bogaerts, and Betts lead the Sox to a win last night, and that we might drop one (or gasp, two) spots in the draft? Yeah, there's nothing wrong with being pissed about the Red Sox winning at this point in the season. Remember, it's not just being a pick or two higher in the first round- it's being a pick or two higher in all 50 rounds. Thats a really negligible point. I can faintly understand why you would want to pick 5th rather than 7th. Depending on how a draft breaks down, it can be the difference between a Frazier and a Ball. In other words, its feasible that you identify a strong top tier or 5 players and you happen to be picking 6th which could be unfortunate. But in the 2nd round and beyond, thats a really negligible difference. I would imagine its quite rare that a team has a specific player targeted in those rounds and that player gets scooped in the prior 1 or 2 picks before their draft position. I think thats especially true past round 3. Not saying its impossible, but thats such a minor thing to worry about, and subsequently root against our current talent pool for the opportunity to draft a player that may or may not reach the majors several years from now.
|
|