|
Post by jmei on Oct 28, 2014 7:01:11 GMT -5
If it was someone in the organization, Madden probably would have used a more strongly-worded term ("a source inside the Red Sox organization" or "a member of the coaching staff/front office"). Writers usually use the most authoritative-sounding anonymous source title possible because it gives them the most credibility. This is especially true for an article like this one written by an out-of-towner who doesn't really have to curry favor with the front office and doesn't really have to worry about burning bridges. "Red Sox insider" is the kind of generic mumbo-jumbo that could be a locker room attendant or a player's wife or a beat writer.
A beat writer, by the way, is exactly the last person who would report this, because if they reported it themselves, it would almost certainly piss off the coaching staff and front office and cost them access. But if you pass it to one of your New York buddies and they attribute it to "a Red Sox insider," that covers your tracks.
It's possible it was a coach/front office guy wanting to cover his tracks, but what's their agenda? This news makes it harder to trade the guy that the coaches allegedly hate, which makes it different from the sort of on-the-way-out hatchet jobs that this front office likes to leak about guys who left the organization. And why would they leak it to a NYDN guy rather than one of the local guys or a hot-shot national guy?
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 28, 2014 11:53:42 GMT -5
MLB Network Radio ?@mlbnetworkradio 3 min. Farrell: "Totally surprised and caught off guard" by reports coaching staff didn't like Yoenis Cespedes - "completely unfounded"
|
|
|
Post by youngbillrussell on Oct 28, 2014 11:56:29 GMT -5
Just makes no sense. I get they might want to trade him, cool no problems with that. But why would they tranish his value on the trade market?
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Oct 28, 2014 12:09:50 GMT -5
Just makes no sense. I get they might want to trade him, cool no problems with that. But why would they tranish his value on the trade market? They wouldn't and they didn't. But it's pretty unfortunate that a blurb from Bill Madden of NY that stems from god knows where is getting spun into the "the Red Sox intentionally trash all the players they don't like to the media -- no one leaves unscathed" narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 28, 2014 13:34:58 GMT -5
If it was someone in the organization, Madden probably would have used a more strongly-worded term ("a source inside the Red Sox organization" or "a member of the coaching staff/front office"). Writers usually use the most authoritative-sounding anonymous source title possible because it gives them the most credibility. This is especially true for an article like this one written by an out-of-towner who doesn't really have to curry favor with the front office and doesn't really have to worry about burning bridges. "Red Sox insider" is the kind of generic mumbo-jumbo that could be a locker room attendant or a player's wife or a beat writer. A beat writer, by the way, is exactly the last person who would report this, because if they reported it themselves, it would almost certainly piss off the coaching staff and front office and cost them access. But if you pass it to one of your New York buddies and they attribute it to "a Red Sox insider," that covers your tracks. It's possible it was a coach/front office guy wanting to cover his tracks, but what's their agenda? This news makes it harder to trade the guy that the coaches allegedly hate, which makes it different from the sort of on-the-way-out hatchet jobs that this front office likes to leak about guys who left the organization. And why would they leak it to a NYDN guy rather than one of the local guys or a hot-shot national guy? This was exactly what I was thinking, line for line. Same reason the chicken-and-beer expose had to be passed off to a Globe writer who doesn't cover sports. This one wasn't really important enough to do that with, but I could see a beat writer with inside info not wanting to burn a source by writing it. I will even give you guys the example of this very site: we've become aware if inside information at times in the past that we knew we couldn't report and considered passing off to other folks with the cache to report it. I don't recall that we've actually done it (and before you go back and scour my posts or anything, it's nothing I'd even have alluded to here), but trying to find a balance between maintaining your access and doing your job as a reporter can be a tough thing sometimes, especially when you're covering something like sports where it's not like you have a duty to the public good or something like you might when covering, say, the government.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 28, 2014 13:56:17 GMT -5
Just makes no sense. I get they might want to trade him, cool no problems with that. But why would they tranish his value on the trade market? Well we know why a Yankees writer might want to tarnish his value on the trade market. That's probably what Cherington sticks with when he's calling GMs.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 29, 2014 8:16:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by youngbillrussell on Oct 29, 2014 9:21:03 GMT -5
I like Sandoval a lot and there's been a lot of speculation of his postseason inflating his value on the market. While the numbers are good his power has been non existent. Can't see him getting 20 million on the market, more of the 16-18 million range.
Could also see Headly getting 13 million range, 3-4 years.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 29, 2014 9:34:45 GMT -5
Mo Vaughn and Prince Fielder come to mind regarding over 30 players with those body types. Beware Sandoval.
|
|
|
Post by youngbillrussell on Oct 29, 2014 10:00:17 GMT -5
Pablo just turned 28 in August. I'd hold off on declaring him over 30 for a few more years.
Fielder and Mo Vaugh didn't break down until they were 31-32 years old. Don't see the problem with giving Pablo a 4-5 year deal if the contract will end when he's 33. Sounds like a perfect time to give someone of his stature a contact.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Oct 29, 2014 10:06:30 GMT -5
Pablo just turned 28 in August. I'd hold off on declaring him over 30 for a few more years. Fielder and Mo Vaugh didn't break down until they were 31-32 years old. Don't see the problem with giving Pablo a 4-5 year deal if the contract will end when he's 33. Sounds like a perfect time to give someone of his stature a contact. Mo and Prince were manning the other side of the diamond. Big difference there.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 29, 2014 10:08:54 GMT -5
Fangraphs crowdsourcing results are in for this year's free agents: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/fangraphs-crowd-the-top-55-free-agents/Note that the projections for most of the high-end guys tend to be slightly conservative, and in general the prices for most of these guys seen low to me. Still a useful tool, though. Guys of note (median estimate used): Scherzer: 7/$168 Lester: 6/$132 H. Ramirez: 5/$90 Shields: 5/$90 Sandoval: 5/$80 Martin: 4/$56 Headley: 4/$56 Miller: 3/$24 A. Ramirez: 2/$20 Uehara: 1/$8
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Oct 29, 2014 10:37:00 GMT -5
Fangraphs crowdsourcing results are in for this year's free agents: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/fangraphs-crowd-the-top-55-free-agents/Note that the projections for most of the high-end guys tend to be slightly conservative, and in general the prices for most of these guys seen low to me. Still a useful tool, though. Guys of note (median estimate used): Scherzer: 7/$168 Lester: 6/$132 H. Ramirez: 5/$90 Shields: 5/$90 Sandoval: 5/$80 Martin: 4/$56 Headley: 4/$56 Miller: 3/$24 A. Ramirez: 2/$20 Uehara: 1/$8 It's worth noting that the Fangraphs crowd-sourcing predictions from last offseason were generally spot-on with AAV, but were 1 or 2 years light on the big-name FAs.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Oct 29, 2014 11:33:51 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of signing a 3B this off-season.
While I don't have a lot of confidence in Cecchini, Marrero, Middlebrooks, Coyle, individually, I do like them collectively. I think one of them (no idea which) will become a solid, cost-controlled infielder to play next to Bogaerts. I would prefer to go with Holt, at least for the first half of the season. The decision can be reconsidered prior to the trade deadline.
I feel sort of the same way about the Red Sox pitching prospects. I think eventually, they will end up with a couple starters and some good bullpen pieces. Again I don't feel I could identify who will succeed and who will fail (but I believe their collective value will exceed the collective value of the return if traded).
However I think the Sox do need to add pitching, especially in the near term, and, at some point, they will probably want to invest in a power bat if one comes on the market.
I don't see the urgency to commit long-term resources for a (very possibly) short term upgrade at third. I would rather use/keep the flexibility to address other needs with less feasible in-house solutions.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 29, 2014 11:52:48 GMT -5
Pablo just turned 28 in August. I'd hold off on declaring him over 30 for a few more years. Fielder and Mo Vaugh didn't break down until they were 31-32 years old. Don't see the problem with giving Pablo a 4-5 year deal if the contract will end when he's 33. Sounds like a perfect time to give someone of his stature a contact. He's probably getting over $100 million for at least 5 years and he doesn't really hit well enough for 1B. I predict his contract will be a disaster after 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 29, 2014 12:23:28 GMT -5
Free Willy!!!
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Oct 29, 2014 12:28:34 GMT -5
The only issue I have with signing Headley or Sandoval is that it renders Cecchini/Marrerro (basically) useless. Unless they plan on making Cecchini a 3B/LF/1B UTIL type player, or Marrerro a INF bench piece, they'd be blocked at the major league level for, at least, the next 4 years. Of course the tradeoff is getting a quality, guaranteed, middle of the order bat (something you can't count on from Cecchini), but it certainly creates a logjam on the left side of the infield. Therefore, if Boston is looking to acquire a star LF or an ace, Cecchini/Marrerro will certainly be used as secondary pieces in the deal.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 29, 2014 12:50:56 GMT -5
The only issue I have with signing Headley or Sandoval is that it renders Cecchini/Marrerro (basically) useless. Unless they plan on making Cecchini a 3B/LF/1B UTIL type player, or Marrerro a INF bench piece, they'd be blocked at the major league level for, at least, the next 4 years. Of course the tradeoff is getting a quality, guaranteed, middle of the order bat (something you can't count on from Cecchini), but it certainly creates a logjam on the left side of the infield. Therefore, if Boston is looking to acquire a star LF or an ace, Cecchini/Marrerro will certainly be used as secondary pieces in the deal. Problem is that's what we've done the last few years with WMB and it really isn't working out. Regarding Marrero, I'm still skeptical that Xander can ever be a good enough 3B because it seems to require those fast twitch muscles that he doesn't seem to have. ARod is an example of a guy who was a great SS and average at best 3B. I think Xander is starting out much lower than that and would be better off somewhere besides 3B if he has to move off SS.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 29, 2014 16:35:30 GMT -5
Joe Maddon is going to the Cubs.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 29, 2014 17:31:54 GMT -5
Let's see if Theo can end another curse, cause now is when you can start judging them for results on the field because the last few they've been sucking intentionally.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 29, 2014 17:54:58 GMT -5
A-Rod got killed in the press for doing similar stuff a few years back. The only difference is he didn't screw anyone out of a job.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Oct 29, 2014 18:32:12 GMT -5
Hopefully they don't mention it in the middle of the game. If I remember correctly Arod/Boras announced with the game not even finished, and the dudes at Fox had to mention it as if they had to.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Oct 29, 2014 18:39:12 GMT -5
The only hope I have of this not getting the coverage A-Rod got is that A-Rod was easily one of the top 5 baseball players at the time. The last thing I want in a game 7 is having to hear what is going to happen to Joe Maddon.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 29, 2014 18:50:13 GMT -5
A-Rod also announced his opt-out in the middle of the game. The Maddon news wasn't announced, a reporter broke it. He had a date that he had to opt out by in his contract, the Cubs obviously had an interest in getting something done as quickly as possible - I don't see how this is similar to the A-Rod situation. If Torey Lovullo got hired by the Twins today would you think anything of it? This is just something for people who already dislike Maddon to complain about.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Oct 29, 2014 20:59:45 GMT -5
Buster Olney, last week in one of his insider columns, suggested that there is a lot of "Inside Baseball" talk about tampering by the Cubs.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you
|
|