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.
Red Sox 2012 Offseason
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 13, 2012 18:23:21 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but you can't put forth the Yankees and Tigers as examples of how important having an ace is and then ignore the Giants and Cardinals, who advanced despite their starting pitching doing, on the whole, pretty poorly that round. (Lohse was ok, but I'm sure nobody would call him an ace, and Wainwright, Cain, and Bumgarner all have playoff ERAs over 5 right now) There's more than one way to build a team. I agree there's more than one way to build the team, but if you want me to mention the Giants and Cardinals, I will. The Giants avoided having to deal with Johnny Cueto, and the Cards got to avoid Stephen Strasburg. Let it be remembered the Sox won the World Series in 2004 and 2007 and didn't have to beat any elite pitchers in the World Series - Chris Carpenter didn't pitch in the 04 Series and the Rockies didn't have any true shutdown ace on their team either. You can win without aces. The 05 White Sox did it with a bunch of good pitchers pitching great, and I get the point that great pitchers can pitch badly and mediocre to good pitchers can be stars in the post-season, but when you have a true ace, in a short series it's an advantage. This is the reason nobody ever wanted to play the Sox in the division series in the late 90s. Who wants to deal with Pedro twice in 5 games? Obviously the ace can't do it himself. The Sox had nobody behind Pedro back then and you need the good but not elite pitchers, too. I just don't like seeing the Sox pay big bucks for guys like that or get locked into 4 year deals, etc. for guys like that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 13, 2012 19:18:42 GMT -5
This team has literally no long-term salary. The only players signed beyond 2014 are Pedroia and Buchholz, and both are at extremely team-friendly rates. They can sign a lot of mid-level contracts as long as they're limited in length and AAV. The bigger threat are players like Greinke or Hamilton that will command close to $20m salaries and 4+ year contracts-- those deals should only be given to truly elite players. Remember, this is the Boston Red Sox, and the owners have given every indication that they will continue to spent up to the luxury tax line.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 13, 2012 19:36:01 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but you can't put forth the Yankees and Tigers as examples of how important having an ace is and then ignore the Giants and Cardinals, who advanced despite their starting pitching doing, on the whole, pretty poorly that round. (Lohse was ok, but I'm sure nobody would call him an ace, and Wainwright, Cain, and Bumgarner all have playoff ERAs over 5 right now) There's more than one way to build a team. I agree there's more than one way to build the team, but if you want me to mention the Giants and Cardinals, I will. The Giants avoided having to deal with Johnny Cueto, and the Cards got to avoid Stephen Strasburg. Let it be remembered the Sox won the World Series in 2004 and 2007 and didn't have to beat any elite pitchers in the World Series - Chris Carpenter didn't pitch in the 04 Series and the Rockies didn't have any true shutdown ace on their team either. You can win without aces. The 05 White Sox did it with a bunch of good pitchers pitching great, and I get the point that great pitchers can pitch badly and mediocre to good pitchers can be stars in the post-season, but when you have a true ace, in a short series it's an advantage. This is the reason nobody ever wanted to play the Sox in the division series in the late 90s. Who wants to deal with Pedro twice in 5 games? Obviously the ace can't do it himself. The Sox had nobody behind Pedro back then and you need the good but not elite pitchers, too. I just don't like seeing the Sox pay big bucks for guys like that or get locked into 4 year deals, etc. for guys like that. As we more or less agree I'll quote you Yes there are arguably more than one way to create a winning team but if the payoff is $1000 do you want the bet that's 5-1 odds or the bet that's 50-1 odds? Remember the payoff is the same for either which in our case is the world series. There's enough luck involved in baseball as is, you need to try and stack the deck in your favor as much as possible and even then you have to hope for the best. In 2004 we also had 2.5 statistical aces in Pedro, Schilling and Lowe not to mention prime Manny and Ortiz batting 3 and 4. In 07 I don't think we make it past the Indians without Beckett. I do also agree with jmei that its somewhat pointless because right now there is no truce ace available. If one does miraculously become available we have the payroll flexibility to afford him now but if we want one I think we have to break lucky and draft him.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 14, 2012 21:13:41 GMT -5
This team has literally no long-term salary. ...The bigger threat are players like Greinke or Hamilton that will command close to $20m salaries and 4+ year contracts-- those deals should only be given to truly elite players. I don't really subscribe to the part about the 'threat' (to financial flexibility, I assume). If you only have one mega-deal going into next season - let's say Greinke at 5x23 - that is not a problem at all for 2013. The next season there are only 4 years left, and then 3 -- I think you know what comes after. The Sox got into trouble having two mega-deals PLUS large deals PLUS dead weight. If the Sox really intend to give every opportunity to their strong crop of upper-level prospects at the major league level over the next 6-7 years, this is not a bad time to sign onto a 5-year deal, whether for an elite player or a very good one. Whether Donald Greinke specifically qualifies, or Ellsbury, or another player in a trade-and-sign, is another discussion.
|
|
|
Post by curll on Oct 14, 2012 21:19:02 GMT -5
2.79 K/BB, 4.75 FIP, 4.14 xFIP. 1.7 WAR. 97 ERA+.
How many ways can one express "Meh" statistically? Derek Holland is a master at it.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,833
|
Post by nomar on Oct 15, 2012 13:15:43 GMT -5
This team has literally no long-term salary. ...The bigger threat are players like Greinke or Hamilton that will command close to $20m salaries and 4+ year contracts-- those deals should only be given to truly elite players. I don't really subscribe to the part about the 'threat' (to financial flexibility, I assume). If you only have one mega-deal going into next season - let's say Greinke at 5x23 - that is not a problem at all for 2013. The next season there are only 4 years left, and then 3 -- I think you know what comes after. The Sox got into trouble having two mega-deals PLUS large deals PLUS dead weight. If the Sox really intend to give every opportunity to their strong crop of upper-level prospects at the major league level over the next 6-7 years, this is not a bad time to sign onto a 5-year deal, whether for an elite player or a very good one. Whether Donald Greinke specifically qualifies, or Ellsbury, or another player in a trade-and-sign, is another discussion. Lester and Pedroia are going to need new deals too, just something to keep in mind.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Oct 15, 2012 13:30:48 GMT -5
Lester and Pedroia are going to need new deals too, just something to keep in mind. But not for another 2 & 3 years, plus Lackey (more or less) drops off.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,833
|
Post by nomar on Oct 15, 2012 18:52:29 GMT -5
Lester and Pedroia are going to need new deals too, just something to keep in mind. But not for another 2 & 3 years, plus Lackey (more or less) drops off. Good point. Chances are Greinke would be solid here because his FIP is always good, but i would try to stay away from him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2012 19:36:08 GMT -5
It is a contract year for ellsbury. Players who have boras for an agent tend to have career years during a contract year.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 15, 2012 22:18:18 GMT -5
What constitutes an "overpay"? I mean, I'd trade him straight-up for Andrus, but that's probably not going to happen. Do you do the deal if the top prospect you get in return doesn't crack the SP.com Top 5? Top 10? Easily, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 16, 2012 8:00:48 GMT -5
I'm thinking along the same lines-- if we get a prospect at a position of need (SP/1B/corner OF) who is in AA or above and cracks the top 5, I'd do that deal and just punt the 2013 season. But things get fuzzy if one or more of the conditions above aren't met, and I tend to think few/no teams would be willing to trade that kind of player for Ellsbury anyways.
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Oct 16, 2012 14:06:03 GMT -5
I'm thinking along the same lines-- if we get a prospect at a position of need (SP/1B/corner OF) who is in AA or above and cracks the top 5, I'd do that deal and just punt the 2013 season. But things get fuzzy if one or more of the conditions above aren't met, and I tend to think few/no teams would be willing to trade that kind of player for Ellsbury anyways. If I try to think of a circumstance in which a team would give us a player like that, it actually seems to me that it would be in July, despite the new rule in which traded players don't bring draft picks if they leave. A team this winter will not give up a Barnes-Bradley-Rubby type prospect, but if Ellsbury's hitting well, a team that is contending but has a noodle-bat playing CF might give us a serious mature prospect or two in July, hoping that it will be a three-month rental and not a two-month. A Bagwell or a Smoltz might be too much to ask, but maybe a Varitek or a Brady Anderson. (edited for spelling)
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 16, 2012 14:49:28 GMT -5
I'm thinking along the same lines-- if we get a prospect at a position of need (SP/1B/corner OF) who is in AA or above and cracks the top 5, I'd do that deal and just punt the 2013 season. But things get fuzzy if one or more of the conditions above aren't met, and I tend to think few/no teams would be willing to trade that kind of player for Ellsbury anyways. If I try to think of a circumstance in which a team would give us a player like that, it actually seems to me that it would be in July, despite the new rule in which traded players don't bring draft picks if they leave. A team this winter will not give up a Barnes-Bradley-Rubby type prospect, but if Ellsbury's hitting well, a team that is contending but has a noodle-bat playing CF might give us a serious mature prospect or two in July, hoping that it will be a three-month rental and not a two-month. A Bagwell or a Smoltz might be too much to ask, but maybe a Varitek or a Brady Anderson. (edited for spelling) The problem with holding on to hiim and waiting for this type of package is that I'm not overly confident in him having this type of year next year even if it is a contract year for a Boras client. I think its pretty safe to assume that at the end of his contract if he plays it out here we can make a qualifying offer and he'll decline or if he doesn't then we get him for another year at a price I wouldn't mind then we're in the same situation the year after. If he does decline the offer we get two picks which in the past had more potential value. I think we weigh the current value of those two picks versus the offers we get and go from there. Boras himself probably hopes he does get traded mid-season as not losing any comp picks would increase his value. On a side not if you're a professional athlete making millions of dollars and you need it to be a contract year in order for you to play up to your true potential you have no right playing professional sports. Without this going way off topic I don't know how much truth there is to the whole Boras client/contract year talk.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 16, 2012 15:21:52 GMT -5
It is a contract year for ellsbury. Players who have boras for an agent tend to have career years during a contract year. Except those named DiceK, David DeJesus, Ryan Madson, JD Drew (2011 version), Stephen Drew (current version), Frankie Rodriguez, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Oct 16, 2012 17:11:05 GMT -5
If he does decline the offer we get two picks which in the past had more potential value. . Two picks under the old system, but one under the new, right?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 16, 2012 17:59:51 GMT -5
Yes-- new system is that the new team gives up either their first round pick (if not top 10) or their second round pick (if top 10) and the old team gains one compensatory round pick (will probably be in the pick 28-35 range).
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 16, 2012 18:18:35 GMT -5
If he does decline the offer we get two picks which in the past had more potential value. . Two picks under the old system, but one under the new, right? Okay so I guess its only one. I thought it was one so I googled and what I read led me to believe it was two still. It could've been tricky wording or just plain wrong (I do believe it was a blog of some sort). So if I have this correct now the new team loses their pick but it DOES NOT go to the old team, it essentially moves all other teams after their pick up one slot? Only getting one pick in return I think increases the odds of him getting moved this off-season which I favored to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 16, 2012 20:29:33 GMT -5
So if I have this correct now the new team loses their pick but it DOES NOT go to the old team, it essentially moves all other teams after their pick up one slot?. Yes, this is how the new system works.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 16, 2012 20:39:01 GMT -5
So if I have this correct now the new team loses their pick but it DOES NOT go to the old team, it essentially moves all other teams after their pick up one slot?. Yes, this is how the new system works. Thanks for answering all the new CBA questions. You guys have to hate it more than we do by now.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 16, 2012 22:49:25 GMT -5
No worries.
Just remember last year - the Sox got two picks because the Phillies jumped the gun and signed Papelbon before the CBA was negotiated, but nobody else did.
|
|
|
Post by soxin8 on Oct 16, 2012 23:36:47 GMT -5
The Red Sox made the trade sending Gonzalez out of town on August 24, when their playoff chances had dropped to four tenths of one percent, and playing without WMB and Ortiz were really not even that good. I don't expect any Sox GM to ever give up on a year before that.
|
|
|
Post by dwoody3123 on Oct 19, 2012 17:54:07 GMT -5
Is there anyone subscribed to BA that could get the draft report card for the Sox?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 21, 2012 13:14:59 GMT -5
RT @rotoworld_BB: Report: Giants to put Lincecum on trade block dlvr.it/2M5jFk GIMEEEEE
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Oct 21, 2012 15:25:54 GMT -5
RT @rotoworld_BB: Report: Giants to put Lincecum on trade block dlvr.it/2M5jFk GIMEEEEE Please god no. I envision Pedro Martinez 2.0 and I think the best days of his career are behind him. I think that could turn into a disastrous trade considering what they'd want
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Oct 21, 2012 15:35:42 GMT -5
RT @rotoworld_BB: Report: Giants to put Lincecum on trade block dlvr.it/2M5jFk GIMEEEEE Please god no. I envision Pedro Martinez 2.0 and I think the best days of his career are behind him. I think that could turn into a disastrous trade considering what they'd want I know I'm in the minority, but if the Giants paid half his salary and we didn't give up much.....I'd love to take the chance myself.
|
|
|