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.
Sox: Headed up or headed down?
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Sept 15, 2014 10:35:30 GMT -5
Like it or not the callers on talk radio represent the average fan and Nesn viewer. Clearly they have had influence over the years and continue to. Now, they really aren't. They are a very specific demographic and segment of the overall fan and NESN viewer. They have some influence, for sure, because they are a core demographic (in a political campaign, they'd be the noisy part of your base), but the Sox know who they are and what percentage of their overall demographic they are. It's not actually that high, I'd guess. Personally, I can afford to ignore them completely, so I do.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Sept 15, 2014 10:41:34 GMT -5
Here's the article you're talking about: www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-marlins-looking-for-third-second-and-catching-help/It says the Marlins approached the Red Sox about Cecchini, but that the Red Sox told Miami that they had no interest in moving him. However, Stanton's name is conspicuously absent, and the article is in the context of the Marlins adding to their core, not breaking it apart. I certainly wouldn't read it as saying that Cecchini held up a Stanton deal. No it was more recent than that. Late June/July 2014. And I am now convinced it was Gammo. I actually thought I posted it here too and we kind of laughed it off, but I looked and I didn't. Grrr - Sheesh - I knew I should've saved. The Miami actually were talking about it if ya google it from last March. They said something to the likes of 5 with Mookie and Bradley thrown in along with Garin and a couple others. I'm sure they got the idea from a Boston article though from Cafardo. www.fishstripes.com/2014/3/11/5496388/giancarlo-stanton-trade-rumors-miami-marlins-boston-red-sox-garin-cecchini
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 15, 2014 10:58:06 GMT -5
There is a grand canyon of logic between a made up rumor article without real sources and being angry at Cherington for not making a Stanton trade because he didn't want to give up Cecchini.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 15, 2014 12:46:03 GMT -5
There is a grand canyon of logic between a made up rumor article without real sources and being angry at Cherington for not making a Stanton trade because he didn't want to give up Cecchini. There was no leap there. I was discussing how, overall, one cannot absolve the front office for this season because they took reasonable chances - most of which did not pan out - as Eric asserted, rather it bears full culpability because they did not improve the team from the year before, which in pro sports means they got worse. And, anticipating the strawman counter that would come from some here (i.e. "What were they supposed to do, buy every free agent or over pay for player X!?") I further asserted that it becomes difficult to discuss the performance of the front office fully in part because we cannot evaluate (since we don't have the details) on the trades that were not made. As examples I offered Cherrington's own assertion that teams had asked about both Nava and Doubront, and the report that the framework of a trade for Stanton was abandoned when MIA asked Cecchini to be added in. Never said I was angry or anyone here should be. For all we know they asked for Swihart, Mookie, Bradley, Betts, Barnes, Owens, Renaudo, Cecchini and two more guys. The point wasn't to rip Ben for moves not made, but rather challenge Eric that, even though the moves they made were reasonable, they did not have a team on the field on April 1, 2014 that was as good or better than the team that made the playoffs. My overriding point being that, even if I agreed with the long game being played by the front office, it disingenuous for Eric to ostensibly absolve management and disparage people here who disagreed with those moves. Management did not improve the team by opening day, 2014 - that's something virtually everyone here agreed with on April 1. Of course, many agreed that the reduction was minimal. Most agreed with the overall strategy, believed in the projections - especially for the rookies - and believed the Sox would still be highly competitive. Some people thought that step back would result in a 92 win team; others of us put it in the 80s. All of us were wrong. But whether you agreed with the whys and hows and thought what they did was perfectly rational and defensible, it doesn't discount the fact that they made these decisions and it ultimately proved to be a complete miscalculation. So in fact, as Eric stated, "The notion that this season was ruined by a whole bunch of bad off-season decisions just doesn't hold water" is flat out false. Those decisions were completely rational and defensible, but they resulted in a team that performed poorly. Starting 3 rookies, depending on Victorino to play 100 or more games, not replacing the players lost to free agency with equal or better players - whether we agreed with the strategy behind this, in the short term these decisions proved to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Sept 15, 2014 12:52:58 GMT -5
There is a grand canyon of logic between a made up rumor article without real sources and being angry at Cherington for not making a Stanton trade because he didn't want to give up Cecchini. I'm with you here. this is going to wind up pointing to one of those infamous 5% factual and 95% horscrap stories, if there is ever any direct correlation at all between the marlins, Boston and cecchini. i don't put that 1 article linked so far past the 5% smell test yet. Who is going to be the next guy Boston refused to move in a deal and was involved in an unfounded rumor? Who here is going to start the next wave of unfounded (and uncalled for) attacks on the FO for a deal of Stanton that was never on the table to begin with? Some just need to sit back and think a little about how unrealistic what they are posting before automatically taking sides with a blow hard like Cafardo.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 16, 2014 11:01:29 GMT -5
There is a grand canyon of logic between a made up rumor article without real sources and being angry at Cherington for not making a Stanton trade because he didn't want to give up Cecchini. There was no leap there. I was discussing how, overall, one cannot absolve the front office for this season because they took reasonable chances - most of which did not pan out - as Eric asserted, rather it bears full culpability because they did not improve the team from the year before, which in pro sports means they got worse. And, anticipating the strawman counter that would come from some here (i.e. "What were they supposed to do, buy every free agent or over pay for player X!?") I further asserted that it becomes difficult to discuss the performance of the front office fully in part because we cannot evaluate (since we don't have the details) on the trades that were not made. As examples I offered Cherrington's own assertion that teams had asked about both Nava and Doubront, and the report that the framework of a trade for Stanton was abandoned when MIA asked Cecchini to be added in. Never said I was angry or anyone here should be. For all we know they asked for Swihart, Mookie, Bradley, Betts, Barnes, Owens, Renaudo, Cecchini and two more guys. The point wasn't to rip Ben for moves not made, but rather challenge Eric that, even though the moves they made were reasonable, they did not have a team on the field on April 1, 2014 that was as good or better than the team that made the playoffs. My overriding point being that, even if I agreed with the long game being played by the front office, it disingenuous for Eric to ostensibly absolve management and disparage people here who disagreed with those moves. Management did not improve the team by opening day, 2014 - that's something virtually everyone here agreed with on April 1. Of course, many agreed that the reduction was minimal. Most agreed with the overall strategy, believed in the projections - especially for the rookies - and believed the Sox would still be highly competitive. Some people thought that step back would result in a 92 win team; others of us put it in the 80s. All of us were wrong. But whether you agreed with the whys and hows and thought what they did was perfectly rational and defensible, it doesn't discount the fact that they made these decisions and it ultimately proved to be a complete miscalculation. So in fact, as Eric stated, "The notion that this season was ruined by a whole bunch of bad off-season decisions just doesn't hold water" is flat out false. Those decisions were completely rational and defensible, but they resulted in a team that performed poorly. Starting 3 rookies, depending on Victorino to play 100 or more games, not replacing the players lost to free agency with equal or better players - whether we agreed with the strategy behind this, in the short term these decisions proved to be wrong. Some people probably remember how many posts I made about the mistake it was to not upgrade Carp to a RH CF/RF backup in case Victorino was hurt and/or JBJ struggled. We were somewhat saved by Holt, who I don't think anyone could have predicted. We needed much more of a sure thing than Sizemore. I wanted to trade for Bourjos. Probably wouldn't have changed the season much at all. But I really can't comprehend even bringing up Stanton when you're trying to discredit Cherington. He hasn't been traded and I'd put a 0.1% chance that Miami made any offer whatsoever. And I'd put a 0.0000001% chance that the trade didn't happen because Cherington didn't want to include Cecchini.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 16, 2014 17:45:03 GMT -5
There was no leap there. I was discussing how, overall, one cannot absolve the front office for this season because they took reasonable chances - most of which did not pan out - as Eric asserted, rather it bears full culpability because they did not improve the team from the year before, which in pro sports means they got worse. And, anticipating the strawman counter that would come from some here (i.e. "What were they supposed to do, buy every free agent or over pay for player X!?") I further asserted that it becomes difficult to discuss the performance of the front office fully in part because we cannot evaluate (since we don't have the details) on the trades that were not made. As examples I offered Cherrington's own assertion that teams had asked about both Nava and Doubront, and the report that the framework of a trade for Stanton was abandoned when MIA asked Cecchini to be added in. Never said I was angry or anyone here should be. For all we know they asked for Swihart, Mookie, Bradley, Betts, Barnes, Owens, Renaudo, Cecchini and two more guys. The point wasn't to rip Ben for moves not made, but rather challenge Eric that, even though the moves they made were reasonable, they did not have a team on the field on April 1, 2014 that was as good or better than the team that made the playoffs. My overriding point being that, even if I agreed with the long game being played by the front office, it disingenuous for Eric to ostensibly absolve management and disparage people here who disagreed with those moves. Management did not improve the team by opening day, 2014 - that's something virtually everyone here agreed with on April 1. Of course, many agreed that the reduction was minimal. Most agreed with the overall strategy, believed in the projections - especially for the rookies - and believed the Sox would still be highly competitive. Some people thought that step back would result in a 92 win team; others of us put it in the 80s. All of us were wrong. But whether you agreed with the whys and hows and thought what they did was perfectly rational and defensible, it doesn't discount the fact that they made these decisions and it ultimately proved to be a complete miscalculation. So in fact, as Eric stated, "The notion that this season was ruined by a whole bunch of bad off-season decisions just doesn't hold water" is flat out false. Those decisions were completely rational and defensible, but they resulted in a team that performed poorly. Starting 3 rookies, depending on Victorino to play 100 or more games, not replacing the players lost to free agency with equal or better players - whether we agreed with the strategy behind this, in the short term these decisions proved to be wrong. Some people probably remember how many posts I made about the mistake it was to not upgrade Carp to a RH CF/RF backup in case Victorino was hurt and/or JBJ struggled. We were somewhat saved by Holt, who I don't think anyone could have predicted. We needed much more of a sure thing than Sizemore. I wanted to trade for Bourjos. Probably wouldn't have changed the season much at all. But I really can't comprehend even bringing up Stanton when you're trying to discredit Cherington. He hasn't been traded and I'd put a 0.1% chance that Miami made any offer whatsoever. And I'd put a 0.0000001% chance that the trade didn't happen because Cherington didn't want to include Cecchini. ) Dude - I was only bringing up the rumored Stanton deal as an example of a major factor - proposed trades that didn't happen - that does not allow us to fully evaluate the performance of the front office. I was using it as point within refuting Eric's statement that no one can assert that this season was ruined by a bunch of bad off season decisions simply because 1) the absolutely defensible decisions that Ben made proved to yield negative results and thus aren't above criticism; in fact one huge criticism I would include in his generally defensible decisions is that the Sox's own internal prospect evaluations were far too optimistic which may point to an even more significant internal problem; and 2) a significant component of off season decisions - trades not made - can never be assessed because we have no idea what was proposed. The Nava and Doubront inquiries (confirmed by Ben) was one example of this unknown - i.e. we have no idea what was offered in return so we have no idea if they made a good or bad decision in turning down those deals; the Stanton attribution with Cecchini mentioned as a deal breaker was another EXAMPLE - not something I am criticizing Ben for. In honesty we can't evaluate his performance fully because we don't (and never will) know about this vital component in detail unless someone spills the beans and we do hear about a bad decision linked to a trade not made (i.e. Sox turning down Bowden for Montero comes to mind
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Sept 18, 2014 6:24:01 GMT -5
Amazing that we went 20 years without a top 10 pick, and now under BC we have gotten the 7th in 2013 and this year will get the 6th (would be the 5th except for the supplemental Houston pick). No where to go but up.
That last statement is not intended to be a throw away line. The foundation of the offense is starting to come together with Betts/Bogaerts. However, they have major questions in pitching and in the second group of young players whose performance has raised more questions than answers- Bradley/Vasquez/WMB. I see Vasquez as the backup to Swihart at the tail of next year. Hopefully Castillo proves to be something useful. However, by that time Napoli/Ortiz and Cespedes are at the end of their contracts, so the Sox face another huge vaccuum that they must fill. Stanton is a FA at that point, and with that youth core the Sox could afford him. Otherwise the Sox have to cobble together a center of the lineup.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 19, 2014 0:46:08 GMT -5
guidas, our disagreement here is entirely semantic and perhaps philosophical.
You're playing blackjack and you've got 12. You ask for another card. It's a face card, and you bust.
Was asking for another card a good or bad decision?
Well, I believe the rule of thumb is that (unless you've counted cards and come up with some odd results) you always hit on 12. You can't criticize the guy who hits on 12 and busts. You wouldn't call it a good decision because the outcome was bad ... but it the logical and proper thing to do. So you wouldn't call it a bad decision, either.
Hindsight is notoriously 20/20. It's very easy to look back and say that a decision was bad once you know the results. Obviously there were a set of decisions the Red Sox could have made that would resulted in a much better 2014. But the only thing that ever interests me is whether a decision was justified at the time. You learn how to make better decisions in the future by analyzing whether a decision looked good at the time, and what happened to make the outcome better or worse than the apparent best expectation.
Not dumping Carp and acquiring a RHH OF was a decision we debated, and in retrospect, I admit (after arguing strongly for keeping Carp) that it was a bad decision, as I am defining it.
Signing AJP as the catcher stopgap was a bad decision. Re-signing Drew was a terrible decision.
You admit that all the other choices they made were logical and defensible. A bunch turned out badly, but they could not have been foreseen.
So, it's as simple as that. Of course the season was ruined by decisions that turned out badly. But as long as that more accurate phrase exists, I'd never call a logical and totally defensible decision that turns out badly simply a "bad decision." Because if "bad decision" can mean either a decision that was good according to all logic (even in retrospect) but that nevertheless turned out badly, or a bone-headed decision, how so you differentiate between the two? I think the default meaning of "bad decision" is one that was chosen unwisely, at the time. I don't want to have to go adding "based on what was known at the time" to the phrase "bad decision" every time I want to talk about ... a bad decision.
Starting Bill Buckner instead of Don Baylor at 1B in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series (and batting him 3rd to boot, and not pinch-hitting for him, and not replacing him defensively) was a bad decision. Handing CF in 2014 to JBJ was nothing like that. So what do we call it?
I'd say a perfectly defensible decision that, alas, turned out badly. You don't blame people for those.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Sept 19, 2014 6:38:06 GMT -5
Like it or not the callers on talk radio represent the average fan and Nesn viewer. Clearly they have had influence over the years and continue to. Now, they really aren't. They are a very specific demographic and segment of the overall fan and NESN viewer. They have some influence, for sure, because they are a core demographic (in a political campaign, they'd be the noisy part of your base), but the Sox know who they are and what percentage of their overall demographic they are. It's not actually that high, I'd guess. Personally, I can afford to ignore them completely, so I do. I would say that's very wishful thinking.. Ben Cherrington and baseball opps may not be influenced by talk radio. But Larry Lucchino and the marketing.department certainly does. Lucchino has the authority to overrule baseball opps and/or require a particular strategy be pursued. The callers themselves maybe a small portion of the.population. but if you talk to people about the team, you tend not to find fans who want to take the long term view. But most disturbingly, the team has made many moves that seemed inspired by these callers. The hiring of Valentine, and the signing of Drew are two examples of this.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Sept 19, 2014 9:41:21 GMT -5
Valentine yes, but not Drew. As much as I hate that signing now, the day it happened it was totally defensible. Injured 3B early in the season, X played 3B last October, Drew was well known, we're trying to defend a title....no one knew the team would lose 10 straight the day after the signing. Or that Xander's collapse would coincide with the move since he transitioned fine last year.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 19, 2014 9:51:23 GMT -5
Valentine yes, but not Drew. As much as I hate that signing now, the day it happened it was totally defensible. Injured 3B early in the season, X played 3B last October, Drew was well known, we're trying to defend a title....no one knew the team would lose 10 straight the day after the signing. Or that Xander's collapse would coincide with the move since he transitioned fine last year. No, it was not defensible, and no, Drew was not well known. He had a good year in 2013 but throughout his career he has been both injured and inconsistent. Also, you should never jerk around a young stud like Xander if he's playing well. Also, since we thought WMB was good at the time, paying 10 million for a month long injury replacement is a horrible idea
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Sept 19, 2014 10:40:00 GMT -5
Starting Bill Buckner instead of Don Baylor at 1B in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series (and batting him 3rd to boot, and not pinch-hitting for him, and not replacing him defensively) was a bad decision. Handing CF in 2014 to JBJ was nothing like that. So what do we call it? I'd say a perfectly defensible decision that, alas, turned out badly. You don't blame people for those. I tend to agree with you on most issues, but not on this one. Even management has admitted they made mistakes with the outfield. As a result, I stopped criticizing them. However, to go back to this, I think not re-signing Ellsbury was a mistake (and I argued for it at the time), and I think it was completely foreseeable that JBJ would not perform. He had not shown any ability to hit major league pitching. I also think it was reasonably foreseeable that Victorino would have problems. And to think that they would get a repeat of the remarkable performance they got out of the LF platooning in 2013 simply was silly. The decisions on the outfield were poor, and the problems were foreseeable. Many of us did predict them. But then there were things that could not be predicted that made the situation much worse, including injuries to Pedroia and Napoli. Ortiz also did not hit with the consistency that he did in 2013. He had hot streaks and his overall stats are not bad, but he went through extended periods of poor performance, also. And with no one else hitting, that hurt. The problem with the way the team was constructed in 2013, having average, or better than average players in every position, is that if some of those players get hurt, or don't perform, and they aren't replaced with similar players, team performance is not going to drop just a little, but a lot. And that's what happened.
|
|
|
Post by sox1fan on Sept 19, 2014 13:09:45 GMT -5
So here is a real mind-bender for us, and one that we likely cannot yet judge.
Would the Sox have been better off with Ellsbury at 7/140 or with Rusney for 6/72.5?
It can arguable be stated that Castillo could be a comp to Ellsbury, but at half the price. Castillo is also younger than Ellsbury, and could still hold greater value on projected return at the tail end of this deal, as opposed to Ellsbury.
Ellsbury, however, is a proven commodity, while Castillo isn't. Hence the reason I said this question is almost impossible to answer. With the Ellsbury contract, you would have been paying for his proven MLB track record, but still have major risk at the end of this contract pertaining to actual vs perceived value.
Also, if Sox sign Ellsbury, it's almost guaranteed they don't acquire Cespedes, or Castillo.
The decision not to sign Ells had far-reaching effects simply beyond the contract in a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by sox1fan on Sept 19, 2014 13:15:20 GMT -5
Valentine yes, but not Drew. As much as I hate that signing now, the day it happened it was totally defensible. Injured 3B early in the season, X played 3B last October, Drew was well known, we're trying to defend a title....no one knew the team would lose 10 straight the day after the signing. Or that Xander's collapse would coincide with the move since he transitioned fine last year. No, it was not defensible, and no, Drew was not well known. He had a good year in 2013 but throughout his career he has been both injured and inconsistent. Also, you should never jerk around a young stud like Xander if he's playing well. Also, since we thought WMB was good at the time, paying 10 million for a month long injury replacement is a horrible idea Actually, it isn't that it was defensible but rather expected. At the time of the Drew signing, the Sox mgmt still had an over-hyped perception of value for this team, in terms of its capabilities and ability to remain competitive. The warning signs were there for this team long before spring training. When veterans have career years, as an aberration, it is unreasonable to expect them to sustain the production. This is the critical flaw in the Sox's thinking this season, and also seems to be a hole in Bill James' projections. I would argue that length of performance should have much heavier weight then any one season's production levels. I certainly didn't expect Nava to be as productive this season, because he hadn't shown that level of performance consistently over the past several years. As for JBJ and X, forget it. Any projections based on those 2 should have been subject immediately, as they virtually had 0 service time in the Majors. I also certainly anticipated a "letdown" with regards to the core veterans, because they career numbers echoed something different from what they actually delivered and performed.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Sept 19, 2014 21:21:58 GMT -5
So here is a real mind-bender for us, and one that we likely cannot yet judge. Would the Sox have been better off with Ellsbury at 7/140 or with Rusney for 6/72.5? It can arguable be stated that Castillo could be a comp to Ellsbury, but at half the price. Castillo is also younger than Ellsbury, and could still hold greater value on projected return at the tail end of this deal, as opposed to Ellsbury. Ellsbury, however, is a proven commodity, while Castillo isn't. Hence the reason I said this question is almost impossible to answer. With the Ellsbury contract, you would have been paying for his proven MLB track record, but still have major risk at the end of this contract pertaining to actual vs perceived value. Also, if Sox sign Ellsbury, it's almost guaranteed they don't acquire Cespedes, or Castillo. The decision not to sign Ells had far-reaching effects simply beyond the contract in a vacuum. No that Ells contract is Crap. And I'm happy they did not give that contract to him. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 19, 2014 22:21:57 GMT -5
guidas, our disagreement here is entirely semantic and perhaps philosophical. You're playing blackjack and you've got 12. You ask for another card. It's a face card, and you bust. Was asking for another card a good or bad decision? Well, I believe the rule of thumb is that (unless you've counted cards and come up with some odd results) you always hit on 12. You can't criticize the guy who hits on 12 and busts. You wouldn't call it a good decision because the outcome was bad ... but it the logical and proper thing to do. So you wouldn't call it a bad decision, either. Hindsight is notoriously 20/20. It's very easy to look back and say that a decision was bad once you know the results. Obviously there were a set of decisions the Red Sox could have made that would resulted in a much better 2014. But the only thing that ever interests me is whether a decision was justified at the time. You learn how to make better decisions in the future by analyzing whether a decision looked good at the time, and what happened to make the outcome better or worse than the apparent best expectation.Not dumping Carp and acquiring a RHH OF was a decision we debated, and in retrospect, I admit (after arguing strongly for keeping Carp) that it was a bad decision, as I am defining it. Signing AJP as the catcher stopgap was a bad decision. Re-signing Drew was a terrible decision. You admit that all the other choices they made were logical and defensible. A bunch turned out badly, but they could not have been foreseen. So, it's as simple as that. Of course the season was ruined by decisions that turned out badly. But as long as that more accurate phrase exists, I'd never call a logical and totally defensible decision that turns out badly simply a "bad decision." Because if "bad decision" can mean either a decision that was good according to all logic (even in retrospect) but that nevertheless turned out badly, or a bone-headed decision, how so you differentiate between the two? I think the default meaning of "bad decision" is one that was chosen unwisely, at the time. I don't want to have to go adding "based on what was known at the time" to the phrase "bad decision" every time I want to talk about ... a bad decision. Starting Bill Buckner instead of Don Baylor at 1B in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series (and batting him 3rd to boot, and not pinch-hitting for him, and not replacing him defensively) was a bad decision. Handing CF in 2014 to JBJ was nothing like that. So what do we call it? I'd say a perfectly defensible decision that, alas, turned out badly. You don't blame people for those. OK, I always hit at 12, too, so I'll give you that. And I get and understand the moves they made in the off season - I just didn't agree with most of them then and I disagreed on taking such a big step back with a team that was built to win now. To wit: I understand the move to bring up Bradley, but despite his AAA numbers I still saw him getting beat inside. I would've offered Ellsbury the same deal NY did but offered him an out clause after 4 years, and traded Bradley in a package for a position of need while his value was at its highest. Meanwhile, if Ells was producing then I would've let him on the out clause if he wanted; if mot I figured I'd still be at or just below market value, inflation considered. Yes, the last two years woul'v been an overplay. but the first four-five would be prime or near prime Ells. I would've extended Salty a QO thwarting his FA opportunities and put him in a straight R-L platoon with Ross. I would've kept Nava & Gomes on strict R-L platoon and went and found a LH bat to platoon in right. I also would've started Xander in AAA to save a year of service time and found a defensive SS to cover him until the call-up day. Third was the big question to me beyond Bradley. I thought Middlebrooks would hit enough, but he got injured so quickly (again I should've known better). But there were no good choices on the free agent market. A trade mightve been explored but I much more confident about him than Bradley and Victorino, both of whom I felt sure were going to founder. Anyway - done deals. This winter will be fascinating. Personally, there are only 6 prospects/young players I believe have a chance of being above average orAll Stars - Betts, Bogaerts, Rodriguez, Swihart, Margot & Devers. So they would be the ones I'd only use for elite players in their prime or not at all. But I truly have no clue what their plan is.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 19, 2014 22:36:11 GMT -5
Two questions remain.
What does cherrington need to do to get two top flight starters?
Do we trade for hitters or give the kids time to develop.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 20, 2014 10:01:09 GMT -5
I'd prefer to buy a vg-elite pitcher, try to trade for an elite bat (Stanton, Upton, usual suspects) then assess from there.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 20, 2014 11:21:39 GMT -5
Management did not improve the team by opening day, 2014 - that's something virtually everyone here agreed with on April 1. Of course, many agreed that the reduction was minimal. Most agreed with the overall strategy, believed in the projections - especially for the rookies - and believed the Sox would still be highly competitive. Some people thought that step back would result in a 92 win team; others of us put it in the 80s. All of us were wrong. But whether you agreed with the whys and hows and thought what they did was perfectly rational and defensible, it doesn't discount the fact that they made these decisions and it ultimately proved to be a complete miscalculation. So in fact, as Eric stated, "The notion that this season was ruined by a whole bunch of bad off-season decisions just doesn't hold water" is flat out false. Those decisions were completely rational and defensible, but they resulted in a team that performed poorly. Starting 3 rookies, depending on Victorino to play 100 or more games, not replacing the players lost to free agency with equal or better players - whether we agreed with the strategy behind this, in the short term these decisions proved to be wrong.What exactly does it mean that the decisions "proved to be wrong"? They had bad outcomes, but does that make them bad decisions? In a game as unpredictable as baseball, the quality of a decision is only loosely correlated with the quality of it's outcome. For example, "counting on Victorino to play 100 or more games" was a bad decision? Victorino played 100 or more games for eight consecutive seasons coming into this year and had played superb baseball in '13. Yes, there were obvious injury concerns, but that's not even a decision much less a bad one. Good player, under contract, coming off a great season? Every team in baseball pencils that player in for a starting OF job, even knowing that he's probably going to miss a month or two. When he effectively misses the entire season, hey, that's just the way the cookie gets completely stomped on and obliterated.
|
|
|
Post by plantierforever on Sept 20, 2014 13:11:12 GMT -5
I am late to this discussion and thus have not been deeply engrossed in it like some previous posters have been. I see a big lack of perspective here.
From where I sit, the roster construction in 2013 looks a helluva lot like it did in 2014. Who would have thunk that guys like Nava, Victorino, Workman, Doubront, Xander, etc with huge questions marks coming into 2013 could have all gotten it together to win a World Series? Well, they did--and the FO gets to fly that flag forever. But with much the same cast, the wheels fell off in 2014. Was it fair to expect that so many of the young guys would stagnate rather than continue to improve? How do you not start Xander and JBJ? Were they supposed to bring a starter caliber OF to hang around until Victorino broke? That guy would have just bitched and moaned until being traded, like Carp did. Hell, this mystery OF would have never signed here in the first place. And yet the roster already had good Victorino insurance in the form of Daniel Nava. But regression is a bitch, and who would have guessed Nava's first two months would be so horrible? He's been pretty much the same guy since, but the season was lost before he reverted to mean again.
In Eric V's parlance, in 2013 they hit with 12 and got a 9. In 2014, they hit with 12 and got a 10. I am totally fine with the way the FO is playing this game.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Sept 20, 2014 14:12:17 GMT -5
In Eric V's parlance, in 2013 they hit with 12 and got a 9. In 2014, they hit with 12 and got a 10. I am totally fine with the way the FO is playing this game. I don't know if I'd go that far. I don't think the 13-14 offseason was as strong a play as 12-13. Part of that is circumstantial in that they didn't have as many opportunities to improve the team, but they could have done better and even at the time I think just about everyone knew at the time that the team was going to take a step back in '14.
|
|
|
Post by plantierforever on Sept 20, 2014 14:55:37 GMT -5
Fenway, You make a fair point. The 13-14 offseason was different than the 12-13 offseason, but I'm not sure I can go along with you and say that the 12-13 offseason was "as strong a play". It was a different play due to a different hand that was dealt (so my original metaphor with both seasons starting at 12 wasn't really correct).
In the 12-13 offseason, the FO saw the kids astoo far off to be counted on for major production in the 2013 season (a correct assessment IMO). The play that offseason was to sign big name guys to big contracts, or to sign mid-tier guys to mid-tier contracts, hoping for bounceback potential while knowing that these guys wouldn't be blocking the kids a few years down the road. This was a smart play even at the time and it hit 21.
In the 13-14 offseason, the choices were different. Either they went the FA route again, or they had to go with more of the kids. They had less of a luxury of saying that the kids needed more time to develop. The die was going to be case: either they choose to go the home-grown route (which BTW is also highly cost-effective) or they were going to go the route of the mid-2000s Yankees (relying on a string of FA mercenaries to keep the team in contention). There were still shades of last year's thinking: AJP brought in for a year until one of the young catchers could step up, and Drew was brought back for a year when 3B was a gaping wound. Neither of those moves worked out, but the logic the 12-13 offseason moves was very similar.
I still like this approach, even if the kids are getting rocked this year. I think this is a better way over the long term to build institutional success. Hell, even the Marlins have made this work, twice. I'd much rather watch this than a bunch of overpaid mercenary free agents.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Sept 20, 2014 18:28:05 GMT -5
We were headed down on July 30 and put ourselves in a deeper hole the next day. I didn't like either trade at the time and was a bit baffled by all of the hyperventilating about how WE GOT TWO ALL-STARS!!! Cepedes has an OPS-plus of 101 since joining the Red Sox. He's a low OBP guy who doesn't steal bases or bring anything extra defensively. I'd like to add power somewhere else and move him. OBP should still count for something.
All-Star Allen Craig looks like he might be a sunk cost for three years. The most I'd want to see of him to start next year is on the short side of a LF platoon with Nava - maybe try to re-create what we had with Gomes and Nava in 2014.
I didn't understand the need to trade Lackey. I thought his contract was a plus, not a minus.
The missed opportunity to sign Lester to a reasonable contract and the subsequent trades on deadline day made the hole deeper and more expensive to get out of.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Sept 20, 2014 19:04:41 GMT -5
We were headed down on July 30 and put ourselves in a deeper hole the next day. I didn't like either trade at the time and was a bit baffled by all of the hyperventilating about how WE GOT TWO ALL-STARS!!! Cepedes has an OPS-plus of 101 since joining the Red Sox. He's a low OBP guy who doesn't steal bases or bring anything extra defensively. I'd like to add power somewhere else and move him. OBP should still count for something. All-Star Allen Craig looks like he might be a sunk cost for three years. The most I'd want to see of him to start next year is on the short side of a LF platoon with Nava - maybe try to re-create what we had with Gomes and Nava in 2014. I didn't understand the need to trade Lackey. I thought his contract was a plus, not a minus. The missed opportunity to sign Lester to a reasonable contract and the subsequent trades on deadline day made the hole deeper and more expensive to get out of. Hindsight is 20-20. But I do think the sox should have done their homework in Craig's lack of bat speed.
|
|
|