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?
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2014 4:13:46 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? The decision not to sign Ells had far-reaching effects simply beyond the contract in a vacuum. And one of those is that you have to add Michael Kopech to the right side of the equation.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 21, 2014 8:01:54 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. I concur with this. There was a lot of celebrating in media world with getting Cespedes who is a decent player, but it is a one year rental of good power, low OBP, shaky fielding strong armed player who I wouldn't invest long-term in. If getting a top young prospect had been an option, I wish the Sox would have pursued that, as well as doing the same thing with Lackey, if they had felt forced to trade him. There's a good chance the Lester/Cespedes deal will be one that is later viewed as the trade that helped neither team, although both did well with their teams. If you're going to lose an asset like Lester, then you need to get another asset that will last you awhile longer, at least that's what I think. I'm not sold on Kelly and I think Allen Craig's peak has come and gone and he is a shell of the player he used to be. So, the Sox got a #4/#5 type starter for Lackey. I don't think that will go down as a good trade. The Red Sox, though to their credit, made an excellent trade with the Orioles giving them a quality reliever but getting a potential impact starter in Rodriguez. When all is said and done, that will be the trade that gets pointed to as the great deal by the Sox. I just wonder if it will be the Sox who reap the reward or if Rodriguez is turned around in another deal as a piece for Stanton or as a big piece for Johnny Cueto or Cole Hamels. And the Drew for Johnson (for Weeks eventually deal) will hardly be remembered other than it returned Bogaerts back to SS. I do think the Sox would have been much better served had they re-signed Lester, dealt Lackey if it was necessary for some younger talent, and then went all out after Tomas. Their OF would have been Tomas (instead of Cespedes), Betts, and Castillo, or perhaps Victorino and/or Nava would have been available until Tomas was ready. Then the Sox would have had Lester in place to eventually go with Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes, and Johnson coming along.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 21, 2014 9:54:46 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. I concur with this. There was a lot of celebrating in media world with getting Cespedes who is a decent player, but it is a one year rental of good power, low OBP, shaky fielding strong armed player who I wouldn't invest long-term in. If getting a top young prospect had been an option, I wish the Sox would have pursued that, as well as doing the same thing with Lackey, if they had felt forced to trade him. There's a good chance the Lester/Cespedes deal will be one that is later viewed as the trade that helped neither team, although both did well with their teams. If you're going to lose an asset like Lester, then you need to get another asset that will last you awhile longer, at least that's what I think. I'm not sold on Kelly and I think Allen Craig's peak has come and gone and he is a shell of the player he used to be. So, the Sox got a #4/#5 type starter for Lackey. I don't think that will go down as a good trade. The Red Sox, though to their credit, made an excellent trade with the Orioles giving them a quality reliever but getting a potential impact starter in Rodriguez. When all is said and done, that will be the trade that gets pointed to as the great deal by the Sox. I just wonder if it will be the Sox who reap the reward or if Rodriguez is turned around in another deal as a piece for Stanton or as a big piece for Johnny Cueto or Cole Hamels. And the Drew for Johnson (for Weeks eventually deal) will hardly be remembered other than it returned Bogaerts back to SS. I do think the Sox would have been much better served had they re-signed Lester, dealt Lackey if it was necessary for some younger talent, and then went all out after Tomas. Their OF would have been Tomas (instead of Cespedes), Betts, and Castillo, or perhaps Victorino and/or Nava would have been available until Tomas was ready. Then the Sox would have had Lester in place to eventually go with Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes, and Johnson coming along. So basically, you would be unhappy with anything except for prospects. It makes more sense why there was so much hate for this trade on this site when every reporter loved the Lackey trade for us
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 22, 2014 21:03:38 GMT -5
John Lackey had a 1.676 WPA per 32 starts when we traded him. Joe Kelly has had 1.671 since we acquired him. I'd call that a wash. I've been messing around with pitching metrics and, I'm finding some interesting stuff*. For instance, guys who walk a lot of batters relative to their percentage of strikes tend to give up weaker contact. Kelly, though, actually walks more guys than expected, and strikes out fewer, and still limits hard contact. The more I look at him, the more freakishly rule-breaking he seems to me. I'm going to look at him further over the winter, using these new metrics I'm cooking up. *The biggest news: there are real and predictable, though small variations in HR / Ball in Air based on a pitcher's combo of Strike %, SO%, BB%, and GB%. Throwing strikes, walking more guys than expected given Strike %, fanning more guys that expected given both of the preceding, and having a high GB% given the preceding three -- all correlate to giving up slightly fewer homers, although the actual relationship is full of all sorts of interactions between the four factors. The obvious question is, is there any HR/Ball in Air skill above and beyond this? You can examine that by taking HR/BIA relative to the expectation from the four factors, and looking to see if this correlates from year to year. And here's the cool answer, so far: 1) GB pitchers have no such extra skill. 2) Average and FB pitchers do, given a large enough sample size in the two years being looked at. 3) FB pitchers with smaller sample sizes have a statistically significant inverse correlation in this adjusted HR rate stat from one year to the next. That is, they don't just regress to the mean, they regress beyond it. And it is symmetric, driven equally by the guys who were good the first year being collectively below average the next year, and guys who were bad the first year being collectively better than average (in fact, there are somewhat more dramatic turnarounds from bad to good than vice versa). I'm still pondering the meaning of this. It may be a fluke, but it also may be driven by pitchers adjusting somehow.
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Sept 24, 2014 10:01:00 GMT -5
The time off for Xander has surely paid off, He is batting 371 in September and has only struck out 1 in his last 8 games. That is progress and i am excited to see how he performs next year. Yes, he is the future of this lineup for sure.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 24, 2014 12:50:32 GMT -5
I concur with this. There was a lot of celebrating in media world with getting Cespedes who is a decent player, but it is a one year rental of good power, low OBP, shaky fielding strong armed player who I wouldn't invest long-term in. If getting a top young prospect had been an option, I wish the Sox would have pursued that, as well as doing the same thing with Lackey, if they had felt forced to trade him. There's a good chance the Lester/Cespedes deal will be one that is later viewed as the trade that helped neither team, although both did well with their teams. If you're going to lose an asset like Lester, then you need to get another asset that will last you awhile longer, at least that's what I think. I'm not sold on Kelly and I think Allen Craig's peak has come and gone and he is a shell of the player he used to be. So, the Sox got a #4/#5 type starter for Lackey. I don't think that will go down as a good trade. The Red Sox, though to their credit, made an excellent trade with the Orioles giving them a quality reliever but getting a potential impact starter in Rodriguez. When all is said and done, that will be the trade that gets pointed to as the great deal by the Sox. I just wonder if it will be the Sox who reap the reward or if Rodriguez is turned around in another deal as a piece for Stanton or as a big piece for Johnny Cueto or Cole Hamels. And the Drew for Johnson (for Weeks eventually deal) will hardly be remembered other than it returned Bogaerts back to SS. I do think the Sox would have been much better served had they re-signed Lester, dealt Lackey if it was necessary for some younger talent, and then went all out after Tomas. Their OF would have been Tomas (instead of Cespedes), Betts, and Castillo, or perhaps Victorino and/or Nava would have been available until Tomas was ready. Then the Sox would have had Lester in place to eventually go with Owens, Rodriguez, Barnes, and Johnson coming along. So basically, you would be unhappy with anything except for prospects. It makes more sense why there was so much hate for this trade on this site when every reporter loved the Lackey trade for us In the Red Sox situation, the answer is mostly yes. How does having Cespedes for the 2014 Red Sox materially improve them? It doesn't. What it does is it gives them one year with him in 2015, a season which he'll hit some HRs, make the RBI crowd happy, make some great throws, and will play terribly defensively where RF is not an option for him. Either that or he's a trade chip for a GM who values RBIs. Excuse me if I would rather have a near major league ready prospect that could be a valuable piece for six years or a very high ceiling prospect lower in the minors that could complement the other kids coming up in the organization over the next several years. Perhaps that wasn't on the table. Perhaps Ben did the best he could given the situation, which I think the Sox could have avoided in the first place by making a realistic offer to Lester.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Sept 24, 2014 15:51:16 GMT -5
I am kind of amused how quickly so many people are willing to just give up on Allen Craig. Before this year Craig had an excellent long-term track record. You might remember how the Red Sox at times couldn't get him out in the World Series. I don't think he suddenly forgot how to hit, and if that's the case he's an excellent rebound candidate.
A good explanation for his struggles this year are that he didn't have a normal workout period in the off season due to the Lisfranc injury that he suffered towards the end of 2013. Some players can get by without off season work and some can't. I think it's fair to see what happens when he has a real off season. He's 30 not 36 and it's very premature to say that he's done based on a off year for which there is a very logical explanation.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Sept 24, 2014 15:55:30 GMT -5
You can't trade Craig right now, because it's a sell-low. I'd love to see the Sox maximize the value of Cespedes this winter after the seemingly good season he's had. I think Craig can provide the same production, and probably better defense.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 24, 2014 18:20:40 GMT -5
I am kind of amused how quickly so many people are willing to just give up on Allen Craig. Before this year Craig had an excellent long-term track record. You might remember how the Red Sox at times couldn't get him out in the World Series. I don't think he suddenly forgot how to hit, and if that's the case he's an excellent rebound candidate. A good explanation for his struggles this year are that he didn't have a normal workout period in the off season due to the Lisfranc injury that he suffered towards the end of 2013. Some players can get by without off season work and some can't. I think it's fair to see what happens when he has a real off season. He's 30 not 36 and it's very premature to say that he's done based on a off year for which there is a very logical explanation. It's also possible he's not the same hitter and might never be again. That injury of his could still very well be affecting him, and it's possible he'll never be quite right again. I mean since the injury he really hasn't hit, except for a handful of ABs in the World Series. It's also possible he's simply declining, too. Some 30 year olds do that too. Maybe he bounces back, but I'd hate to have an offseason plan hinging on that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Sept 24, 2014 18:35:13 GMT -5
Craig is far from a lynchpin, though. Both he and Victorino are projected bench players (with some combo of Cespedes, Betts, Nava ahead of them), which is ideal since both those guys could be elite or could be terrible. The projected 2015 roster has the sort of depth to bring those guys into ST and see what happens without unnecessarily relying on them.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 24, 2014 18:42:28 GMT -5
So basically, you would be unhappy with anything except for prospects. It makes more sense why there was so much hate for this trade on this site when every reporter loved the Lackey trade for us In the Red Sox situation, the answer is mostly yes. How does having Cespedes for the 2014 Red Sox materially improve them? It doesn't. What it does is it gives them one year with him in 2015, a season which he'll hit some HRs, make the RBI crowd happy, make some great throws, and will play terribly defensively where RF is not an option for him. Either that or he's a trade chip for a GM who values RBIs. Excuse me if I would rather have a near major league ready prospect that could be a valuable piece for six years or a very high ceiling prospect lower in the minors that could complement the other kids coming up in the organization over the next several years. Perhaps that wasn't on the table. Perhaps Ben did the best he could given the situation, which I think the Sox could have avoided in the first place by making a realistic offer to Lester. The key word is could, because no prospects are sure things at all. And Ben said there were prospect packages on the table, but he took Cespedes and Craig and Kelly instead. It's obvious why, because we would rather compete next year than get some unsure thing prospect, that may or may not ever produce in the majors, and still is far away. But we know you'd rather have the #1 farm system than compete, so it's no use arguing
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 24, 2014 21:02:12 GMT -5
In the Red Sox situation, the answer is mostly yes. How does having Cespedes for the 2014 Red Sox materially improve them? It doesn't. What it does is it gives them one year with him in 2015, a season which he'll hit some HRs, make the RBI crowd happy, make some great throws, and will play terribly defensively where RF is not an option for him. Either that or he's a trade chip for a GM who values RBIs. Excuse me if I would rather have a near major league ready prospect that could be a valuable piece for six years or a very high ceiling prospect lower in the minors that could complement the other kids coming up in the organization over the next several years. Perhaps that wasn't on the table. Perhaps Ben did the best he could given the situation, which I think the Sox could have avoided in the first place by making a realistic offer to Lester. The key word is could, because no prospects are sure things at all. And Ben said there were prospect packages on the table, but he took Cespedes and Craig and Kelly instead. It's obvious why, because we would rather compete next year than get some unsure thing prospect, that may or may not ever produce in the majors, and still is far away. But we know you'd rather have the #1 farm system than compete, so it's no use arguing Got news for you pal. Allen Craig is no sure thing, and Cespedes is pretty much a sure thing, a so-so player who does some things well and some things rather poorly. Spare me your BS about rather having the #1 farm system than compete. My Red Sox "shrine" is all about the Championships rather than the times the Sox have the #1 farm system. Don't give me your garbage that the Sox MUST go for it every year and every year they don't win it's a failure because they're the friggin Red Sox so they MUST win every year. It's unrealistic narcissistic bullcrap. At some point if the Sox want to have the best chance to win they need to rebuild with a young team that grows together. It keeps the expenses down, is slower to age out, and allows for obtaining the rare superstar because the payroll isn't too jammed up. In case you don't really follow baseball, the last true dynasty there was were the Yankees, who built their team with a young core and were actually smart enough to hang onto them. Once they stopped building that way they were no longer consistent threats to win every year. Bogaerts and Betts are damn good building blocks. Swihart, Rodriguez, and Owens could be more. The Sox need more of those types of building blocks. Not some instant gratification to please the fans who are so offended if the Sox don't win every year. I mean, it has been almost a year (whine and sniff), after all.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 24, 2014 21:21:29 GMT -5
The key word is could, because no prospects are sure things at all. And Ben said there were prospect packages on the table, but he took Cespedes and Craig and Kelly instead. It's obvious why, because we would rather compete next year than get some unsure thing prospect, that may or may not ever produce in the majors, and still is far away. But we know you'd rather have the #1 farm system than compete, so it's no use arguing Got news for you pal. Allen Craig is no sure thing, and Cespedes is pretty much a sure thing, a so-so player who does some things well and some things rather poorly. Spare me your BS about rather having the #1 farm system than compete. My Red Sox "shrine" is all about the Championships rather than the times the Sox have the #1 farm system. Don't give me your garbage that the Sox MUST go for it every year and every year they don't win it's a failure because they're the friggin Red Sox so they MUST win every year. It's unrealistic narcissistic bullcrap. At some point if the Sox want to have the best chance to win they need to rebuild with a young team that grows together. It keeps the expenses down, is slower to age out, and allows for obtaining the rare superstar because the payroll isn't too jammed up. In case you don't really follow baseball, the last true dynasty there was were the Yankees, who built their team with a young core and were actually smart enough to hang onto them. Once they stopped building that way they were no longer consistent threats to win every year. Bogaerts and Betts are damn good building blocks. Swihart, Rodriguez, and Owens could be more. The Sox need more of those types of building blocks. Not some instant gratification to please the fans who are so offended if the Sox don't win every year. I mean, it has been almost a year (whine and sniff), after all. Well they had a year to rebuild. This year. And 2012 and 13 actually. That's quite a lot of rebuilding, we don't need to go into massive rebuilding processes when we can just fill our holes. We also know you're smarter than the Red Sox FO but please refrain from judging trades until next season is over
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Sept 25, 2014 14:32:09 GMT -5
Got news for you pal. Allen Craig is no sure thing, and Cespedes is pretty much a sure thing, a so-so player who does some things well and some things rather poorly. Spare me your BS about rather having the #1 farm system than compete. My Red Sox "shrine" is all about the Championships rather than the times the Sox have the #1 farm system. Don't give me your garbage that the Sox MUST go for it every year and every year they don't win it's a failure because they're the friggin Red Sox so they MUST win every year. It's unrealistic narcissistic bullcrap. At some point if the Sox want to have the best chance to win they need to rebuild with a young team that grows together. It keeps the expenses down, is slower to age out, and allows for obtaining the rare superstar because the payroll isn't too jammed up. In case you don't really follow baseball, the last true dynasty there was were the Yankees, who built their team with a young core and were actually smart enough to hang onto them. Once they stopped building that way they were no longer consistent threats to win every year. Bogaerts and Betts are damn good building blocks. Swihart, Rodriguez, and Owens could be more. The Sox need more of those types of building blocks. Not some instant gratification to please the fans who are so offended if the Sox don't win every year. I mean, it has been almost a year (whine and sniff), after all. Well they had a year to rebuild. This year. And 2012 and 13 actually. That's quite a lot of rebuilding, we don't need to go into massive rebuilding processes when we can just fill our holes. We also know you're smarter than the Red Sox FO but please refrain from judging trades until next season is over Their drafts in the latter half of last decade weren't that great, so the Sox truly couldn't rebuild in 2012 or 2013. All they could really do was reshuffle the deck. There wasn't really a lot of young talent to draw upon until Bogaerts came up in 2013. Now he's had a development year under his belt, and Betts is coming on strong and there are others coming. I feel they could have used a young up and coming power bat or a young top of the rotation starter, which I felt would be possible for a chip like Jon Lester. We'll never know for sure if that's true or not. As far as their trades they actually made go, last time I checked, this is a board where you can express your opinions, good or bad about a transaction. I don't like either deal that much, but if Cespedes blossoms next year (especially if Lester re-signs), Craig rebounds, and Kelly progresses, then I'll happily admit I was wrong. Just like I did when I originally called Shane Victorino the worst free agent signing of 2013. I happily now refer to him as the best free agent signing of 2013. As far as being smarter than the Red Sox FO, I don't feel that's true, but out of respect for the moderators and the rest of the people on this board, I'll refrain from stooping to your snark level although it would be quite so easy to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 25, 2014 18:31:20 GMT -5
Got news for you pal. Allen Craig is no sure thing, and Cespedes is pretty much a sure thing, a so-so player who does some things well and some things rather poorly. Spare me your BS about rather having the #1 farm system than compete. My Red Sox "shrine" is all about the Championships rather than the times the Sox have the #1 farm system. Don't give me your garbage that the Sox MUST go for it every year and every year they don't win it's a failure because they're the friggin Red Sox so they MUST win every year. It's unrealistic narcissistic bullcrap. At some point if the Sox want to have the best chance to win they need to rebuild with a young team that grows together. It keeps the expenses down, is slower to age out, and allows for obtaining the rare superstar because the payroll isn't too jammed up. In case you don't really follow baseball, the last true dynasty there was were the Yankees, who built their team with a young core and were actually smart enough to hang onto them. Once they stopped building that way they were no longer consistent threats to win every year. Bogaerts and Betts are damn good building blocks. Swihart, Rodriguez, and Owens could be more. The Sox need more of those types of building blocks. Not some instant gratification to please the fans who are so offended if the Sox don't win every year. I mean, it has been almost a year (whine and sniff), after all. Well they had a year to rebuild. This year. And 2012 and 13 actually. That's quite a lot of rebuilding, we don't need to go into massive rebuilding processes when we can just fill our holes. We also know you're smarter than the Red Sox FO but please refrain from judging trades until next season is over I think this is the first time I've seen someone complain that a team didn't rebuild in a year they won the World Series. I'm pretty sure even WEEI would hang up on you for that craziness.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 25, 2014 20:32:28 GMT -5
Got news for you pal. Allen Craig is no sure thing, and Cespedes is pretty much a sure thing, a so-so player who does some things well and some things rather poorly. Spare me your BS about rather having the #1 farm system than compete. My Red Sox "shrine" is all about the Championships rather than the times the Sox have the #1 farm system. Don't give me your garbage that the Sox MUST go for it every year and every year they don't win it's a failure because they're the friggin Red Sox so they MUST win every year. It's unrealistic narcissistic bullcrap. At some point if the Sox want to have the best chance to win they need to rebuild with a young team that grows together. It keeps the expenses down, is slower to age out, and allows for obtaining the rare superstar because the payroll isn't too jammed up. In case you don't really follow baseball, the last true dynasty there was were the Yankees, who built their team with a young core and were actually smart enough to hang onto them. Once they stopped building that way they were no longer consistent threats to win every year. Bogaerts and Betts are damn good building blocks. Swihart, Rodriguez, and Owens could be more. The Sox need more of those types of building blocks. Not some instant gratification to please the fans who are so offended if the Sox don't win every year. I mean, it has been almost a year (whine and sniff), after all. Well they had a year to rebuild. This year. And 2012 and 13 actually. That's quite a lot of rebuilding, we don't need to go into massive rebuilding processes when we can just fill our holes. We also know you're smarter than the Red Sox FO but please refrain from judging trades until next season is over Just curious how you want to replace Papi. We got a bunch of old guys, a bunch of 21-25 year old guys and very few players in their primes.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 25, 2014 20:49:15 GMT -5
Well they had a year to rebuild. This year. And 2012 and 13 actually. That's quite a lot of rebuilding, we don't need to go into massive rebuilding processes when we can just fill our holes. We also know you're smarter than the Red Sox FO but please refrain from judging trades until next season is over Just curious how you want to replace Papi. We got a bunch of old guys, a bunch of 21-25 year old guys and very few players in their primes. Sandoval or Cespedes or Craig, also not sure why rebuilding would help that, as the DH spot is a great place for an aging great hitter whos losing fielding ability. Also, who are we waiting on if we are rebuilding? E-rod? Owens? Swihart? None of these guys will save the team, and it's easier to just integrate them while being good. Well they had a year to rebuild. This year. And 2012 and 13 actually. That's quite a lot of rebuilding, we don't need to go into massive rebuilding processes when we can just fill our holes. We also know you're smarter than the Red Sox FO but please refrain from judging trades until next season is over I think this is the first time I've seen someone complain that a team didn't rebuild in a year they won the World Series. I'm pretty sure even WEEI would hang up on you for that craziness. Uh what? Im saying 2013 was a rebuolding year, despite winning the world series. We signed short term contracts and let young players progress. Our young players have progressed enough now, and we can be competitive. Don't know why we have to suck next year, and stock up on more prospects, when we can be a serious contender by filling our holes. When you aren't bogged down with big, long, contracts, you never have to suck to rebuild, especially because all of our holes have answers in FA. People on this site just want to suck and get all the prospects in the world, when the fact is, a team like the sox doesn't have to suck when we transition between cores because we aren't a small market team
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 25, 2014 21:03:39 GMT -5
Just curious how you want to replace Papi. We got a bunch of old guys, a bunch of 21-25 year old guys and very few players in their primes. Sandoval or Cespedes or Craig, also not sure why rebuilding would help that, as the DH spot is a great place for an aging great hitter whos losing fielding ability. Also, who are we waiting on if we are rebuilding? E-rod? Owens? Swihart? None of these guys will save the team, and it's easier to just integrate them while being good. I'm talking about a guy with a 150+ wRC+. We need a new identity, a new core. Papi isn't going to carry the team forever. Our best chance of replacing him is waiting on Bogaerts and Betts to do it.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 25, 2014 21:13:07 GMT -5
Sandoval or Cespedes or Craig, also not sure why rebuilding would help that, as the DH spot is a great place for an aging great hitter whos losing fielding ability. Also, who are we waiting on if we are rebuilding? E-rod? Owens? Swihart? None of these guys will save the team, and it's easier to just integrate them while being good. I'm talking about a guy with a 150+ wRC+. We need a new identity, a new core. Papi isn't going to carry the team forever. Our best chance of replacing him is waiting on Bogaerts and Betts to do it. So why not be good while Bogaerts and Betts are replacing Papi instead of sucking? It's really not that hard for this team to be good next year without mortgaging the future. People just want more prospects
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 25, 2014 21:14:56 GMT -5
I'm talking about a guy with a 150+ wRC+. We need a new identity, a new core. Papi isn't going to carry the team forever. Our best chance of replacing him is waiting on Bogaerts and Betts to do it. So why not be good while Bogaerts and Betts are replacing Papi instead of sucking? It's really not that hard for this team to be good next year without mortgaging the future. People just want more prospects Because we have to wait on them and not be good today or trade them to be good today.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 25, 2014 21:23:32 GMT -5
So why not be good while Bogaerts and Betts are replacing Papi instead of sucking? It's really not that hard for this team to be good next year without mortgaging the future. People just want more prospects Because we have to wait on them and not be good today or trade them to be good today. Uh, we don't have to trade Bogaerts or Betts to be competitive next year at all. We could trade a prospect, I'd trade Owens, as I think he's overrated, but we could easily be competitive next year through FA and minor trades
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Sept 25, 2014 21:28:17 GMT -5
Hadn't visited the thread today. Man, there's some... Interesting... stuff in here.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 25, 2014 21:32:12 GMT -5
Because we have to wait on them and not be good today or trade them to be good today. Uh, we don't have to trade Bogaerts or Betts to be competitive next year at all. We could trade a prospect, I'd trade Owens, as I think he's overrated, but we could easily be competitive next year through FA and minor trades Then we have to block them with free agents.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Sept 25, 2014 21:38:23 GMT -5
Uh, we don't have to trade Bogaerts or Betts to be competitive next year at all. We could trade a prospect, I'd trade Owens, as I think he's overrated, but we could easily be competitive next year through FA and minor trades Then we have to block them with free agents. Signing a 3B would block Cecchini and Marrero. Not a big deal at all, as I dont think either fit into the sox long term plans. Cecchini will lose OBP in the majors because of his lack of power, and is a lousy defender. I don't see him playing 3B for us. Marrero is not a good hitter, and to play him we would have to move Bogaerts to 3rd. I might just tradr Cecchini and Marrero even if we weren't signing a 3B. Signing SPs and relievers doesn't block anybody. You can never have too much pitching, and this will work itself out with busts and bullpen moves
|
|
|