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.
Barnes up, Victorino to DL
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 26, 2015 17:58:33 GMT -5
For what it's worth, on the Baseball Tonight podcast, all three of the ESPN baseball writers mentioned commented on a) how much of a toss-up the AL East is, and that the Red Sox are in the best position of all five teams to eventually go get what they want (Olney kept citing how the Giants team that won the WS barely resembled the one that started the year) and more importantly b) how useless preseason predictions are.
Also, posters are asked to leave the moderating to the moderators. That's in the Ground Rules. Thanks.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Apr 26, 2015 19:07:49 GMT -5
Kurkjian, Olney and Stark: none picked the Red Sox to win the division and nor did they pick the Sox for any of the 2 wild-card spots. Then they didn't look at stats and projections. They went for page views and clicks. They don't run baseball teams. Why do I give a damn? Because the current GM of this team does run a baseball team, and he's well on his way to pulling another '14 - relying on kids, this time starters, to bail out poor roster decisions made by him. As far as I'm concerned, if 2 kid starters are not successful after being called up, which is eventual given this poor staff, another season is sunk. And so is Ben. Afterwhich he will wind up with another team as their player development guru as he once was with the Sox - a position that suits him far better than GM.
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Apr 26, 2015 19:13:05 GMT -5
For what it's worth, on the Baseball Tonight podcast, all three of the ESPN baseball writers mentioned commented on a) how much of a toss-up the AL East is, and that the Red Sox are in the best position of all five teams to eventually go get what they want (Olney kept citing how the Giants team that won the WS barely resembled the one that started the year) and more importantly b) how useless preseason predictions are. Also, posters are asked to leave the moderating to the moderators. That's in the Ground Rules. Thanks. The teams in the best position to improve themselves are those teams that aren't afraid to trade redundant talent for qualified, needed, personnel. Until shown otherwise, that is not Ben so I would disagree with ESPN's writers.
|
|
wb93
Rookie
Posts: 36
|
Post by wb93 on Apr 26, 2015 20:39:20 GMT -5
The teams in the best position to improve themselves are those teams that aren't afraid to trade redundant talent for qualified, needed, personnel. This is the best post that I have read in the last 10 or so years that I have been coming to this site. The foundation of a good team is here. Let's hype some of those minor-leaguers and trade them for some strong pieces.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 27, 2015 0:16:13 GMT -5
The teams in the best position to improve themselves are those teams that aren't afraid to trade redundant talent for qualified, needed, personnel. This is the best post that I have read in the last 10 or so years that I have been coming to this site. The foundation of a good team is here. Let's hype some of those minor-leaguers and trade them for some strong pieces. Wade Miley and Robbie Ross disagree. There's also the Jake Peavy trade and any number of trades Cherington has made. Just because the Red Sox aren't making trades as quickly as you may like doesn't mean they aren't willing to deal to make the team better. Those isn't a video game where a system accepts or declines a trade based on whether or not the deal is "fair".
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 27, 2015 6:58:06 GMT -5
Then they didn't look at stats and projections. They went for page views and clicks. They don't run baseball teams. Why do I give a damn? Because the current GM of this team does run a baseball team, and he's well on his way to pulling another '14 - relying on kids, this time starters, to bail out poor roster decisions made by him. As far as I'm concerned, if 2 kid starters are not successful after being called up, which is eventual given this poor staff, another season is sunk. And so is Ben. Afterwhich he will wind up with another team as their player development guru as he once was with the Sox - a position that suits him far better than GM. So freaking easy to say after a 2-4 stretch. Let's trade Margot for someone like Ranaudo like you suggested before.
|
|
|
Post by station13 on Apr 27, 2015 7:31:13 GMT -5
What is their end game for Barnes? Starter or reliever?
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Apr 27, 2015 8:03:38 GMT -5
Because the current GM of this team does run a baseball team, and he's well on his way to pulling another '14 - relying on kids, this time starters, to bail out poor roster decisions made by him. As far as I'm concerned, if 2 kid starters are not successful after being called up, which is eventual given this poor staff, another season is sunk. And so is Ben. Afterwhich he will wind up with another team as their player development guru as he once was with the Sox - a position that suits him far better than GM. So freaking easy to say after a 2-4 stretch. Let's trade Margot for someone like Ranaudo like you suggested before. I suggested no such thing. What I have suggested is that Ben should act like a top GM and stop hoarding his shiny prospects. They are of no use to the team, not will they ever be, most likely, so use them. Use them to improve this team and worry about 2018's version later.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 27, 2015 8:35:43 GMT -5
So freaking easy to say after a 2-4 stretch. Let's trade Margot for someone like Ranaudo like you suggested before. I suggested no such thing. What I have suggested is that Ben should act like a top GM and stop hoarding his shiny prospects. They are of no use to the team, not will they ever be, most likely, so use them. Use them to improve this team and worry about 2018's version later. That's pretty shortsighted, not to mention largely wrong. At least some of those shiny prospects will be very useful for a future team, or else they wouldn't have any trade value. Plus, with trades, it takes two to tango. I don't recommend overpaying in terms of prospects. Or am I wrong and we should have traded Mookie for Hammels in November?
|
|
TX
Veteran
Posts: 265
|
Post by TX on Apr 27, 2015 8:48:19 GMT -5
I suggested no such thing. What I have suggested is that Ben should act like a top GM and stop hoarding his shiny prospects. They are of no use to the team, not will they ever be, most likely, so use them. Use them to improve this team and worry about 2018's version later. That's pretty shortsighted, not to mention largely wrong. At least some of those shiny prospects will be very useful for a future team, or else they wouldn't have any trade value. Plus, with trades, it takes two to tango. I don't recommend overpaying in terms of prospects. Or am I wrong and we should have traded Mookie for Hammels in November? Mookie for Hammels? Even with nice depth the team seemingly has in CF, that seemed too much an overpay. But now, given Porcello's extension and its implied value to starters, I think less so. Would this be a better team with Rusney/Bradley in CF and Hamels leading its staff? Yes
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 27, 2015 8:52:26 GMT -5
When things aren't going well in the short term, everyone on every other team looks like they would make the team better. It's a ridiculously shortsighted way to look at things. Maybe we should trade Mookie for Paredes.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Apr 27, 2015 9:05:30 GMT -5
Hamels hasn't exactly looked that great this year. Not sure I'm all that interested, especially at the reported cost. I'd rather see what we have in Johnson and Rodriguez.
Also, it's only April. We haven't been playing well the past week or so, yet we're right in the thick of things. Let's give the guys a chance to adjust. Let's let the weather get warmer and not panic. It's a long season. Clearly, the Sox need to be better. But that goes for the offense just as much as the pitching.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 27, 2015 10:10:38 GMT -5
Could I add that our rotation hasn't pitched bad in terms of K%, B%, and HR% (FIP calculations). Miley has been hurt by an uncharacteristically high walk rate and Porcello by giving up more than 2 HR per 9 innings.
I actually think Buchholz has looked great this year, and Kelly is showing big potential.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 27, 2015 10:41:11 GMT -5
Mookie for Hammels? Even with nice depth the team seemingly has in CF, that seemed too much an overpay. But now, given Porcello's extension and its implied value to starters, I think less so. Would this be a better team with Rusney/Bradley in CF and Hamels leading its staff? In 2015? Maybe. In 2016-2019? No. But you're right, of course, a top GM like Theo would never hoard a lot of shiny prospects.
|
|
wb93
Rookie
Posts: 36
|
Post by wb93 on Apr 27, 2015 18:28:43 GMT -5
This is the best post that I have read in the last 10 or so years that I have been coming to this site. The foundation of a good team is here. Let's hype some of those minor-leaguers and trade them for some strong pieces. Wade Miley and Robbie Ross disagree. There's also the Jake Peavy trade and any number of trades Cherington has made. Just because the Red Sox aren't making trades as quickly as you may like doesn't mean they aren't willing to deal to make the team better. Those isn't a video game where a system accepts or declines a trade based on whether or not the deal is "fair". Will Middlebrooks and Lars Andersen disagree. It's not about quick - it's about accurate assessments and timing. From the Globe: "? The Red Sox traded Will Middlebrooks, their top prospect (as ranked by Baseball America) entering the 2012 season and a player with even greater value after a tremendous rookie campaign, to the Padres for backup catcher Ryan Hanigan. “Obviously we’re not trading Will at a particularly high point right now, we understand that,” GM Ben Cherington said in a conference call. ? Ryan Lavarnway, once ranked by Baseball America as the Sox’ No. 9 prospect and kept off limits in the summer of 2011 (at a time when he could have served as a kickstarter in conversations about a pitcher like Doug Fister), has pinballed on waivers from the Sox to the Dodgers, Cubs, and Orioles. He was designated for assignment by the Orioles last week. ? Lars Anderson once ranked as the Sox’ top prospect, earning status as something between an untouchable and a possible centerpiece to a deal for a star. But by 2012, he was a chip that netted minor league knuckleballer Steven Wright. Anderson, now 27, signed a minor league free agent deal with the Dodgers this month." We have seen too many love affairs with unproven prospects. They won't all work out. Don't be afraid to sell a couple to get a top of the rotation starter ( my example is Josh Beckett as opposed to your example of Wade Miley). Giving up Hanley was painful, but worth it. Anyway, my intent was just to highlight that the depth in the system is a luxury that we can use to get some top players in return. I hope that happens later this summer.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on Apr 27, 2015 19:00:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 27, 2015 23:10:40 GMT -5
It's easy to say the team sold low on players after it happened. Were you screaming SELL! SELL! on Middlebrooks in May 2012? Lavarnway's trade value was never especially high because most teams didn't view him as a catcher, and then his power disappeared somewhat inexplicably. And I can't think of anyone who wanted to sell Lars Anderson at his peak.
And you can't just pick out the busts. Should the Red Sox have dealt Lester, Masterson, and Ellsbury for Johan Santana like the Twins wanted? Should they have sold on Pedroia after his monster year at Portland? Every team makes mistakes with player evaluation. Yes, the ideal is to identify players who are overvalued and deal them at that peak value. Allen Webster is the example that people seem to like the most. But, while he was getting a ton of hype, we really don't know how other teams value him. And if the team starts aggressively trying to move a prospect, other teams get suspicious. You can't just call every team and be all "Hey this Webster dude is awesome right? What do you want to give me for him?"
|
|
wb93
Rookie
Posts: 36
|
Post by wb93 on Apr 28, 2015 18:14:12 GMT -5
It's easy to say the team sold low on players after it happened. Were you screaming SELL! SELL! on Middlebrooks in May 2012? Lavarnway's trade value was never especially high because most teams didn't view him as a catcher, and then his power disappeared somewhat inexplicably. And I can't think of anyone who wanted to sell Lars Anderson at his peak. And you can't just pick out the busts. Should the Red Sox have dealt Lester, Masterson, and Ellsbury for Johan Santana like the Twins wanted? Should they have sold on Pedroia after his monster year at Portland? Every team makes mistakes with player evaluation. Yes, the ideal is to identify players who are overvalued and deal them at that peak value. Allen Webster is the example that people seem to like the most. But, while he was getting a ton of hype, we really don't know how other teams value him. And if the team starts aggressively trying to move a prospect, other teams get suspicious. You can't just call every team and be all "Hey this Webster dude is awesome right? What do you want to give me for him?" If you don't know the difference, then you end up posting on baseball websites and not running a baseball team. I hope our guy knows the difference. And I didn't just pick out the busts. I said that I supported Hanley for Beckett.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Aug 5, 2015 10:27:45 GMT -5
Not sure if this is the right thread for it, but is Barnes being moved back to the rotation in Pawtucket just a function of needing another arm for the rotation down there, or is it a development move to make him work on his offspeed stuff more cause the bullpen transition hasn't gone smoothly?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 5, 2015 12:24:05 GMT -5
Not sure if this is the right thread for it, but is Barnes being moved back to the rotation in Pawtucket just a function of needing another arm for the rotation down there, or is it a development move to make him work on his offspeed stuff more cause the bullpen transition hasn't gone smoothly? I'm pretty upset with how they handled Barnes this year. I didn't think he was done as a starter, but they basically gave up a year of him developing as one. And they obviously also didn't think he was done as a starter either.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 5, 2015 12:45:04 GMT -5
Not sure if this is the right thread for it, but is Barnes being moved back to the rotation in Pawtucket just a function of needing another arm for the rotation down there, or is it a development move to make him work on his offspeed stuff more cause the bullpen transition hasn't gone smoothly? I'm pretty upset with how they handled Barnes this year. I didn't think he was done as a starter, but they basically gave up a year of him developing as one. And they obviously also didn't think he was done as a starter either. I sort of half agree. I don't think he was handled great this year, but part of the problem is that he didn't pitch great, making his handling look poorer. But I don't necessarily think the idea was bad in the first place. Having spent a full season at Triple-A, it's not crazy to think that the team thought the best way to ease Barnes into the majors was in a bullpen role, without it being a permanent move. I don't agree that using a pitcher in the bullpen for a year commits him to that role long-term. Twenty years or so ago that was the most common way to bring in non-phenom rookies, and even in the last few years there have been successful conversions, Chris Sale the most notable. Given Barnes' stuff, it seemed to make sense that he'd pitch well there and be able to help what looked like a contending team. Then, in the offseason they could judge whether to convert him back to being a starter. Well, Barnes didn't pitch well in the bullpen and the team wasn't in contention. So instead of waiting until the offseason to convert him back, why not start the process now?
|
|
|