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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 31, 2015 8:52:38 GMT -5
It will be interesting to hear the rumors today. Koji's great but Chapman and Kimbrell are still out there. But here's the thing - if you trade Uehara... don't you then have to go right out and replace him next year? To me, they'd need to get blown away to move him. It's not like he's a FA this offseason who you're already going to have to replace. Yes, the return is higher, but I wonder about the cost of acquiring a replacement closer. And as we know, those don't grow on trees or anything.I mean, they don't literally grow on trees. But every year there are at least two or three closers who were either set-up men or failed starters the previous year. The best reliever in baseball is Wade Davis, who was a stiff in the rotation two years ago. The year before that Andrew Miller was a DFA candidate. I'm not saying they should dump Uehara, of course - he's a good pitcher and that's valuable. But he's a 40 year old who gives them 50-60 innings a year, so if they can get a real prospect for him (and I think they can) then they should do it. Make Tazawa the closer, and build the bullpen from there. Joe Kelly is a better pitcher than Wade Davis appeared to be two years ago. That doesn't man Kelly definitely can be a successful closer, but he fits the profile of someone who could be a good long-term internal bullpen option for sure. I'd be sad to move Uehara because I enjoy watching him pitch, but realistically he has real value and it's no sure thing that the Red Sox are competitive next year.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Jul 31, 2015 9:56:42 GMT -5
But here's the thing - if you trade Uehara... don't you then have to go right out and replace him next year? To me, they'd need to get blown away to move him. It's not like he's a FA this offseason who you're already going to have to replace. Yes, the return is higher, but I wonder about the cost of acquiring a replacement closer. And as we know, those don't grow on trees or anything.I mean, they don't literally grow on trees. But every year there are at least two or three closers who were either set-up men or failed starters the previous year. The best reliever in baseball is Wade Davis, who was a stiff in the rotation two years ago. The year before that Andrew Miller was a DFA candidate. I'm not saying they should dump Uehara, of course - he's a good pitcher and that's valuable. But he's a 40 year old who gives them 50-60 innings a year, so if they can get a real prospect for him (and I think they can) then they should do it. Make Tazawa the closer, and build the bullpen from there. Joe Kelly is a better pitcher than Wade Davis appeared to be two years ago. That doesn't man Kelly definitely can be a successful closer, but he fits the profile of someone who could be a good long-term internal bullpen option for sure. I'd be sad to move Uehara because I enjoy watching him pitch, but realistically he has real value and it's no sure thing that the Red Sox are competitive next year. Why is Kelly not being used in the pen and tested already? He should never start a game for this team ever ever again.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,780
|
Post by mobaz on Jul 31, 2015 10:09:26 GMT -5
I mean, they don't literally grow on trees. But every year there are at least two or three closers who were either set-up men or failed starters the previous year. The best reliever in baseball is Wade Davis, who was a stiff in the rotation two years ago. The year before that Andrew Miller was a DFA candidate. I'm not saying they should dump Uehara, of course - he's a good pitcher and that's valuable. But he's a 40 year old who gives them 50-60 innings a year, so if they can get a real prospect for him (and I think they can) then they should do it. Make Tazawa the closer, and build the bullpen from there. Joe Kelly is a better pitcher than Wade Davis appeared to be two years ago. That doesn't man Kelly definitely can be a successful closer, but he fits the profile of someone who could be a good long-term internal bullpen option for sure. I'd be sad to move Uehara because I enjoy watching him pitch, but realistically he has real value and it's no sure thing that the Red Sox are competitive next year. Why is Kelly not being used in the pen and tested already? He should never start a game for this team ever ever again. Yep
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 31, 2015 10:17:22 GMT -5
I don't really have much interest in trying to make a guy who doesn't control the ball well into a closer.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jul 31, 2015 10:48:25 GMT -5
I don't really have much interest in trying to make a guy who doesn't control the ball well into a closer. Like Andrew Miller?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 31, 2015 10:54:23 GMT -5
I don't really have much interest in trying to make a guy who doesn't control the ball well into a closer. Pitchers sometimes repeat their mechanics better and hence have better command when they pitch every other day rather than every five or six. Sometimes the effect is dramatic. Eck, for instance walked 43% fewer batters as a reliever than a starter (3.1% versus 5.4%), while fanning 69% more (25.1% vs. 15.8%). Edit: Miller, of course, is another great example: 6% fewer walks as a reliever, but literally twice as many strikeouts (34.3% versus 17.1%).
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jul 31, 2015 11:00:48 GMT -5
I don't really have much interest in trying to make a guy who doesn't control the ball well into a closer. Pitchers sometimes repeat their mechanics better and hence have better command when they pitch every other day rather than every five or six. Sometimes the effect is dramatic. Eck, for instance walked 43% fewer batters as a reliever than a starter (3.1% versus 5.4%), while fanning 69% more (25.1% vs. 15.8%). Interesting and makes a fair bit of sense. I always played better golf as a kid in school when I could hit balls 4-5 times a week compared to when I got in the real world and played once a week or so.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2015 11:06:16 GMT -5
It will be interesting to hear the rumors today. Koji's great but Chapman and Kimbrell are still out there. But here's the thing - if you trade Uehara... don't you then have to go right out and replace him next year? To me, they'd need to get blown away to move him. It's not like he's a FA this offseason who you're already going to have to replace. Yes, the return is higher, but I wonder about the cost of acquiring a replacement closer. And as we know, those don't grow on trees or anything. There is also the risk that he falls apart any day now. Over 40, you're basically in baseball hospice.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by ianrs on Jul 31, 2015 11:55:46 GMT -5
I finally figured it out! The theory to end all theories about what went wrong this season.
Here's the reality: There's nothing to fix! The Boston Red Sox actually secretly tanked this year. They will be fine next year. Their analytics are so advanced that statistical models showed that tanking would give them the highest percentage of World Series appearances over the next 10 years.
How did I come to this brilliant conclusion, you might ask? Well, look no further than the benefits of tanking, which are well documented by the highly analytic Philadelphia 76'ers teams. The benefits are obvious: 1) Get their guy high in the draft next year. 2) Extend window of contention by getting this guy. 3) Have a protected draft pick so they can sign David Price or Johnny Cueto and continue to construct their "superteam" to dominate over the next 10 years.
The Red Sox differ from the Sixers in that they actually rake in lots of money from games regardless of how they are doing, so they could afford to sign some high profile guys. This also made it look like the Red Sox were in fact not tanking. Yet they told these guys to just mail it in for the sake of the long term health of the club. This explains: 1) Hanley not trying in LF. 2) Porcello grooving BP fastballs at the highest rate in his career for HR's. 3) Panda swinging at anything and everything. 4) Vazquez, Buchholz, and Hanigan faking injuries. 5) The weird handling of prospects and MLB pieces on the I-95 shuttle. 6) An amazing player development system at the minor league level while being in shambles at the major league level.
Big Papi refused to tank (Shoeless Joe) and Xander/Mookie were allowed to play normally to aid their development. So, everything will be fine next season when these guys start trying and the prospects start filling the holes on the MLB team. Its all according to plan, don't you see?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 31, 2015 11:59:35 GMT -5
But here's the thing - if you trade Uehara... don't you then have to go right out and replace him next year? To me, they'd need to get blown away to move him. It's not like he's a FA this offseason who you're already going to have to replace. Yes, the return is higher, but I wonder about the cost of acquiring a replacement closer. And as we know, those don't grow on trees or anything. There is also the risk that he falls apart any day now. Over 40, you're basically in baseball hospice. But with any pitcher, there's also the risk that at any moment their UCL will snap. Maybe a 40yo has a bit more risk, but I'd argue, in Uehara's case, that it's not significantly higher than it would be with a 30yo. Of course, if they trade for Kimbrel, a Uehara trade makes a ton of sense.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2015 12:17:21 GMT -5
Pitcher injury risk goes a lot beyond UCL tears, though. There are all kinds of strains and pulls that can send a guy to the DL, and the risk of those sorts of injuries goes up as a player ages. Plus, since UCL tears are usually wear-and-tear related, older pitchers do seem like a greater risk for that as well.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 31, 2015 12:21:43 GMT -5
I finally figured it out! The theory to end all theories about what went wrong this season. Here's the reality: There's nothing to fix! The Boston Red Sox actually secretly tanked this year. They will be fine next year. Their analytics are so advanced that statistical models showed that tanking would give them the highest percentage of World Series appearances over the next 10 years. How did I come to this brilliant conclusion, you might ask? Well, look no further than the benefits of tanking, which are well documented by the highly analytic Philadelphia 76'ers teams. The benefits are obvious: 1) Get their guy high in the draft next year. 2) Extend window of contention by getting this guy. 3) Have a protected draft pick so they can sign David Price or Johnny Cueto and continue to construct their "superteam" to dominate over the next 10 years. The Red Sox differ from the Sixers in that they actually rake in lots of money from games regardless of how they are doing, so they could afford to sign some high profile guys. This also made it look like the Red Sox were in fact not tanking. Yet they told these guys to just mail it in for the sake of the long term health of the club. This explains: 1) Hanley not trying in LF. 2) Porcello grooving BP fastballs at the highest rate in his career for HR's. 3) Panda swinging at anything and everything. 4) Vazquez, Buchholz, and Hanigan faking injuries. 5) The weird handling of prospects and MLB pieces on the I-95 shuttle. 6) An amazing player development system at the minor league level while being in shambles at the major league level. Big Papi refused to tank (Shoeless Joe) and Xander/Mookie were allowed to play normally to aid their development. So, everything will be fine next season when these guys start trying and the prospects start filling the holes on the MLB team. Its all according to plan, don't you see? LOL. Well done sir.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2015 12:26:34 GMT -5
Pitcher injury risk goes a lot beyond UCL tears, though. There are all kinds of strains and pulls that can send a guy to the DL, and the risk of those sorts of injuries goes up as a player ages. Plus, since UCL tears are usually wear-and-tear related, older pitchers do seem like a greater risk for that as well. I was about to say the same. It's not ridiculous to think about Koji showing up in spring training not being able to top 84 mph on his fastball. I'm not worried about his UCL. I'm worried that it could be time for him to retire (and doesn't).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 31, 2015 14:46:45 GMT -5
Having better luck will help.
As of now the Sox have hit 5 homers that would have been homers in fewer than 5 parks, while giving up 15. At Fenway, they've hit 2 while giving up 8, on the road, it's 3 and 7.
By comparison, the Yankees have 19 cheap home runs and have given up 13. The Orioles are 13 and 3. The Diamondbacks, 2 and 4.
# of cheap Fenway homers in past years:
2014: 11 2013: 6 (4 by Pedroia); gave up 5 2012: 9 (3 by Aviles) 2011: 13 (gave up 18) 2010: 15
When the season is over I'll do a complete breakdown by team, home and away. And I think I'll expand that history, showing RF Fenway, LF Fenway, Road, for hitters and pitchers, and go back to 2006 (when HitTrackerOnline debuted).
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jul 31, 2015 14:55:18 GMT -5
Having better luck will help. As of now the Sox have hit 5 homers that would have been homers in fewer than 5 parks, while giving up 15. At Fenway, they've hit 2 while giving up 8, on the road, it's 3 and 7. By comparison, the Yankees have 19 cheap home runs and have given up 13. The Orioles are 13 and 3. The Diamondbacks, 2 and 4. # of cheap Fenway homers in past years: 2014: 11 2013: 6 (4 by Pedroia); gave up 5 2012: 9 (3 by Aviles) 2011: 13 (gave up 18) 2010: 15 When the season is over I'll do a complete breakdown by team, home and away. And I think I'll expand that history, showing RF Fenway, LF Fenway, Road, for hitters and pitchers, and go back to 2006 (when HitTrackerOnline debuted). In All the Madness that is going on at this very moment......thanks for your information! I always enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 31, 2015 14:58:48 GMT -5
Having better luck will help. As of now the Sox have hit 5 homers that would have been homers in fewer than 5 parks, while giving up 15. At Fenway, they've hit 2 while giving up 8, on the road, it's 3 and 7. By comparison, the Yankees have 19 cheap home runs and have given up 13. The Orioles are 13 and 3. The Diamondbacks, 2 and 4. # of cheap Fenway homers in past years: 2014: 11 2013: 6 (4 by Pedroia); gave up 5 2012: 9 (3 by Aviles) 2011: 13 (gave up 18) 2010: 15 When the season is over I'll do a complete breakdown by team, home and away. And I think I'll expand that history, showing RF Fenway, LF Fenway, Road, for hitters and pitchers, and go back to 2006 (when HitTrackerOnline debuted). To me this doesn't make sense and is just a broad stroke thinking this is an outlier. Is it possible the guys we have just don't hit the ball well enough to have enough chances to accumulate cheap homers all the while our pitchers aren't nearly as good as they have been in the past which results in more fly balls and are prone to a higher probability of cheap homers?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2015 15:01:19 GMT -5
Having better luck will help. As of now the Sox have hit 5 homers that would have been homers in fewer than 5 parks, while giving up 15. At Fenway, they've hit 2 while giving up 8, on the road, it's 3 and 7. By comparison, the Yankees have 19 cheap home runs and have given up 13. The Orioles are 13 and 3. The Diamondbacks, 2 and 4. # of cheap Fenway homers in past years: 2014: 11 2013: 6 (4 by Pedroia); gave up 5 2012: 9 (3 by Aviles) 2011: 13 (gave up 18) 2010: 15 When the season is over I'll do a complete breakdown by team, home and away. And I think I'll expand that history, showing RF Fenway, LF Fenway, Road, for hitters and pitchers, and go back to 2006 (when HitTrackerOnline debuted). To me this doesn't make sense and is just a broad stroke thinking this is an outlier. Is it possible the guys we have just don't hit the ball well enough to have enough chances to accumulate cheap homers all the while our pitchers aren't nearly as good as they have been in the past which results in more fly balls and are prone to a higher probability of cheap homers? This lineup is better than last year's and they have 6 fewer cheap home runs.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Jul 31, 2015 15:21:07 GMT -5
Yes marginally they were across all the major batting statistics. So my initial statement was wrong in terms of hitting the ball well enough, however to me that doesn't exactly correlate to fly balls and the average those balls traveled.
This year did we have in Fenway balls say 378 ft. that were just against the wall all while last year those balls went 382 ft. If that analysis was put together sure that makes sense however it seems to be a fruitless exercise to try and put together something like that which clearly varies year to year, in some cases significantly, and not sure one could point to player skill causing it.
The plain and simple is we had good players previously perform way below their anticipated performance. There could be several causes, maybe some luck, but cheap homers I don't think would get into that IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2015 15:23:41 GMT -5
I bet it's almost completely random. For instance, Mookie has very few wall-ball doubles this year but I bet he has hit a dozen warning track fly balls on the road that would have been off the wall (or gone) at home.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 31, 2015 16:12:34 GMT -5
Yes marginally they were across all the major batting statistics. So my initial statement was wrong in terms of hitting the ball well enough, however to me that doesn't exactly correlate to fly balls and the average those balls traveled. This year did we have in Fenway balls say 378 ft. that were just against the wall all while last year those balls went 382 ft. If that analysis was put together sure that makes sense however it seems to be a fruitless exercise to try and put together something like that which clearly varies year to year, in some cases significantly, and not sure one could point to player skill causing it. The plain and simple is we had good players previously perform way below their anticipated performance. There could be several causes, maybe some luck, but cheap homers I don't think would get into that IMO. The point of identifying bad luck is not to overreact by mistaking it for lack of talent (or, to coin a term, not to "Shaughnessy" the team). There are three types of cheap Fenway homers: classic ones that are high fly balls to LF, balls that wrap around or hit the Pesky pole, and balls that are wind-blown (largely to RF and CF). The last two are pure luck; hitting balls hard (or not allowing them to be hit hard) when the wind is blowing out rather than in is not a skill, and the cheap HR around the pole is an out or a foul ball everywhere else, and not something any hitter tries to do, either. We have had no wind-blown homers; the opponents have hit three (including the two by Abreu in the last series). We haven't wrapped a HR around the Pesky Pole; the opposition has done it twice. The classic cheap Fenway homers are the sort of luck that is, in Branch Rickey's great phrase, "the residue of design." You put together a team that hits a lot of high fly balls to LF, you should have a lot of cheap Fenway homers. I've criticized the team for being analytically middle-of-the-pack, but one thing I know they do is track where balls are hit and try to fit the players to the park. There are a lot of players on this team who should hit cheap Fenway homers. That they've hit only two all year (Napoli and Ortiz) is certainly just more bad luck; the opponents have hit three.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 31, 2015 16:13:35 GMT -5
Brian MacPherson @brianmacp now Ben Cherington: "We're willing to give up young talent to build a better team for 2016."
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 31, 2015 16:14:48 GMT -5
Speier asked if Sandoval/Hanley could play diff positions, said he'll talk w/Farrell & staff re: how to use rest of '15 for evaluations
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 1, 2015 9:01:16 GMT -5
The Sox want to remain competitive and hopefully not destroy the core of what the "Next great Red Sox team" that Ben C talks about should look like.
If Ben messes with that core to appease shor-term desires I think that's a bad sign that the Sox will keep on this treadmill.
The Red Sox are looking for a cost effective ace which will be hard to find without giving up way too much talent. There isn't a Montreal Expos who are forced to part with a young newly established ace in Pedro Martinez. The Sox aren't dealing with teams as desperate.
A lot of this can be laid at the fear of paying the back end of a contract in free agency, which is what they were trying to avoid with Lester (who I think is as good a bet to still be good in his mid 30s as anybody else the Sox would try to sign).
So now they either have to give up a ton of young talent, guys who can be the nucleus of that "Next great Red Sox team" or surrender a lot of cash and hope they get enough performance over the length of the contract to justify the end of the deal.
I think, given that the Sox don't seem to worry about the tax penalties as much, given the new upcoming agreement, should spend the money and go after Price or Cueto (I think Cueto is more realistic).
You don't surrender a draft pick, only cash. My concern with Cueto is that you might get a great performance upfront, but injury plagued performances soon thereafter. I would bet on Price to be a better bet to be an ace and maintain his performance into his mid to late 30s.
Either way the Sox are going to have to pay for top notch talent. They spent too much money on mid-tier talents (like Porcello and Miley) and investing in guys who aren't going to be front-line starters (Kelly).
They're better off in trusting their young talent (such as E-Rod and Owens) and letting them develop at baseball's minimum wage.
I would dump Miley, who would still have value on other teams), try to trade excess talent for a #2/#3 type pitcher, a guy like Ross, somebody who would be a rental and be the kind of guy you'd want to extend a QO for.
So that would give you Cueto, Buchholz (who I bring back), a guy like Ross, Rodriguez, and Porcello because you can't dump him. Then you have Owens and Wright waiting in the wings (assuming that Johnson and Kelly get dealt - or Kelly winds up in the pen.)
The one advantage of keeping Uehara is that he and Tazawa don't need to be replaced for 2016. Then you hope reclamation guys like Macchi and Cook (and Varvaro?) pan out and/or youngsters like Aro, Barnes (if he isn't dealt) and Light step up.
Replace Napoli's woeful production with a guy like Byung-Ho Park or the Sox could hold their breath and try Hanley at 1b, too.
I'd be perfectly willing to start Holt at 3b if they could dump Sandoval's deal, but I find that highly unlikely or they'd be stuck with somebody else's awful deal in its place. I think the Sox are stuck with Hanley in LF and Sandoval at 3b for another year.
Eventually the end game in my mind is that the catcher winds up Swihart (who should begin next year in the minors to sharpen his defensive skills/game calling, and Vazquez should start). By 2017 I would think Swihart should be becoming the young Tek we hope he can be and Vazquez could be trade bait.
I figure Ortiz is retired after next year and Hanley assumes the DH spot. I would think that Margot and Travis should be ready for the majors by 2017. By 2018, I would think that Benintendi, Devers, and Moncada should be ready to impact the Red Sox giving the Sox Swihart behind the plate, an infield of Travis (or Park and Travis dealt away), Pedroia (with Holt needed to back him up and others), Bogaerts, and Moncada, and an outfield of Betts, Margot, and Benintendi, with Devers cracking the DH spot with Hanley on the way out, and Sandoval already let loose somehow (money eaten I assume).
By time Cueto's effectiveness starts to wane, I'm hoping that Kopeck and Espinoza are knocking on the door and that the Sox made an astute move to help established starters Cueto, Owens, Rodriguez, and Porcello (if he can bounce back to what he was). Perhaps the Sox draft a college arm next year who doesn't take long to get to the majors - with the #2 pick.
I'm sure there are a lot of flaws in my "plan", and I know that prospects get injured/wash out, but this is the first time in a long time the Sox have good viable prospects at all positions.
I think Ben C. is building toward something good by the end of the decade if they let him and don't cave into the "must win now" mentality because we're the Boston Red Sox and we cannot rebuild non-sense.
Especially when an idiot like Cafardo tries to make us feel sorry because a season ticket holder spending $43K isn't getting his money's worth, as if I should feel sorry for somebody with that much disposable cash. As if doing what the Sox have been doing to try to appease these people the past couple of years has been working (like the the Lester and Lackey deals for immediate "help" as opposed to prospects).
|
|
|
Post by notguilty on Aug 1, 2015 10:28:11 GMT -5
The Sox want to remain competitive and hopefully not destroy the core of what the "Next great Red Sox team" that Ben C talks about should look like. If Ben messes with that core to appease shor-term desires I think that's a bad sign that the Sox will keep on this treadmill. [Clipped for length] I'm sure there are a lot of flaws in my "plan", and I know that prospects get injured/wash out, but this is the first time in a long time the Sox have good viable prospects at all positions. I like this plan for the most part. I've been wary of trading Miley, but on second thought, I don't think you can have Miley, Porcello, Buchholz and Ed Rod as key members of the rotation. Too much mediocrity (Miley/Porcello), injury (Buch) and rookie transition risk there. Obviously you can't get rid of Porcello and Ed Rod is a good-looking rookie, so you keep him. That means one of Miley or Buch has to go. I'm not a Buch fan, but I've come around to the fact that despite his warts, you have to keep him, because his upside is very good, and he's got higher fWAR than Miley and all that. Ultimately, I see two main paths here: -Rebuild: they don't use the word, but they essentially hold on to the top 10 prospects, go with Miley/Porcello/Buch/Ed Rod/Rookie (Johnson or Owens/cheap FA). You'll probably be last again, but that's what happens when you rebuild. The focus is on transitioning to the next great team in 2018-19 and phasing out old players with terrible contracts. I would be ok with this approach, but I don't think this ownership has the balls to do something like that in this market. Most expensive tickets in baseball, impatient fans, screaming media and all that. But seeing how Toronto is being set up, Baltimore somehow has our number and New York still seems to find a way, I don't think that's a terrible option. -Win Now - build a team designed to win now (as in 2016). The problem is I don't think they can do this without bringing in an ace and a #2, so that Buchholz slots in at number 3. Then you have a Ace 1/#2 starter/Buchh/EdRod/Porcello rotation, with Johnson and Owens in the wings. The problem is how you get the 2 frontline guys. I think you buy one (Cueto or Price) and you trade for one. I hate long term contracts for pitchers (I was against giving one to Lester), but I think I'd give Price something like the Scherzer deal. These are the rates for that type of pitcher, as much as I think they're terrible. Cueto may be $150 mil. I don't see how you get another strong starter without a trade. You bite the bullet and do a 3-1 for a Sonny Gray or a Carrasco or somebody, if they can be had. People say Tyson Ross, but I just see Miley. Maybe you swing a Sandoval for Shields trade, or something like that. But I think you'd have to trade one of the top-5 guys plus a JBJ and a couple of the 10-20 guys to get your cost-controlled #2. Then you do a reverse Miley trade or something, shipping him out for 1 or 2 high upside bullpen arms. -I guess there's a possible third approach, where you kind of go a bit halfway on the above two - you keep your top prospects, but trade fringe guys like JBJ for mediocre pitchers and bring in a Zimmermann or something. which may be what they've been trying to do. I just think you'd get the worst of both worlds, having a somewhat ace, but a mediocre rotation and trading kids who'll likely go on to be good players somewhere else. You'd sell tickets and be a little competitive, but I don't think this makes you good enough to compete with Toronto/New York/Baltimore; you spend more money to end up last anyway, so I don't really see the point. Not an easy offseason. But I think the biggest changes have to be in the FO (not necessarily firing Ben, but something has to happen there) and at manager level (I think Farrell has to go, but I don't think they'll let him go). All the above is kind of moot if they can't do a better job evaluating talent and migrating the kids to the major leagues.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 1, 2015 10:51:43 GMT -5
The classic cheap Fenway homers are the sort of luck that is, in Branch Rickey's great phrase, "the residue of design." You put together a team that hits a lot of high fly balls to LF, you should have a lot of cheap Fenway homers. I've criticized the team for being analytically middle-of-the-pack, but one thing I know they do is track where balls are hit and try to fit the players to the park. There are a lot of players on this team who should hit cheap Fenway homers. That they've hit only two all year (Napoli and Ortiz) is certainly just more bad luck; the opponents have hit three. And right on cue, Napoli wins the game with the Sox' cheapest classic Fenway homer of the season -- a sky-high shot that gets into the wind to boot. Re Cherington's "we're willing to give up young talent" quote, can this mean anything other than trying to get a cost-controlled young pitcher? Obviously this is the time to sell high on a blocked Guerra, but personally, I'm using Swihart as the big chip in such a trade. I'd like to hang on to all three young lefties for another year.
|
|
|