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.
Ben Cherington to step down; Dave Dombrowski joins FO
|
Post by bosox81 on Apr 15, 2016 22:36:44 GMT -5
Alternatively, he's being wildly overreactionary out of necessity because of a poor offseason plan. "poor offseason plan" 1A -gave LF to best option not most expensive player 1B- gave 3B to beat option not most expensive player Neither of these players were from this offseason 2- gave starting catcher job to beat option. When better option was healthy enough to play made the switch 3- used best option for number 5 starter. And aquiring a top 5 ace and top 5 closer were not good moves??I mean, any GM in the league could've acquired a top 5 ace and top 5 closer when you have a top 5 farm system and forty-something million bucks to spend. But yea, I agree with you on the other points.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 15, 2016 22:46:33 GMT -5
Targeting and signing Chris Young instead of a left-handed outfielder, when you already had a RHH platoon outfielder on the roster, looks clearly like a mistake. Brock Holt is a very good player, but he's a very good player because of his versatility. If he's only going to be the long half of a LF platoon, that's poor roster construction. If Castillo was going to get such little rope, they needed to acquire a starting-caliber corner outfielder in the offseason. If Pablo Sandoval was going to get such little rope, they needed to trade him over the offseason before what little remained of his value evaporated. The starting rotation still looks suspect. Steven Wright had a great first start, but the jury is still out, to say the least. Dombrowski could have acquired another starting pitcher (ADD: or kept Miley as a stabilizing force in the rotation) rather than investing his trade capital in a closer (one who has not looked quite as dominant in the early going as he has in years past). Time will tell. But even beyond the above, I haven't like a decent chunk of the day-to-day roster movement (e.g., calling up Rutledge and now Hernandez). Being flexible is to be commended, but getting it right in the first instance would be even better. ADD2: this Brian MacPherson article is along the same lines as the above.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 2:11:31 GMT -5
Targeting and signing Chris Young instead of a left-handed outfielder, when you already had a RHH platoon outfielder on the roster, looks clearly like a mistake. Brock Holt is a very good player, but he's a very good player because of his versatility. If he's only going to be the long half of a LF platoon, that's poor roster construction. If Castillo was going to get such little rope, they needed to acquire a starting-caliber corner outfielder in the offseason. If Pablo Sandoval was going to get such little rope, they needed to trade him over the offseason before what little remained of his value evaporated. The starting rotation still looks suspect. Steven Wright had a great first start, but the jury is still out, to say the least. Dombrowski could have acquired another starting pitcher (ADD: or kept Miley as a stabilizing force in the rotation) rather than investing his trade capital in a closer (one who has not looked quite as dominant in the early going as he has in years past). Time will tell. But even beyond the above, I haven't like a decent chunk of the day-to-day roster movement (e.g., calling up Rutledge and now Hernandez). Being flexible is to be commended, but getting it right in the first instance would be even better. ADD2: this Brian MacPherson article is along the same lines as the above. Getting Young was bad because Farrell thinks he's big Papi against LHP and it's just not true and never has been. Lesson #1 for Dave you have to protect Farrell from himself! Overall I think he had a very good offseason. I hated the Young singing and was so-so on the Miley trade, but liked the Price signing and Kimbrel trade even if we overpaid. I don't think it's fair to question not going after a better full-time LF, as Holt/Young is not going to be the reason this team fails if they don't make postseason. Sure I would like more power then Holt, but he does help us have one of the better OF D in majors. Same with Sandoval, can't blame him for giving him a second chance. News that he tried to hire his ex-trainer this offseason shocked me and shows that he was at least trying to get in shape. Just seems he can't stop eating. The story how he went home and gained 21 pounds in 21 days just goes to show you how big of a problem he has. At this point let's just hope they can get him some help. I actually feel good about Sandoval now, he hasn't given up, he just needs a lot of help. As to the rotation, sure it doesn't look good now, but what would you have done differently? Trade a crap load of elite prospects or spend another 150-200 million? Those were the only options as you needed a #2. I would have done just what he did and hope that EROD, Clay, Porcello and Kelly have good years or that Owens, Wright and Johnson step up. The best thing about Dave is that you know if we need another pitcher he will go out and get us one! I think he just wants to make sure we have to have one before he trades away a bunch of elite prospects for one. Which I think is smart. Now I agree his roster management has been very bad so far. I also think he got soooooo lucky that Travis Shaw not only took over for Sandoval, but looks great doing so. Why is the world would you keep Castillo in majors for 2 weeks, plays one game, does very well and then a week later you ship him down and call up two infielders.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 16, 2016 7:52:14 GMT -5
The best thing about Dave is that you know if we need another pitcher he will go out and get us one! I think he just wants to make sure we have to have one before he trades away a bunch of elite prospects for one. Which I think is smart. So basically what you're saying is the Sox will have no farm system left by the end of the year. Fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 13:28:57 GMT -5
The best thing about Dave is that you know if we need another pitcher he will go out and get us one! I think he just wants to make sure we have to have one before he trades away a bunch of elite prospects for one. Which I think is smart. So basically what you're saying is the Sox will have no farm system left by the end of the year. Fantastic. Not at all. Dave could go out and get best player on market and it's not going to gut the system. How did Ben do not trading our top prospects? He built up an impressive collection of prospects and two years of no playoffs. I want titles and if it cost some prospects then so be it. Hey how's Margot doing? You know that guy you thought could help us right now but is struggling in minors.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,321
|
Post by radiohix on Apr 16, 2016 13:43:57 GMT -5
So basically what you're saying is the Sox will have no farm system left by the end of the year. Fantastic. Not at all. Dave could go out and get best player on market and it's not going to gut the system. How did Ben do not trading our top prospects? He built up an impressive collection of prospects and two years of no playoffs. I want titles and if it cost some prospects then so be it. Hey how's Margot doing? You know that guy you thought could help us right now but is struggling in minors. You know what's saving this team ass right now and it could still sign some premium FA, right? It's the Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ, E.Rodriguez etc It's the farm system! It's the farm system that is covering the FO blunders: Fat Pablo can't play anymore? No problem, you plug in Shaw and the 3rd base position is fine! Castillo's has a long swing and can't catch up to a MLB fastball? No problem, you bing JBJ and you're golden, Cy Kelly is not good? You have Wright, Owens and BJ to cover that...and you want to gut that system because "you want titles"? Sorry my rant is not direct to you but I'm sick and tired of this WFAN mentality of "I want this big names on the market and I'll trade the whole system to get them!
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 16, 2016 15:08:17 GMT -5
So basically what you're saying is the Sox will have no farm system left by the end of the year. Fantastic. Not at all. Dave could go out and get best player on market and it's not going to gut the system. How did Ben do not trading our top prospects? He built up an impressive collection of prospects and two years of no playoffs. I want titles and if it cost some prospects then so be it. Hey how's Margot doing? You know that guy you thought could help us right now but is struggling in minors. Good K/BB numbers and a low BABIP. He's doing just fine.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 16, 2016 15:27:08 GMT -5
So basically what you're saying is the Sox will have no farm system left by the end of the year. Fantastic. Not at all. Dave could go out and get best player on market and it's not going to gut the system. How did Ben do not trading our top prospects? He built up an impressive collection of prospects and two years of no playoffs. I want titles and if it cost some prospects then so be it. Hey how's Margot doing? You know that guy you thought could help us right now but is struggling in minors. How's Betts and Bogaerts doing? Or Shaw, JBJ, Vazquez, ERod? Thanks Ben.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 16, 2016 15:31:21 GMT -5
Uh, don't you know that Hanley and Pablo were the two worst players in baseball last year because we had too many prospects?
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Apr 16, 2016 15:34:54 GMT -5
BTW, if we have another bad year, these same exact people will be killing Dombrowski for overspending and hurting the farm system.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 15:36:56 GMT -5
Not at all. Dave could go out and get best player on market and it's not going to gut the system. How did Ben do not trading our top prospects? He built up an impressive collection of prospects and two years of no playoffs. I want titles and if it cost some prospects then so be it. Hey how's Margot doing? You know that guy you thought could help us right now but is struggling in minors. You know what's saving this team ass right now and it could still sign some premium FA, right? It's the Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ, E.Rodriguez etc It's the farm system! It's the farm system that is covering the FO blunders: Fat Pablo can't play anymore? No problem, you plug in Shaw and the 3rd base position is fine! Castillo's has a long swing and can't catch up to a MLB fastball? No problem, you bing JBJ and you're golden, Cy Kelly is not good? You have Wright, Owens and BJ to cover that...and you want to gut that system because "you want titles"? Sorry my rant is not direct to you but I'm sick and tired of this WFAN mentality of "I want this big names on the market and I'll trade the whole system to get them! Please explain how making a trade would gut system? Giving up some good prospects won't gut our system. I'm not saying let's trade our top 5 prospects for a pitcher. I have to say I hate the mentality that any trade would gut our system and don't trade our prospects they are our future. The correct path is in the middle. You need to try and keep your system stacked with depth to help major league club, while also trading some to also help the major league club. It's a balancing act, not a one or the other. Just want to point out that it was a trade for Pedro and Beckett that allowed us to win two titles.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 16, 2016 15:49:47 GMT -5
You know what's saving this team ass right now and it could still sign some premium FA, right? It's the Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ, E.Rodriguez etc It's the farm system! It's the farm system that is covering the FO blunders: Fat Pablo can't play anymore? No problem, you plug in Shaw and the 3rd base position is fine! Castillo's has a long swing and can't catch up to a MLB fastball? No problem, you bing JBJ and you're golden, Cy Kelly is not good? You have Wright, Owens and BJ to cover that...and you want to gut that system because "you want titles"? Sorry my rant is not direct to you but I'm sick and tired of this WFAN mentality of "I want this big names on the market and I'll trade the whole system to get them! Please explain how making a trade would gut system? Giving up some good prospects won't gut our system.   ;I'm not saying let's trade our top 5 prospects for a pitcher. I have to say I hate the mentality that any trade would gut our system and don't trade our prospects they are our future. The correct path is in the middle. You need to try and keep your system stacked with depth to help major league club, while also trading some to also help the major league club. It's a balancing act, not a one or the other. Just want to point out that it was a trade for Pedro and Beckett that allowed us to win two titles. Exactly what kind of player do you think the Red Sox are going to get without giving up top five prospects? What do you think Brian Johnson or Sam Travis is going to bring back that's going to meaningfully impact the 2016 season? I also disagree that "the correct path is in the middle". Why? Who says? What teams have sustained long-term success by consistently trading away their prospects?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 16, 2016 15:56:53 GMT -5
You know what's saving this team ass right now and it could still sign some premium FA, right? It's the Betts, Bogaerts, JBJ, E.Rodriguez etc It's the farm system! It's the farm system that is covering the FO blunders: Fat Pablo can't play anymore? No problem, you plug in Shaw and the 3rd base position is fine! Castillo's has a long swing and can't catch up to a MLB fastball? No problem, you bing JBJ and you're golden, Cy Kelly is not good? You have Wright, Owens and BJ to cover that...and you want to gut that system because "you want titles"? Sorry my rant is not direct to you but I'm sick and tired of this WFAN mentality of "I want this big names on the market and I'll trade the whole system to get them! Please explain how making a trade would gut system? Giving up some good prospects won't gut our system. I'm not saying let's trade our top 5 prospects for a pitcher. I have to say I hate the mentality that any trade would gut our system and don't trade our prospects they are our future. The correct path is in the middle. You need to try and keep your system stacked with depth to help major league club, while also trading some to also help the major league club. It's a balancing act, not a one or the other. Just want to point out that it was a trade for Pedro and Beckett that allowed us to win two titles. Go look at how much Shelby Miller cost and what the teams shopping Fernandez, Carrasco and Salazar were rumored to be asking for and tell me how all that works.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 16:17:24 GMT -5
Please explain how making a trade would gut system? Giving up some good prospects won't gut our system. ;I'm not saying let's trade our top 5 prospects for a pitcher. I have to say I hate the mentality that any trade would gut our system and don't trade our prospects they are our future. The correct path is in the middle. You need to try and keep your system stacked with depth to help major league club, while also trading some to also help the major league club. It's a balancing act, not a one or the other. Just want to point out that it was a trade for Pedro and Beckett that allowed us to win two titles. Exactly what kind of player do you think the Red Sox are going to get without giving up top five prospects? What do you think Brian Johnson or Sam Travis is going to bring back that's going to meaningfully impact the 2016 season? I also disagree that "the correct path is in the middle". Why? Who says? What teams have sustained long-term success by consistently trading away their prospects? To gut system you would need to trade all of our top 5 prospects and I would never do that, but I would definitely trade one or two of our top guys for a stud pitcher. You also have players like Swihart and Owens that have very good trade value. I also think Sam Travis trade value is a lot higher then you think. Which teams have sustained long term success and not traded away prospects/young players? Did they win a title?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 16, 2016 16:18:38 GMT -5
Exactly what kind of player do you think the Red Sox are going to get without giving up top five prospects? What do you think Brian Johnson or Sam Travis is going to bring back that's going to meaningfully impact the 2016 season? I also disagree that "the correct path is in the middle". Why? Who says? What teams have sustained long-term success by consistently trading away their prospects? To gut system you would need to trade all of our top 5 prospects and I would never do that, but I would definitely trade one or two of our top guys for a stud pitcher. You also have players like Swihart and Owens that have very good trade value. I also think Sam Travis trade value is a lot higher then you think. Which teams have sustained long term success and not traded away prospects/young players? Did they win a title? Uhhh, the Royals last year? It's has been trending that way for awhile. When you trade the kinds of prospects you're talking about, you're in danger of trading away one and possibly multiple regular All-Star players. That hurts later on when you have to fill positions with free agency. Hello Pablo Sandoval. Amaro wanted Betts and Swihart plus 3 more for Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 16:24:45 GMT -5
Please explain how making a trade would gut system? Giving up some good prospects won't gut our system. I'm not saying let's trade our top 5 prospects for a pitcher. I have to say I hate the mentality that any trade would gut our system and don't trade our prospects they are our future. The correct path is in the middle. You need to try and keep your system stacked with depth to help major league club, while also trading some to also help the major league club. It's a balancing act, not a one or the other. Just want to point out that it was a trade for Pedro and Beckett that allowed us to win two titles. Go look at how much Shelby Miller cost and what the teams shopping Fernandez, Carrasco and Salazar were rumored to be asking for and tell me how all that works. The Miller trade tells you about as much as the Donaldson trade does. What about the Hammels trade? A better pitcher that went for a lot less in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 16:30:27 GMT -5
To gut system you would need to trade all of our top 5 prospects and I would never do that, but I would definitely trade one or two of our top guys for a stud pitcher. You also have players like Swihart and Owens that have very good trade value. I also think Sam Travis trade value is a lot higher then you think. Which teams have sustained long term success and not traded away prospects/young players? Did they win a title? Uhhh, the Royals last year? It's has been trending that way for awhile. When you trade the kinds of prospects you're talking about, you're in danger of trading away one and possibly multiple regular All-Star players. That hurts later on when you have to fill positions with free agency. Hello Pablo Sandoval. Amaro wanted Betts and Swihart plus 3 more for Hamels. If I remember right it was the James Shield and Wade Davis trade that turned Royals into Winners and helped them win title last year!
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on Apr 16, 2016 16:41:31 GMT -5
Go look at how much Shelby Miller cost and what the teams shopping Fernandez, Carrasco and Salazar were rumored to be asking for and tell me how all that works. The Miller trade tells you about as much as the Donaldson trade does. What about the Hammels trade? A better pitcher that went for a lot less in my opinion. Let's take a look at the Hamels trade. Hamels I also agree went for less and is the better pitcher, but also has the much larger contract, but that's not too big a hindrance. Fangraphs ranks Nick Williams as a 60 future value, and Jake Thompson as a 50+. Alfaro is a 45. Eickhoff was given a 45 last year, and has performed well since then, so that evaluation could've gone up. Benintendi has almost the exact same projection as Williams. Brian Johnson and Kopech are similar to the value given to Eickhoff and Thompson. Deven Marrero might be a decent comp for Alfaro, both are good defenders at difficult positions who have offensive concerns. It's fair if you disagree with these valuations, I just used fangraphs because it's free and easily accessible, and their ranking system makes it easy for comparisons. But I just found it an interesting way to compare them. Personally, I wouldn't do that deal. But I'm not a big fan of Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 17:14:58 GMT -5
The Miller trade tells you about as much as the Donaldson trade does. What about the Hammels trade? A better pitcher that went for a lot less in my opinion. Let's take a look at the Hamels trade. Hamels I also agree went for less and is the better pitcher, but also has the much larger contract, but that's not too big a hindrance. Fangraphs ranks Nick Williams as a 60 future value, and Jake Thompson as a 50+. Alfaro is a 45. Eickhoff was given a 45 last year, and has performed well since then, so that evaluation could've gone up. Benintendi has almost the exact same projection as Williams. Brian Johnson and Kopech are similar to the value given to Eickhoff and Thompson. Deven Marrero might be a decent comp for Alfaro, both are good defenders at difficult positions who have offensive concerns. It's fair if you disagree with these valuations, I just used fangraphs because it's free and easily accessible, and their ranking system makes it easy for comparisons. But I just found it an interesting way to compare them. Personally, I wouldn't do that deal. But I'm not a big fan of Hamels. Per Keith Law Benintendi is 18th and Williams is 74th so they really aren't even close when you compare trade value. A package of Margot, Guerra, Johnson, Logan Allen and let's say Sam Travis is a much better group of prospects. Also Alfaro is a good prospect, like 200% better then Marrero.
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on Apr 16, 2016 17:37:35 GMT -5
Let's take a look at the Hamels trade. Hamels I also agree went for less and is the better pitcher, but also has the much larger contract, but that's not too big a hindrance. Fangraphs ranks Nick Williams as a 60 future value, and Jake Thompson as a 50+. Alfaro is a 45. Eickhoff was given a 45 last year, and has performed well since then, so that evaluation could've gone up. Benintendi has almost the exact same projection as Williams. Brian Johnson and Kopech are similar to the value given to Eickhoff and Thompson. Deven Marrero might be a decent comp for Alfaro, both are good defenders at difficult positions who have offensive concerns. It's fair if you disagree with these valuations, I just used fangraphs because it's free and easily accessible, and their ranking system makes it easy for comparisons. But I just found it an interesting way to compare them. Personally, I wouldn't do that deal. But I'm not a big fan of Hamels. Per Keith Law Benintendi is 18th and Williams is 74th so they really aren't even close when you compare trade value. A package of Margot, Guerra, Johnson, Logan Allen and let's say Sam Travis is a much better group of prospects. Also Alfaro is a good prospect, like 200% better then Marrero. We could play this game all day long. Baseball America has Benintendi 15 Williams 27, Baseball Prospectus has Williams 25 Benintendi 46 . BA has Thompson at 75, BP 34. And I'd agree that package is paying a lot, I thought the Kimbrel trade was way too much. And I'm not big on Alfaro. but so then comp him to Travis, and replace Marrero. And Thompson is better than either Kopech or Johnson, it's not a perfect comparison but gives some context, and I think you're undervaluing the return the Phils got.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 18:08:24 GMT -5
Per Keith Law Benintendi is 18th and Williams is 74th so they really aren't even close when you compare trade value. A package of Margot, Guerra, Johnson, Logan Allen and let's say Sam Travis is a much better group of prospects. Also Alfaro is a good prospect, like 200% better then Marrero. We could play this game all day long. Baseball America has Benintendi 15 Williams 27, Baseball Prospectus has Williams 25 Benintendi 46 . BA has Thompson at 75, BP 34. And I'd agree that package is paying a lot, I thought the Kimbrel trade was way too much. And I'm not big on Alfaro. but so then comp him to Travis, and replace Marrero. And Thompson is better than either Kopech or Johnson, it's not a perfect comparison but gives some context, and I think you're undervaluing the return the Phils got. In general Williams and Thompson when compared to Margot and Guerra is a wash at best, Alfaro to Travis is very fair. To me Johnson and Allen are better then the 4\5 players Phils got. I don't think I undervalue the return they got. They got 3 good prospects, but they didn't get any elite top 20 guys either.
|
|
|
Post by ajs1994 on Apr 16, 2016 18:26:46 GMT -5
We could play this game all day long. Baseball America has Benintendi 15 Williams 27, Baseball Prospectus has Williams 25 Benintendi 46 . BA has Thompson at 75, BP 34. And I'd agree that package is paying a lot, I thought the Kimbrel trade was way too much. And I'm not big on Alfaro. but so then comp him to Travis, and replace Marrero. And Thompson is better than either Kopech or Johnson, it's not a perfect comparison but gives some context, and I think you're undervaluing the return the Phils got. In general Williams and Thompson when compared to Margot and Guerra is a wash at best, Alfaro to Travis is very fair. To me Johnson and Allen are better then the 4\5 players Phils got. I don't think I undervalue the return they got. They got 3 good prospects, but they didn't get any elite top 20 guys either. Right, but then again, how are we going to get a top end pitcher like you suggest, if the low end market seems to be a 25-50ish prospect, a 50-75 prospect, a fringe 100 prospect, a solid 4 starter, and a meh prospect? We no longer have Guerra or Margot. So we can't start an offer with those pieces. So we're either giving up one of our top 4, or not getting a high end talent. And again, this seems to be the low end of a return for a top end talent.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 16, 2016 18:33:22 GMT -5
Which teams have sustained long term success and not traded away prospects/young players? Did they win a title? Well the Giants and Cardinals come to mind. They've won a few titles recently. Hey, remember when people wanted the Cubs to trade Soler because he was "blocked"? How's that working out?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 18:34:27 GMT -5
In general Williams and Thompson when compared to Margot and Guerra is a wash at best, Alfaro to Travis is very fair. To me Johnson and Allen are better then the 4\5 players Phils got. I don't think I undervalue the return they got. They got 3 good prospects, but they didn't get any elite top 20 guys either. Right, but then again, how are we going to get a top end pitcher like you suggest, if the low end market seems to be a 25-50ish prospect, a 50-75 prospect, a fringe 100 prospect, a solid 4 starter, and a meh prospect? We no longer have Guerra or Margot. So we can't start an offer with those pieces. So we're either giving up one of our top 4, or not getting a high end talent. And again, this seems to be the low end of a return for a top end talent. I would trade Swihart and/or Devers for the right guy like Gray.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 18:36:29 GMT -5
Which teams have sustained long term success and not traded away prospects/young players? Did they win a title? I mean, the Cardinals are pretty good. Yea they are, but they made a lot of trades using prospects and Young players to make that happen.
|
|
|