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.
Evaluating Ben Cherington
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 11, 2012 10:40:21 GMT -5
Yes, I can.
I mean, let's face it. When one of the plans for rebuilding the team is trading a poor defensive catcher who hit .195/.276/.390 with 101 strikeouts in 312 plate appearances from June 1 on, "for value" then there just isn't a lot to work with.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 11, 2012 11:15:52 GMT -5
If/when Salty does get traded, you're going to be furious with the return. Can you be more condescending?Condescending or not, I promise that's an accurate prediction.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 11, 2012 11:20:44 GMT -5
D - They could win now with Greinke/Hamilton, have a $150M payroll with flexibility of expiring contracts in future years, and only surrender a second round pick . If "no Greinke / Hamilton" is the restriction, I'd look around for new employment because ownership and I are on different wavelengths. Then again, I would have also made sure to be on the same wavelength before the LAD trade as well. I can't believe that people think this is actually a reasonable plan. Again, the Red Sox need to improve by 25 wins to contend for the AL East. Hamilton and Greinke are worth 10 wins combined next year, and that's being optimistic. Ok, so you just spent $300m plus and you're still 15 wins short. And this would be the mark of a competent general manager? It's an absolutely terrible idea that's more likely to cripple the franchise for years than it is to produce any meaningful success on the field.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 11, 2012 11:33:56 GMT -5
Condescending or not, I promise that's an accurate prediction. The level of buffoonery in these posts cannot be described outside of throwdown. Just incomprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 11, 2012 11:41:48 GMT -5
I don't really understand why that would be necessary if you have some kind of reasonable argument, but ok, Throwdown it is.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Dec 11, 2012 11:46:04 GMT -5
I can't believe that people think this is actually a reasonable plan. Again, the Red Sox need to improve by 25 wins to contend for the AL East. Hamilton and Greinke are worth 10 wins combined next year, and that's being optimistic. Ok, so you just spent $300m plus and you're still 15 wins short. And this would be the mark of a competent general manager? It's an absolutely terrible idea that's more likely to cripple the franchise for years than it is to produce any meaningful success on the field. While I agree with the general sentiment (signing Greinke would have been a bad move), you're mixing a few different ideas together here. The 25 wins number, I assume, comes from the (rounded) number of additional wins they would need to improve over last year's final number to get to 95? So, there you are talking about the actual results. But then you are talking about adding wins in the sense of adding talent and saying that adding 10 wins of talent leaves them 15 short of the 25 they need to add. Except, again, you got that 25 number from their actual results last year. Do you think that the Red Sox (before adding any free agents this offseason) were really a true 69 win team on talent heading into 2013?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 11, 2012 12:40:14 GMT -5
So in his first off-season Cherrington did not make the team better than they were the year before (which in pro sports means you got worse). What was he supposed to do? The Red Sox wanted to get themselves under the luxury cap threshold (something the Yankees are also trying to do). He was saddled with a roster of expensive veterans. He reportedly had about $10M in salary space before trading Scutaro. That's roughly 1/5th of the Rays payroll and 1/4th Oakland's. And no one was asking for a 25 win increase. Just 2-3 over 2011 would've been sufficient. This is conflating year one with year two.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 11, 2012 13:32:40 GMT -5
Can someone explain this desire to tank the 2013 season to me? The long-term prospect core of the team is still in place, but in the short-term the team is more competitive. What's the big deal? It's tough to sell the most expensive tickets in the league for a team that most likely has 85-win (non-playoff) potential to a fanbase that has watched playoff- and championship-caliber teams for the past decade. The long term prospect core isn't outstanding, especially considering the top prospects beyond Xander, when compared with some of the talent that some other organizations boast. Not sure why you forgo the present, or even suffer mediocrity in the present, just to wait for a younger core of the same good-not-great talent to come along. My error, based on some of the criticism folks have had for my ideas, is that I think you make the moves that continue to shape the current team as a contender while detracting as little as possible from the continued acquisition of young talent. Preserve the minor league talent while exploiting major off season strength this team has: budget flexibility. Many of the potential moves now start to carry the cost of prospect or draft pick compensation, or likely involve minimized impact. So, kudos to the Rays for a great deal. They realized their situation and traded a guy I don't really care for to get a high end young talent. It probably weakens them somewhat next year but primes them down the road. quote] I agree with your assessment regarding the farm system, but I draw the conclusion that something has to give. If the future core needs to be improved - and that's the overriding long-term desire, then a deal like Tampa made has to be what the Sox would have been willing to do. It sounds like the Sox didn't want to deal Lester because if would detract from the present team - so if the focus in the present, then why not sign the best available free agent talent like Hamilton to a 4 year deal (I'm not crazy about 4, wouldn't do 5, and would prefer 3, but don't think that will get it done)? Then grab Marcum and another starting pitcher and give it your best shot? With Greinke, it would have taken more than $150 million to land him, a long-term commitment - 6 years is a long time - that's Daisuke-length and that was an eternity - I honestly believe that Greinke would have very little desire to live in the fishbowl existence that Boston is. LA is a lot more laid back than Boston - let's face it. Anyways - that's my point - you cannot deal Lester if the focus is now, but if the focus is the future, and you have a chance to deal Lester to improve that future, then you have to deal him. You can't have it both ways. I forget who used the analogy but it's apt - it's like the Sox have one foot in the now and one in the future and can't seem to fully commit to making one them as good as can be. I understand you have to keep an eye on both, but if realistically the present offers you at best an 85 win team, then wouldn't you choose the future? Realistically, this is not that great a team. About the only team I'd pick the Sox ahead of is Baltimore and that's debateable. And like buffs said - that future core is decent but needs more help. I say if an opportunity comes along to help that core, make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 11, 2012 13:47:38 GMT -5
Getting away from the GFIN vs the future vs the balance philosophy talk, I have to say I find it difficult to evaluate Ben Cherington as a GM.
With Duquette and Theo it was really easy to do it early as they struck gold on a lot of their early transactions. And as somebody said and I agree, Duquette was great at building a strong core, but was clueless on how to supplement it. Theo added to the core and was great at supplementing, but when he had to rebuild the core, he wasn't able to do it - and for whatever reason had a heckuva time trying to evaulate free agents.
Ben walked into a complete mess (kind of like Duquette did. He didn't get to pick his manager the first season. On the positive side, he was involved in the Punto deal, although I do wonder if that deal was brokered higher up at the ownership level - at least Lucchino likes to take credit for it anyways.
His trades haven't worked out. I didn't think Reddick and Head for Bailey was a bad deal, nor did I think Melancon for Lowrie was a bad deal - shows you what I know. They kind of gave Scutaro away - not that Mortensen was a failure, but he had little impact.
I haven't seen much positives as far as bringing in talent from the moves he has made - I do like Napoli and Uehara as players. I think he should have dealt Salty in July before Salty tanked and I think he should have dealt Ross as well. And given the market as it turned out, I now wish he had offered Ross a qualifying offer.
It's hard at this point to know how much his hands have been tied by management. It seems like he's constantly dealing from a position of weakness and that most of the transactions seem to be about righthanded middle relievers.
It's strange - Ben comes into money for the budget this year, but the market is thin and overpriced - with two very good talents and alot of overpaid averageness that will pull the team closer to .500 but not necessarily into serious contention.
It's such an incomplete picture at this point, that I feel we need another year or two before we can come to some sort of decisive conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 11, 2012 13:54:35 GMT -5
What was he supposed to do? The Red Sox wanted to get themselves under the luxury cap threshold (something the Yankees are also trying to do). He was saddled with a roster of expensive veterans. He reportedly had about $10M in salary space before trading Scutaro. That's roughly 1/5th of the Rays payroll and 1/4th Oakland's. And no one was asking for a 25 win increase. Just 2-3 over 2011 would've been sufficient. This is conflating year one with year two. The Rays built their team through the farm system same as the A's. You cannot fix a farm system over one off season, mentioning the Rays or A's is completely irrelevant. You said you wanted him to do something in his first year. What would you have liked him to do?
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Dec 11, 2012 13:55:40 GMT -5
And no one was asking for a 25 win increase. Just 2-3 over 2011 would've been sufficient. This is conflating year one with year two. Unfortunately, between 2011 and 2013, 2012 happened. And, in that heretofore unmentioned season, the team was flat out bad. So, saying that 2-3 wins above 2011 is all that was needed, is ridiculous. If you want to argue points then you need to take off the rose colored glasses for a few minutes. Beckett and Lester took major steps backwards. Adrian Gonzalez and Jacoby took major steps backwards. Youkilis continued his downhill trend, Middlebrooks, Pedroia and Ortiz were injured. Pretending these things didn't happen in 2012 is wishcasting. Hoping that all of them return to their 2011 form is wishcasting. Or are you saying that he shouldn't have made the Punto trade? So far you're scratching that one up to luck and higher-ups talking. If you're happy that it happened then you need to look outside of the microscope and realize that the team minus those players has huge holes that need to be filled. So, looking from that point on, and assessing what's available how could things have been done differently? You suggest Hamilton and Greinke, who will add, at best 10 wins to a 70 win team. Because, amazingly this isn't a 92 win-talent team because the big players from 2011 AREN'T GOING TO RETURN. They're either not here, or they won't be as good as they were that season. So, fill in the holes with the best that's available: ie. Napoli, a SP, a RF (Victorino). There's 2 of the 3 done unless you believe that an Ellsbury trade is coming. I personally believe that 1 of 2 things is going to happen with the hole in the rotation: either they sign Sanchez or they let the youngsters have at the open slot.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Dec 11, 2012 14:03:13 GMT -5
To this point I have no real problems with the direction of this offseason. None of us really know what players like Xander, JBJ, RDLR, etc will become but I am anxious to find out one way or the other with those 3 and about another 1/2 dozen.
Leaning towards filling short-term gaps and sticking with a youth movement is the strategy I had hoped for. This does not mean that in the right situation I wouldn't forfeit a good portion of it for a more established impact talent, but that has not to this point appeared to be available.
Would still like to see Anibal signed, though. Even with the younger arms we could use another quality starter for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 11, 2012 14:06:21 GMT -5
His trades haven't worked out. I didn't think Reddick and Head for Bailey was a bad deal, nor did I think Melancon for Lowrie was a bad deal - shows you what I know. They kind of gave Scutaro away - not that Mortensen was a failure, but he had little impact.quote] Is it to early to grade Cherrington's trading ability? - Two of the four trades (Punto and Scutaro) were salary dumps. - Bailey was injured last year, so I am not ready to call this trade yet. - And I also liked the Melanson trade when it was announced. Not sure if Melanson makes the team next season, but I know I like the idea of Lowrie at SS much more than Ciraico, but less than Iglasias.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 11, 2012 14:20:37 GMT -5
I know anything that cannot be explained in a box score or by looking at statistics is looked at as taboo on this message board, but in real life and on real sports teams there are other things at work that can't be explained in a statistic. Things like chemistry and intangibles don't register so they get dismissed like they don't play a role. How one player or coaches attitude or performance can affect another players.
Not to mention, people give certain stats all this credibility that have no basis of being correct. WAR is one of the most overused and useless statistics in baseball. Saying the Jon Lester of 2010 would have only improved the 2012 Red Sox by 2 wins is ridiculous on so many levels, yet that's what WAR will tell you. Is that my opinion? Absolutely, but there is no way to test that player A swapped with player B would affect a teams win total by a certain amount, yet that's what people buy into with WAR.
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Dec 11, 2012 14:47:51 GMT -5
As I finish grades for one of my classes and start on another, it's clear than Ben can get only one grade: INCOMPLETE.
|
|
|
Post by honkbal on Dec 11, 2012 14:50:01 GMT -5
I know anything that cannot be explained in a box score or by looking at statistics is looked at as taboo on this message board, but in real life and on real sports teams there are other things at work that can't be explained in a statistic. Things like chemistry and intangibles don't register so they get dismissed like they don't play a role. How one player or coaches attitude or performance can affect another players. Not to mention, people give certain stats all this credibility that have no basis of being correct. WAR is one of the most overused and useless statistics in baseball. Saying the Jon Lester of 2010 would have only improved the 2012 Red Sox by 2 wins is ridiculous on so many levels, yet that's what WAR will tell you. Is that my opinion? Absolutely, but there is no way to test that player A swapped with player B would affect a teams win total by a certain amount, yet that's what people buy into with WAR. Then look at a different WAR calculation. It's a 4.5 win difference using the version of WAR on baseball-reference.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 11, 2012 15:30:05 GMT -5
I forget who used the analogy but it's apt - it's like the Sox have one foot in the now and one in the future and can't seem to fully commit to making one them as good as can be. I understand you have to keep an eye on both, but if realistically the present offers you at best an 85 win team, then wouldn't you choose the future? Realistically, this is not that great a team. About the only team I'd pick the Sox ahead of is Baltimore and that's debateable. And like buffs said - that future core is decent but needs more help. I say if an opportunity comes along to help that core, make it happen. So you would have torn the whole thing down and traded Lester/Pedroia, not re-signed Ortiz, etc., yes? That's fine, but keep in mind that even if you got a Myers-level prospect in return, you've basically conceded the next 2-3 seasons and cut payroll in half, if not more. Basically, you've become the Miami Marlins with better prospects. Even the most optimistic of fans would have a tough time rooting for the Red Sox in the meantime, and if just some of your prospects bust (say, JBJ becomes just a fringe-average starter, Bogaerts never improves his plate discipline, Barnes breaks his elbow, De La Rosa and Webster become relievers), this team becomes an afterthought in the AL East for the next half-decade. I think it rarely makes sense for a high-payroll team in baseball to "blow it all up" unless it means trading high on veterans, and the only veteran player on the current roster you can sell high on is Pedroia, given Ellsbury's injuries and Lester's underperformance. Dave Cameron from Fangraphs reiterates what I have argued above ( link): I’m not advocating for roster construction strategies that refuse to admit the obvious, throwing good money at mediocre veterans in order to try and prop up a roster that has too many leaks to plug at once. That’s what got the Astros into their current mess to begin with. There is a point at which it makes sense to just blow the roster up and start over. But that point is when you get enough long term value in exchange for your short term assets to make the trade-off worth it. You shouldn’t just implode your team on purpose in an effort to be bad simply for the sake of earning a higher draft pick.
That works in the NBA, where a bad season can land you Tim Duncan or LeBron James, changing the entire outlook of your franchise with one single draft pick. That works to some degree in the NFL, where a top pick can make an instant impact on the field in the very next season, and high draft selections can be flipped for valuable contributors who can overhaul a roster in short order. In baseball, the effects of a high draft pick aren’t seen for years, and the likelihood of landing a franchise player with a high pick is much lower than it is in other sports. The value of simply picking near the top of the draft in baseball simply isn’t as large as it in basketball or football, and it’s not a good enough reason to blow up a mediocre baseball team.
I see this argument a lot as it pertains to teams like the Mets, with valuable walk-year veterans in R.A. Dickey and David Wright. We saw it last year when the A’s signed Coco Crisp to play center field. The perceived value of putting a respectable team on the field is quite low, but as the A’s showed last year, the actual value of doing just that can be extremely high. We simply don’t know enough about the future to say that Dickey and Wright aren’t going to be part of the next competitive Mets team. We do not have the forecasting capabilities to look at a 75 win team and tell them that they can’t be a 90 win team in the following year.
There’s too much variation in baseball for teams to simply accept their most recent record as evidence of their short term future. There’s too many things that simply can’t be projected — and too much uncertainty around the things we do know — for more than one or two teams per year to simply punt the entire season and lose on purpose. Trading from the present to improve the future is one thing; trading from the present simply because we see no future is another thing entirely, and requires a level of certainty in forecasting that we simply don’t have.
If our forecast for a team is 65 to 90 wins, then making smart moves to improve the roster and increase the likelihood of getting towards that 90 win part of the bell curve could very well be a better move for the future of the franchise than blowing up the roster and accepting the ramifications of a 65 win season. Rebuilding can be the right path to take, especially if you get the kind of offer for your veterans that can inject a real talent boost into the organization. Just dumping good players because there’s no point in having veterans on a team with a mean forecast of 78 wins, though? That’s just putting too much faith in what we know. If we’re going to stress honesty, let’s honestly admit that we don’t know enough to suggest that a 78 win team should give up hope and lose on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 11, 2012 15:33:18 GMT -5
(say, JBJ becomes just a fringe-average starter, Bogaerts never improves his plate discipline, Barnes breaks his elbow, De La Rosa and Webster become relievers), Gah! Ptooie, ptooie! Don't even think such things!
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 11, 2012 15:56:05 GMT -5
He reportedly had about $10M in salary space before trading Scutaro. That's roughly 1/5th of the Rays payroll and 1/4th Oakland's. And no one was asking for a 25 win increase. Just 2-3 over 2011 would've been sufficient. This is conflating year one with year two. The Rays built their team through the farm system same as the A's. You cannot fix a farm system over one off season, mentioning the Rays or A's is completely irrelevant. You said you wanted him to do something in his first year. What would you have liked him to do? 2012 Rays included: Kyle Farnsworth, Fernando Rodney, Jose Molina, Carlos Pena, Jeff Keppinger, Ben Francisco, Luke Scott, Matt Joyce. These guys aren't from the farm. And I believe I did say I would've liked him to acquire Darvish (who would've been just over $6M against the luxury tax) and Cespedas, among others- and that if he were on the level of the other GMs I named he would've had the juice with the Boston owners to get this done (Like, say, Jon Daniels did). I also spoke to every move and available alternatives as they occurred real time on this forum. Not going to rehash here. Again, we're talking opinions. My opinion is that Ben has added zero or negative value to this franchise so far. I never thought Theo was perfect, but over all he earned my trust and made more good moves than bad over his career. I also believe he was a very creative problem solver. He wasn't always right, but I never felt like he was playing checkers when others are playing chess, to borrow an analogy that has been used here. Ben has done nothing thus far that has earned my trust. If anything now, when I hear the Sox have made a trade my first thought is, "How did Ben get fleeced on this one?"
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 11, 2012 16:36:05 GMT -5
The Rays built their team through the farm system same as the A's. You cannot fix a farm system over one off season, mentioning the Rays or A's is completely irrelevant. You said you wanted him to do something in his first year. What would you have liked him to do? 2012 Rays included: Kyle Farnsworth, Fernando Rodney, Jose Molina, Carlos Pena, Jeff Keppinger, Ben Francisco, Luke Scott, Matt Joyce. These guys aren't from the farm. And I believe I did say I would've liked him to acquire Darvish (who would've been just over $6M against the luxury tax) and Cespedas, among others- and that if he were on the level of the other GMs I named he would've had the juice with the Boston owners to get this done (Like, say, Jon Daniels did). I also spoke to every move and available alternatives as they occurred real time on this forum. Not going to rehash here. Again, we're talking opinions. My opinion is that Ben has added zero or negative value to this franchise so far. I never thought Theo was perfect, but over all he earned my trust and made more good moves than bad over his career. I also believe he was a very creative problem solver. He wasn't always right, but I never felt like he was playing checkers when others are playing chess, to borrow an analogy that has been used here. Ben has done nothing thus far that has earned my trust. If anything now, when I hear the Sox have made a trade my first thought is, "How did Ben get fleeced on this one?" A lot of the guys you just listed were on the Rays prior to 2012. How was BC supposed to add them? You are holding him to an impossible standard, give him a chance to put his stamp on the team. I am not saying the BC is the best GM in the league. I am not even saying he is a good GM. I am just saying, there is not enough evidence to judge him yet.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Dec 11, 2012 17:36:51 GMT -5
I am 100 percent in his corner. He needs a few years. I applaud him for holding on to all the talent. He must get a dozen calls about these kids. He is like the snake waiting for the unsuspecting rodent to walk in his direction and he can strike with his venum. Just wait. H eisn't gonna hit a home run everytime. God knows Theo didn't. I would personally love it if they wait for Tampa's pitcher David Price. He is gonna go to the market. Build around that kid. Also think about Tampa for all the compliments they get. They had like 15 years of top 5 talent to draft and really no offense to show. Friedman knows talent but I feel this guy knows pitching talent but his nose for hitting leaves a lot to be desired.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 11, 2012 17:46:39 GMT -5
Ben is doing just what I'd hope he'd do so far. Make the team better without giving up the future.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 11, 2012 18:23:47 GMT -5
2012 Rays included: Kyle Farnsworth, Fernando Rodney, Jose Molina, Carlos Pena, Jeff Keppinger, Ben Francisco, Luke Scott, Matt Joyce. These guys aren't from the farm. And I believe I did say I would've liked him to acquire Darvish (who would've been just over $6M against the luxury tax) and Cespedas, among others- and that if he were on the level of the other GMs I named he would've had the juice with the Boston owners to get this done (Like, say, Jon Daniels did). I also spoke to every move and available alternatives as they occurred real time on this forum. Not going to rehash here. Again, we're talking opinions. My opinion is that Ben has added zero or negative value to this franchise so far. I never thought Theo was perfect, but over all he earned my trust and made more good moves than bad over his career. I also believe he was a very creative problem solver. He wasn't always right, but I never felt like he was playing checkers when others are playing chess, to borrow an analogy that has been used here. Ben has done nothing thus far that has earned my trust. If anything now, when I hear the Sox have made a trade my first thought is, "How did Ben get fleeced on this one?" A lot of the guys you just listed were on the Rays prior to 2012. How was BC supposed to add them? You are holding him to an impossible standard, give him a chance to put his stamp on the team. I am not saying the BC is the best GM in the league. I am not even saying he is a good GM. I am just saying, there is not enough evidence to judge him yet. Dude, I am not saying he should've added those players. It was stated that the Rays and As were simply products of their farms, and it was asked what did I want Ben to do with the $10M in salary he had avail in the winter of 11-12. I provided these names as proof that the Rays aren't just their farm and one can do quite a bit with $10M or so if they can evaluate talent. But whatever.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 11, 2012 18:26:05 GMT -5
Cherington seems to get unfairly (to me) pilloried by some when signings, etc. are not to one's liking but little credit for the 'good' moves. The positive changes appear to be accorded to Lucchino (even tho viewed as the Machiavellian puppeteer) and the less regarded ones as solely the 'fault' of poor, dumb, over-matched Cherington.
Have not the Sox said, even in Epstein's time, that major decisions are made collectively? Give Cherington a break and time! He is not an outwardly aggressive, flamboyant personality. To my knowledge that is not a sin in any major religion....Don't hold that against him.
I think that the Sox are doing about as well as they can given all the competing interests of satisfying the fans, keeping up revenues, maintaining the farm and assembling at least an interesting, entertaining team. They are not going to get Hamilton unless they once again violate their creed. They may get Swisher......IMO the perfect guy to platoon (or play) in left and 1B to give Napoli a rest or while he catches.
As I have said, if I had my druthers, I would like to see us build more aggressively to the future by trading Ells and Lester for top minor league prospects... even if our resurrection took a few years... because I feel there are sufficient uncertainties/limitations with each. Unfortunately those guys are at a low ebb off 2012 and probably won't be able to command much unless they rebound in 2013. If so, and if our team promise is not then good, let's do the deed I say.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 11, 2012 18:37:00 GMT -5
A lot of the guys you just listed were on the Rays prior to 2012. How was BC supposed to add them? You are holding him to an impossible standard, give him a chance to put his stamp on the team. I am not saying the BC is the best GM in the league. I am not even saying he is a good GM. I am just saying, there is not enough evidence to judge him yet. Dude, I am not saying he should've added those players. It was stated that the Rays and As were simply products of their farms, and it was asked what did I want Ben to do with the $10M in salary he had avail in the winter of 11-12. I provided these names as proof that the Rays aren't just their farm and one can do quite a bit with $10M or so if they can evaluate talent. But whatever. But that talent was not available last winter, so what's the point of mentioning them? Occasionally good players get signed for short money. The Rays acquired a few of them over a period of multiple seasons. To expect the Red Sox to acquire their equivalent over one offseason is unreasonable.
|
|
|