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.
2016 Red Sox Spring Training News/Discussion
|
Post by mattpicard on Feb 18, 2016 12:30:57 GMT -5
From Rob Bradford today:- Holt is expected to get 350-400 at bats, which sounds about right. I'm all for him getting some games in LF if Rusney continually fails to hit RHP. Of course, I'd prefer Shaw there, and hope to hear something about him getting some exposure in the OF this Spring (EDIT: I see here that the Sox are "are asking Shaw to learn to play in the outfield to make him more versatile off the bench". - Vazquez's arm is looking good, and nothing set in stone with the catching plan yet - All but confirmed JBJ is the CF when he's in the lineup, with Mookie in RF. Big fan of this. - Sandoval will switch hit again: Let's hope so.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Feb 18, 2016 13:20:41 GMT -5
It appears the sox tried to replicate field 1 to resemble Fenway as well. The only concern is the left field "wall" looks like a netting/chain link fence type deal. Many left fielders will be learning their craft on that field & I think it would help them immensely to get reps using a wall, not a net. Ft Myers kicked in 80 mil to build the complex. I would think the Sox could kick in 100k or so to have a "wall". I would also hope if/when they build a new AAA stadium, it also replicates Fenway (Like Greenville). You can tell this from the blimp shot? Also, I'd note that the left fielders can use the "wall" inside the park whenever they want. It's not like they're high schoolers who need to ask permission. No, I can't tell from the blimp shot. Just seen pic's from ST's in the past. Looked like maybe the "baggie" from the Metrodome right field. I would imagine a left fielder running drills on this field can't all of sudden say, "time out, I need to do these drills on Jet Blue because it has a wall".
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 18, 2016 13:29:23 GMT -5
Extending Betts or Bogaerts would not cost that much in 2016 dollars. While extensions have a higher AAV than going pre-arb/arb, the first year usually doesn't involve that much actual cash expenditure. For instance, Pedroia's extension included a $1.5m signing bonus and a $1.5m salary in the first year. Buchholz was similar ($1m signing bonus, $3.5m first year). As such, I don't think the additions of Price and Kimbrel and the resultant ~$190m or so 2016 payroll has any meaningful effect on their ability to sign Betts/Bogaerts to long-term extensions. Remember, this ownership group has shown the willingness to stretch their payroll to accommodate special situations-- think Moncada, for instance. The Price/Kimbrel acquisitions do have real opportunity costs, but I don't think it's reasonable to characterize the lack of a Betts/Bogaerts extension as one of them. Two biggestt hurdles for signing those 2 to extensions (Adding Price and Kimbrel are NOT roadblocks) - They (and their agents have to be wiling. - The Sox have to want this right now. There hasn't been any indication of this. There will be still be opportunities to extend them. I'd rather pay them a bit more for a little more certain outcome than extend them now with so much risk uncertainty. Less so with Mookie, but the jury is still out how he'll adjust this year to pitchers being well aware all year long about his ability to turn on and crush pitches inside. I think jemi, in particular, has expressed some concerned about how he'll do if he's forced to go with more pitches on the outside corner. And Xander? I'm optimistic. But that BABIP and lack of power last year are reasons to be cautious. Price's contract has no bearing on the Sox ability to extend to Xander of Mookie.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 18, 2016 13:40:15 GMT -5
espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14786897/best-worst-mlb-offseasonMost improved teams (American League) Red Sox: ... ...How rare is it for a team to pull off two moves such as that in the same offseason? Well, the answer, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, is, basically, never. Elias says the Red Sox are the first team in history to acquire a Cy Young starter and a closer who led his league in saves at least four times in the same baseball winter. So there you go. Tough call to say who was the most improved. You can say that the White Sox made the best improvements in a off-season. With their infield doing nothing last year, they went on to get Bret Lawrie and Todd Frazier. The Sox bullpen can also be made a case to be most improved from a year ago. After being in the bottom 5 of worst bullpens they should be a top 5 bullpen this coming year. So due to that I give a slight edge to the Sox. I think David Price is more impactful than a Todd Frazier and while Bret Lawrie is a decent player, well I wouldn't say that the two of them are bigger impact players than what the Red Sox brought on. The Sox signed one of the top pitchers in all of baseball. They acquired arguably the best closer over the past five seasons, and they added a very good young setup man who would probably be a closer on a lot of other teams. I would say the Cubs and Red Sox have helped themselves the most this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 18, 2016 13:50:03 GMT -5
C'mon, it was two blocked prospects with some question marks. I think Margot will be a decent to good player (will he hit with much power and how will his OBP look) and Guerra should at worst play a strong defensive SS in the majors (but his OBP and his power numbers might be questionable) and I like Allen, too, but I don't think they dealt off the next Jeff Bagwell or the next Lou Brock or the next John Smoltz. They hardly cleared out their best and most needed prospects and they didn't trade prospects to acquire a starter, because if they had, they would have lost out on at least one of Moncada/Espinoza/Devers/Benintendi, and perhaps a Swihart or maybe even a Betts or a Bogaerts. It comes down to the Sox dealing two good (and blocked) and one possibly good prospect to get a top notch reliever and the Sox got an ace only having to surrender a lot of cash. They didn't even lose a draft pick to sign Price. They didn't gut their farm system to get a top closer and an ace. They traded two top 50 prospects, took on $40 million in new salary commitments (about 20% of payroll) for the next three years and $30 million for the four after, and they postponed extending their two young stars (likely due to the added payroll). Also, after all this, there will likely be another major hit to the farm system prior to the trade deadline. While they haven't gutted the farm, this is still a staggering investment of future assets for seven or eight present wins. When you say "never" in this case it is a reflection on the rarity of both the acquisition and the cost in future assets. Why is it a huge issue that they took on salary commitments? Would you've rather they pocketed the money rather than give Price his contract? Would you have preferred the Cueto contract? Heck, they could have gotten themselves two Ian Kennedy contracts. Or they could have really gutted the system or worse to get a cost effective ace or they could simply hope things fall into place like they were hoping last year. The free agent market is pretty tame until the offseason of 2018-2019, so I wouldn't expect the Sox to be big players in the next couple of offseasons. Also as the team transitions to youth, the payroll will lighten up, but obviously it's not the payroll as much as it's the luxury tax that concerns the ownership and that situation could be changing quite soon (the threshholds, I mean, not the ownership). The part about the top 50 prospects has been debated ad nauseum. If they had dealt Moncada or somebody of that ilk or a prospect that wasn't blocked (no way I'd dump Bogaerts to make room for Guerra nor do I think Margot will necessarily be better than JBJ or Betts or Benintendi and last I know you can only play 3 OF in the outfield at one time. Who knows, within a year or two Basabe could become a better prospect? As far as this blocking their ability to extend Mookie or Bogaerts, I don't agree about that at all. First off, unless the Sox are going to shell out a David Price type contract to Bogaerts right now, there's no way that Boras is going to advise Bogaerts to accept. As far as Mookie goes, who knows? Maybe he'd be more open to a contract extension, but I doubt that the Sox are holding back because they're scared of running out of money. I don't think Price's contract prevents Mookie from getting an extension. I would also argue that agents are pretty wise to the fact that players hold a significant hammer if they hit the market at ages 26, 27, or 28, and the younger they are and the more elite they are, the less likely they'll take security upfront to give a year or two back to their club.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 18, 2016 13:59:11 GMT -5
Extending Betts or Bogaerts would not cost that much in 2016 dollars. While extensions have a higher AAV than going pre-arb/arb, the first year usually doesn't involve that much actual cash expenditure. For instance, Pedroia's extension included a $1.5m signing bonus and a $1.5m salary in the first year. Buchholz was similar ($1m signing bonus, $3.5m first year). As such, I don't think the additions of Price and Kimbrel and the resultant ~$190m or so 2016 payroll has any meaningful effect on their ability to sign Betts/Bogaerts to long-term extensions. Remember, this ownership group has shown the willingness to stretch their payroll to accommodate special situations-- think Moncada, for instance. The Price/Kimbrel acquisitions do have real opportunity costs, but I don't think it's reasonable to characterize the lack of a Betts/Bogaerts extension as one of them. To add to JMEI's point, I don't think a Betts or Bogaerts extension would be as expensive as has been suggested either, at least not this off-season. The previous commenter suggested each would have a 15-20mil AVV, but I think it would be closer to 12 for Betts, and 15 for Bogaerts. That's not to say that Betts or Bogaerts would accept such a deal, but I think it's about the limit (give or take) of where the Sox would feel comfortable, or at least where I'd feel comfortable.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 18, 2016 14:00:40 GMT -5
I don't think the argument is anything more than that some people are overlooking the cost. The money is actually major and could possibly affect decisions in the future and the prospects traded will make it much harder to make any further deals without including one of the untouchables. You can say those prices were worth paying, but you can't say that because they're worth paying, they have an unlimited budget and an unlimited # of prospects to trade in the future.
The prices paid in money and prospects for Price and Kimbrel was pretty huge and it will affect future decisions. It might not (probably won't) affect Betts and Bogaerts extensions, but it could make them go cheap on a bullpen arm or an outfielder here and there. It could also put them out of the running for the next big Japanese pitcher like Otani.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 18, 2016 14:21:19 GMT -5
- All but confirmed JBJ is the CF when he's in the lineup, with Mookie in RF. Big fan of this. I don't get this. Why put the worst of three arms in the one OF spot where it matters? Is RF arm THAT overrated? I mean, sure, if Mookie were bad in CF, or if RF were smaller, or even if only Bradley, but not Castillo were a RFer, but it doesn't make any sense to move BOTH our right-fielders out of that spot. Seriously, can someone explain the BENEFIT of doing this at home, rather than just explaining how it's not much of a downgrade defensively?? Maybe the best thing to do is switch it up every inning or two so that the 3B coach gets confused about where Bradley is playing (I kid).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 18, 2016 14:23:04 GMT -5
- All but confirmed JBJ is the CF when he's in the lineup, with Mookie in RF. Big fan of this. I don't get this. Why put the worst of three arms in the one OF spot where it matters? Is RF arm THAT overrated? I mean, sure, if Mookie were bad in CF, or if RF were smaller, or even if only Bradley, but not Castillo were a RFer, but it doesn't make any sense to move BOTH our right-fielders out of that spot. Seriously, can someone explain the BENEFIT of doing this at home, rather than just explaining how it's not much of a downgrade defensively?? Maybe the best thing to do is switch it up every inning or two so that the 3B coach gets confused about where Bradley is playing (I kid). Because the difference in their arms is not bigger than the difference in the advantage of having the best fielder in the position where the most balls are hit. And after watching Mookie almost kill himself jumping over walls, I don't want him near the Monster.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Feb 18, 2016 14:42:41 GMT -5
@peteabe: Dave Dombrowski says the #RedSox have room to add a few players to the spring training roster. Says they're monitoring a few situations.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Feb 18, 2016 14:44:14 GMT -5
I don't get this. Why put the worst of three arms in the one OF spot where it matters? Is RF arm THAT overrated? I mean, sure, if Mookie were bad in CF, or if RF were smaller, or even if only Bradley, but not Castillo were a RFer, but it doesn't make any sense to move BOTH our right-fielders out of that spot. Seriously, can someone explain the BENEFIT of doing this at home, rather than just explaining how it's not much of a downgrade defensively?? Maybe the best thing to do is switch it up every inning or two so that the 3B coach gets confused about where Bradley is playing (I kid). Because the difference in their arms is not bigger than the difference in the advantage of having the best fielder in the position where the most balls are hit. And after watching Mookie almost kill himself jumping over walls, I don't want him near the Monster. I'd argue that the wall in RF is more dangerous than the Monster. Both Victorino and Drew injured their lower backs on that wall.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Feb 18, 2016 15:17:26 GMT -5
To add to JMEI's point, I don't think a Betts or Bogaerts extension would be as expensive as has been suggested either, at least not this off-season. The previous commenter suggested each would have a 15-20mil AVV, but I think it would be closer to 12 for Betts, and 15 for Bogaerts. That's not to say that Betts or Bogaerts would accept such a deal, but I think it's about the limit (give or take) of where the Sox would feel comfortable, or at least where I'd feel comfortable. Right. And with Large Father coming off the books this year (16 million), along with Koji (I believe this is his last year) at 9 million, that is 25 milion for next year alone. With Hanley and Sandy being gone when X hits his first year of FA (2020) and a new CBA which will likely have higher luxury tax designations....the Sox would be well positioned to offer extensions...if they felt so inclined.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Feb 18, 2016 16:46:05 GMT -5
I don't get this. Why put the worst of three arms in the one OF spot where it matters? Is RF arm THAT overrated? I mean, sure, if Mookie were bad in CF, or if RF were smaller, or even if only Bradley, but not Castillo were a RFer, but it doesn't make any sense to move BOTH our right-fielders out of that spot. Seriously, can someone explain the BENEFIT of doing this at home, rather than just explaining how it's not much of a downgrade defensively?? Maybe the best thing to do is switch it up every inning or two so that the 3B coach gets confused about where Bradley is playing (I kid). Because the difference in their arms is not bigger than the difference in the advantage of having the best fielder in the position where the most balls are hit. In addition to this, I think you have an exaggerated opinion of the difference in arm importance between RF and the other two outfield positions. RF is particularly important for preventing first-to-third on singles, but you can save runs with your arm from all three spots. We've seen Bradley make several epic throws from center. We've seen how critical having a left fielder with a good arm at Fenway is in holding runners to first on balls off the wall -- Rusney racked up +5 DRS from his arm alone in LF last year. Also, Mookie's range should prove outstanding in right field, as well as his ability to charge and quickly get the ball back to the infield. It's not like his arm is poor either (although it's indeed to worst of the three) -- DRS pegged him as +4 Arm in CF last year. And while you may occasionally see a runner be safe on a throw from right and think "JBJ probably would have had him," there will also be plenty of "Wow, JBJ just made an incredible play that Mookie, and just about every other CF, don't make." I'll also add (although I wouldn't put much stock into this at all) that JBJ sometimes looked "shaky", by his standards, on his routes in the corners as opposed to center, we're he's usually as good as it gets. Now, that easily could be the case with Mookie as well, but when you're as special as JBJ is right now in CF, my preference is to go with that, rather than let a superb vs. average arm be the determining factor.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 18, 2016 22:44:23 GMT -5
I'd guess JBJ is a 10-15 DRS CF (which is worth 1-1.5 wins appox.), which is quite good, but isn't Kiermaier territory.
Betts was +9 in CF last year (UZR was less bullish, 1.8 in CF in 2015).
And Young will start ~ 35% of the games, with JBJ sitting; that's the stated plan to begin the season. Who plays center then? can not be Young. Betts is a cornerstone for years to come; it's 50-50 that JBJ is even a first-division starter (74+ career)
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 19, 2016 2:22:36 GMT -5
I'd guess JBJ is a 10-15 DRS CF (which is worth 1-1.5 wins appox.), which is quite good, but isn't Kiermaier territory. Betts was +9 in CF last year (UZR was less bullish, 1.8 in CF in 2015). And Young will start ~ 35% of the games, with JBJ sitting; that's the stated plan to begin the season. Who plays center then? can not be Young. Betts is a cornerstone for years to come; it's 50-50 that JBJ is even a first-division starter (74+ career) Exactly. Putting Xander at third in 2014 was looked at as a mistake, yet flip flopping Betts from Rf to Cf every other day is a complete non story? What a contradiction. Why keep messing with the next face of the red sox by putting him at a position that he has almost no experience at? Not to even mention all the runners who will easily make it from first to third with Mookie in rf as opposed to JBJ. I also think there's more square footage in rf Fenway as opposed to cf. In any other home ballpark, people here would have a easy case why JBJ should be in Cf but not in Fenway.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 19, 2016 3:08:51 GMT -5
On a unrelated note, Farrell talked about how the 5th spot in the rotation was still up for grabs, which I love. I don't like the idea of handing Kelly a job in the rotation. I don't trust him at ALL. Farrell talked about how Owens could take the fifth spot and how a long man could be needed in the beginning of the year to eat innings, which means Stephen Wright might be a lock to make the roster too.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 19, 2016 9:45:18 GMT -5
I'd guess JBJ is a 10-15 DRS CF (which is worth 1-1.5 wins appox.), which is quite good, but isn't Kiermaier territory. Betts was +9 in CF last year (UZR was less bullish, 1.8 in CF in 2015). And Young will start ~ 35% of the games, with JBJ sitting; that's the stated plan to begin the season. Who plays center then? can not be Young. Betts is a cornerstone for years to come; it's 50-50 that JBJ is even a first-division starter (74+ career) Young will probably be spelling all the outfielders, I'd bet. Given the way Bradley mashed lefties last season, the casual assumption that he loses 200-250 PAs is, I hope, wrong. He deserves the chance to play, and play a lot. If he gets jerked around as he has in the past, it will be to his detriment, and to the team's in my opinion.
|
|
dd
Veteran
Posts: 979
|
Post by dd on Feb 19, 2016 10:06:16 GMT -5
It appears the sox tried to replicate field 1 to resemble Fenway as well. The only concern is the left field "wall" looks like a netting/chain link fence type deal. Many left fielders will be learning their craft on that field & I think it would help them immensely to get reps using a wall, not a net. Ft Myers kicked in 80 mil to build the complex. I would think the Sox could kick in 100k or so to have a "wall". I would also hope if/when they build a new AAA stadium, it also replicates Fenway (Like Greenville). You can tell this from the blimp shot? Also, I'd note that the left fielders can use the "wall" inside the park whenever they want. It's not like they're high schoolers who need to ask permission. Google Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 19, 2016 10:40:30 GMT -5
I'd guess JBJ is a 10-15 DRS CF (which is worth 1-1.5 wins appox.), which is quite good, but isn't Kiermaier territory. Betts was +9 in CF last year (UZR was less bullish, 1.8 in CF in 2015). And Young will start ~ 35% of the games, with JBJ sitting; that's the stated plan to begin the season. Who plays center then? can not be Young. Betts is a cornerstone for years to come; it's 50-50 that JBJ is even a first-division starter (74+ career) Exactly. Putting Xander at third in 2014 was looked at as a mistake, yet flip flopping Betts from Rf to Cf every other day is a complete non story? What a contradiction. Why keep messing with the next face of the red sox by putting him at a position that he has almost no experience at? Not to even mention all the runners who will easily make it from first to third with Mookie in rf as opposed to JBJ. I also think there's more square footage in rf Fenway as opposed to cf. In any other home ballpark, people here would have a easy case why JBJ should be in Cf but not in Fenway. 1. Given how quickly he's picked up center field (he's still got more career pro innings at second base than in center...), I'm not really worried about him suddenly forgetting how to play baseball in right field. 2. I'll go out on a limb and guess that the balls that Bradley will get to in center field that Betts would not have will more than make up the number of baserunners who take third on Betts that wouldn't on Bradley.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 19, 2016 13:03:19 GMT -5
Exactly. Putting Xander at third in 2014 was looked at as a mistake, yet flip flopping Betts from Rf to Cf every other day is a complete non story? What a contradiction. Why keep messing with the next face of the red sox by putting him at a position that he has almost no experience at? Not to even mention all the runners who will easily make it from first to third with Mookie in rf as opposed to JBJ. I also think there's more square footage in rf Fenway as opposed to cf. In any other home ballpark, people here would have a easy case why JBJ should be in Cf but not in Fenway. 1. Given how quickly he's picked up center field (he's still got more career pro innings at second base than in center...), I'm not really worried about him suddenly forgetting how to play baseball in right field. 2. I'll go out on a limb and guess that the balls that Bradley will get to in center field that Betts would not have will more than make up the number of baserunners who take third on Betts that wouldn't on Bradley. Does that include the runners tagging up on third also? I think you're underating how many important throws a rf has to make in a year. Cf is important but rf Fenway is arguably just as important.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 19, 2016 14:00:18 GMT -5
Also if we're going to go by the first poster's model that JBJ would have 10 drs in cf and yet Betts had 9 drs in CF last year, is that a outstanding difference to keep Betts out of CF while keeping JBJ's gun out of rf?
I don't think so, especially when you factor in that JBJ is the platoon player. I don't think flip flopping Betts from RF to CF will be a big deal, but if Betts starts struggling and the Sox are still flip flopping him, then who's really to blame here?
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Feb 19, 2016 14:25:30 GMT -5
Young will probably be spelling all the outfielders, I'd bet. Given the way Bradley mashed lefties last season, the casual assumption that he loses 200-250 PAs is, I hope, wrong. He deserves the chance to play, and play a lot. If he gets jerked around as he has in the past, it will be to his detriment, and to the team's in my opinion. Surely, you're not advocating an equal rotation among Betts/Castillo/JBJ? Sitting your best player gratuitously is probably not a recipe for success. Where did this "JBJ has been jerked around" meme come from? You're not the only one who has been propounding it. Was he jerked around in 2013? In 2014, he was allowed to put up 423 PA of 46+ playing everyday; that's probably unprecedented. Is there anyone who thinks that it was a mistake to call up Betts in mid-August to supplant him? The only issue one can have is that JBJ should have been sent down *much earlier* (my contemporaneous contention) - and I suspect that that is not what you mean by "jerked around". As for 2015, I concede that his stints pre AS break, he wasn't given much a chance (it's safe to say that Farrell had (has?) little faith in him, but he had cause). And then the last two months of the season he was given an everyday position (and excelled). I think the Red Sox have shown extraordinary patience with their recent prospects (JBJ, Bogaerts, WMB), and all of their failures have been first and foremost on the players.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 19, 2016 14:45:49 GMT -5
Also if we're going to go by the first poster's model that JBJ would have 10 drs in cf and yet Betts had 9 drs in CF last year, is that a outstanding difference to keep Betts out of CF while keeping JBJ's gun out of rf Prorated to 150 games, Bradley has been about a +16 defender in CF per DRS and +15.5 per UZR. I think he's clearly at least a small step up from Betts defensively.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Feb 19, 2016 16:48:31 GMT -5
Extending Betts or Bogaerts would not cost that much in 2016 dollars. While extensions have a higher AAV than going pre-arb/arb, the first year usually doesn't involve that much actual cash expenditure. For instance, Pedroia's extension included a $1.5m signing bonus and a $1.5m salary in the first year. Buchholz was similar ($1m signing bonus, $3.5m first year). As such, I don't think the additions of Price and Kimbrel and the resultant ~$190m or so 2016 payroll has any meaningful effect on their ability to sign Betts/Bogaerts to long-term extensions. Remember, this ownership group has shown the willingness to stretch their payroll to accommodate special situations-- think Moncada, for instance. The Price/Kimbrel acquisitions do have real opportunity costs, but I don't think it's reasonable to characterize the lack of a Betts/Bogaerts extension as one of them. These are excellent points. I concede that: 1. The Red Sox do have the financial ability to extend Betts or Bogaerts or pretty much anything else they want to do. 2. They could structure deals that didn't cost much up front and 3. There is no guarantee either player would sign. But I still disagree. 1. From a business perspective there is a big difference between funding large one time investments and accepting increases in payroll. When you look at other teams in comparable or larger markets (Philadelphia, Texas, Atlanta, SF, LAA), $200 million looks a reasonable max payroll for this team. Expending banked assets or diverting other resources for a year to sign a Moncada may be "easier" than making a structural change to payroll. Yes, the Red Sox have exceeded this threshold, but they show real reluctance to do so. 2. But beyond that the Red Sox' approach to Betts and Bogaerts makes no sense. They absolutely should be trying to resign these players now (reports suggest they haven't). Extensions aren't going to become more likely or cheaper in coming years. It's not like this team has been burned by early career extensions to Buchholz, Lester or Pedroia. Extending or at least trying to extend Betts and Bogaerts through their 20's should have been top priority. I suspect, like most businesses the Red Sox have a fairly structured approach to what they will commit to payroll and other operating costs. And while they might liquidate capital on hand to acquire a special talent, they are less likely to accept structural changes to payroll without confidence that revenue will increase. Shelling out $63 million for Moncada and needing another year to decide whether to try to sign Betts or Bogaerts at something like 8 years/$120 million would NOT be a sign of a well-run team.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Feb 19, 2016 17:18:10 GMT -5
Why are people assuming the farm system takes a hit at the deadline? They've been a last place team 3 of the past 4 years. Its a possibility but not a given.
|
|
|