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.
Satisfied with offseason so far?
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 24, 2012 13:11:47 GMT -5
Assuming all deals go through here is my Off Season Score Card: Trading Aviles for Farrell - F (I don't believe in trading a player for a MGR) Napoli - F Dempster - D Gomes - D Uehara - C- Victorino - C Ross - B Ortiz - A Drew - A Hanrahan - A Just curious - don't know how far back you go with the Sox, but if the Sox could have gotten Earl Weaver from the Orioles in a trade for Stan Papi or Bobbby Sprowl, or name a scrub, wouldn't you have been OK with that? Not saying that John Farrell is Earl Weaver - not in the least, although he might look like him compared to Bobb Valentine, but Mike Aviles was a pretty mediocre player who got worse the more he was exposed. He really was no great loss and was extremely fungible.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Dec 24, 2012 13:15:26 GMT -5
I was with you on just about everything until you got to the name Vitek. Also you forgot about Vinicio. He could have a very bright future somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Dec 24, 2012 13:30:48 GMT -5
Assuming all deals go through here is my Off Season Score Card: Trading Aviles for Farrell - F (I don't believe in trading a player for a MGR) Napoli - F Dempster - D Gomes - D Uehara - C- Victorino - C Ross - B Ortiz - A Drew - A Hanrahan - A The problem with most criticism from fans and the media is judging moves in a vacuum. Sure there is a lot of validity in most POVs but taking into account big picture issues like what the opportunity set the decisions were made against and long term plans are usually ignored. Anybody can rip decisions without considering what the realistic alternatives we're or the long term ramifications of suggested moves. The Sox did not take on big money, long term, high risk contracts and they did not lose draft picks or trade away young talent. Given the landscape and long term plan I think they did pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Dec 24, 2012 17:39:42 GMT -5
Assuming all deals go through here is my Off Season Score Card: Trading Aviles for Farrell - F (I don't believe in trading a player for a MGR) Napoli - F Dempster - D Gomes - D Uehara - C- Victorino - C Ross - B Ortiz - A Drew - A Hanrahan - A That's funny because Uehara is a better pitcher than Hanrahan and didn't cost talent. As is Dempster, who will also pitch almost 3x the innings Hanrahan will. But the part when you really gave away that this was trolling was calling Aviles a "player". 3/10 if this were 4chan.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 24, 2012 23:34:59 GMT -5
Assuming all deals go through here is my Off Season Score Card: Trading Aviles for Farrell - F (I don't believe in trading a player for a MGR) Napoli - F Dempster - D Gomes - D Uehara - C- Victorino - C Ross - B Ortiz - A Drew - A Hanrahan - A Just curious - don't know how far back you go with the Sox, but if the Sox could have gotten Earl Weaver from the Orioles in a trade for Stan Papi or Bobbby Sprowl, or name a scrub, wouldn't you have been OK with that? Not saying that John Farrell is Earl Weaver - not in the least, although he might look like him compared to Bobb Valentine, but Mike Aviles was a pretty mediocre player who got worse the more he was exposed. He really was no great loss and was extremely fungible. FWIW, I'm not a fan of trading player for managers but if the Sox could've gotten Maddon for Aviles I would've been elated. And I'd do Aviles for Earl Weaver right now. Hell he's probably golfing and scamming shuffle board player on cruise ships for quarters right now. Meanwhile still trying to figure out why Sox didn't get what they could for the Cheerful Cody Ross in July knowing that they were only going to offer 2 yrs and his year looking like he'd get more than that. Seems like another significant miscalculation in that a trade of Cheerful Cody could've garnered, at the very least, yielded a prospect or a piece you could us in the org or in a package down the road.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 24, 2012 23:50:48 GMT -5
I think we all knew the market was weak, but I dont think any of us thought almost every FA would be getting overpaid this year...
|
|
|
Post by seattlesoxfan on Dec 25, 2012 3:28:31 GMT -5
Assuming all deals go through here is my Off Season Score Card: Trading Aviles for Farrell - F (I don't believe in trading a player for a MGR) Napoli - F Dempster - D Gomes - D Uehara - C- Victorino - C Ross - B Ortiz - A Drew - A Hanrahan - A OK to start with... not sure if this is the correct way to reply to the posting above, but I will try... Come on... we can and should do better than this. Don't agree with the moves? then say why and who you would have picked instead. Please be reasonable as well. I mean, I would have signed Hamilton for 3 years but that is not reality! I do not mind the moves this off season. I like how they have set things up for this season and the next few to follow until the next wave of prospects come to the league.
|
|
|
Post by welovewally on Dec 26, 2012 2:41:18 GMT -5
Assuming all deals go through here is my Off Season Score Card: Trading Aviles for Farrell - F (I don't believe in trading a player for a MGR) Napoli - F Dempster - D Gomes - D Uehara - C- Victorino - C Ross - B Ortiz - A Drew - A Hanrahan - A The only deserving A goes to Ortiz. I agree with the F for Napoli but everybody else is a C. They all fill obvious holes on the 25 Man Roster with players ( albeit with mostly platoon type players ) while the kids develop. Except Uehara, signing a pitcher his age even for 1 yr still confuses me.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Dec 26, 2012 7:43:03 GMT -5
You have got to be kidding....
The Uehara deal was a coup for Cherington. He saw a guy that has been very consistent and a dependable set-up man and took him off the market before his price went up. There is virtually no risk to signing Uehara to a 1-year deal. If he's hurt or inneffective you let him walk at the end of the year. If he is as good as he's been and you're in the playoffs you have scored big, If he's effective and your record is poor you simply trade him to a contender for a nice prospect.
This move was one of the few no-brainer's of the offseason.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2012 8:29:21 GMT -5
If we're going to play the grading game, then this is what I have:
Trading Aviles for Farrell - B (Aviles is no loss, Farrell cannot be any worse than his predecessor) Napoli - B+ (if healthy - good OPS) Dempster - C+ (ok innings eater - best of mediocre options) Gomes - D (unless platoon partner is found - then I give it a C)Uehara - A (solid middle reliever - durability is my only concern) Victorino - D (too much money and too little power for corner OF) Ross - B (good backup catcher) Ortiz - A (Glad to have him back) Drew - B- (best of mediocre options) Hanrahan - A (if the deal is Sands and Pimental for Hanrahan - need to see how the rest of the deal shakes out, but it would effect the grade, obviously)
Still need: Middle of the order platoon LH bat for LF.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Dec 26, 2012 9:13:34 GMT -5
Ok I'll bite as well
Farrell - B (He has been well studied and was actually targeted as opposed to settled for) Napoli- A - (would have been undervalued if not for injury concerns) Dempster B (should eat innings and might surprise a few people) Uehara A - ( should slot in perfectly, has AL East experience) Gomes D (doesn't make a lot of sense to overpay for a RH outfielder when they virtually grow on trees) Victorino D (paid too much for a guy who can't hit RH P very well, probably a platoon player at this point in his career) Ross A (underrated and could probably start) Ortiz A+ (it's Papi) Drew B+ (could rebound if fully healed, contract length perfect, will be hidden in deep line-up) Hanrahan C (redudndant, safe bet that Melancon would have produced, don't like giving up Sands without seeing him at all)
Organizational Moves -C+ don't like the fact that Olmstead was allowed to walk, don't like the fact that Fields wasn't protected. Thought that many players could have used winter ball that didn't play. I do like all of the hires botha at the major and minor league levels.
Needs: LH bat , trade of a catcher, would have prefered to get one more starter
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Dec 26, 2012 9:20:49 GMT -5
I think the Sox have done about what they could do without giving up obscene amounts of money, or top prospects. They filled some holes, but not with major talent. I think they still have a hole at 1B until we know more about Napoli, but even then, I'm not sold on him as the 1B. Nor am I sold on Gomes.
Dempster adds some depth to the rotation, but it still is very iffy. The bullpen is the team's strongest area, especially with the addition of Hanrahan, and it will be fully utilized.
Right now I see the Sox as, at best, a mid 80s win team, and only that because I think the Yankees, the Rays, and the Orioles are about the same.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 26, 2012 14:01:26 GMT -5
I'm changing my Hanrahan grade to a C+. Short-term it should be ok, although I am worried Hanrahan's lack of control could do him in, while Melancon could be more effective this upcoming season in Pittsburgh. Perhaps for the short-term this is a slight expensive upgrade, and to me, this is what the Sox have been doing. Although if the Sox cash in Bailey or less than what they paid for him (Reddick and Head), then they're really not gaining anything.
I haven't articulated my feelings well, but I feel like the Sox are becoming the anti-moneyball team.
I get that the Sox aren't small-market and that they can afford the small upgrades, but my philosophy is that if you're going to spend big $, you do it on the elite players, or really don't bother.
The reason why is because the typical average player is valuable but hardly irreplaceable. For example, Sands probably could have done the job Gomes is going to do almost just as well and for a lot less dollars. Ditto with Hanrahan and Melancon. Ditto with Victorino and your typical corner OF.
It's not about the bemoaning the lack of stars. It's that elite players are harder to come by and if you're going to spend your money, that is where you spend it. You save it on average players unless there's a glaring need and no other possible way to be creative and fill it.
I get that the elite players available was low and that the Sox aren't exactly blocking many prospects but I do find some of the money the Sox spent very wasteful and unnecessary. Hopefully it doesn't impact them when an elite player that they could use is on the market.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Dec 26, 2012 14:19:03 GMT -5
But the part when you really gave away that this was trolling was calling Aviles a "player". 3/10 if this were 4chan. I'm thinking Aviles is going to bed at night and dreaming of facing the Sox, specifically with Lester on the bump, and sending the weak-no movement Lester cutter deep over the monster and into downtown Boston, then smiling as he rounds the bases thinking, yup, trading a player for a manager, what a great trade for a player that now gets to bat against the Sox starting pitching. Afterall, Aviles spent most of 2012 watching Lester serve up beachball cutter after beachball cutter. He had to be jealous, he couldn't get any of that easy to hit action.
|
|
|
Post by aardsmacarta on Dec 26, 2012 16:20:54 GMT -5
The Hanrahan trade is the first move I really disliked this winter, although I get it. Love it or hate it, the Red Sox have an obvious plan, and it does make a lot of sense.
The Sox in the mid-2000s were a successful team because they had at least average players everywhere on the field, strong bullpens and steady starters. What everyone remembers are the stars -- Pedro, Schilling, Manny, Ortiz, etc. -- but what made the Sox so deadly is their #8 and #9 hitters were such tough outs. They chewed up mediocre teams and mediocre pitching and then played the good teams even.
What made them terrible last year, especially in the second half, was the abundance of horrible at-bats by AAAA-type players who got way too much playing time. Too many at-bats for Ciriaco, Aviles, Sweeney, etc., too many starts for Cook and Dice-K.
This year's team should have much tougher outs up and down the lineup. Assuming Saltalamacchia gets traded, there won't be so many at-bats with sub-.300 OBP guys anymore. I don't know if an Ellsbury/Pedroia/Ortiz/Napoli/Middlebrooks/Victorino/Gomes/Ross/Drew lineup counts as "relentless," but it'll be much more of a drag for pitchers than what we threw out last year, even with Gonzales gone. And if there are injuries on both the position player and pitcher fronts, there are legit MLB players or at least semi-exciting prospects lined up to fill in -- guys like De La Rosa, Webster, JBJ, even Xander might be factors.
I agree with the criticisms of the anti-Moneyball approach, and can't stand that they dumped guys like Sands before finding out what they are (especially for a closer), but an exhausting lineup, a tough bullpen and good rotation depth is a good formula for success, especially at Fenway. Replace Dice-K with Morales, replace Cook with Aceves or De La Rosa, and replace Aviles with even a rehabbing Stephen Drew and you've got an upgraded team. It might not be sexy, but it'll probably be effective. It's just nauseating that they paid so much for the unsexiness.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Dec 28, 2012 14:39:27 GMT -5
Looking at the combined Boston and Pawtucket rosters, I am starting to really like the big picture of how the offseason has gone. We have youth in AAA at many spots and all will have to force their way to Boston, because we've created good depth across the board. I know its not the most talented collection of players we've had recently. but considering how 2012 went I am actually starting to get a little excited for this season.
|
|
|
Post by qutennis5 on Dec 28, 2012 15:23:44 GMT -5
Assuming all deals go through here is my Off Season Score Card: Trading Aviles for Farrell - F (I don't believe in trading a player for a MGR) Napoli - F Dempster - D Gomes - D Uehara - C- Victorino - C Ross - B Ortiz - A Drew - A Hanrahan - A The problem with most criticism from fans and the media is judging moves in a vacuum. Sure there is a lot of validity in most POVs but taking into account big picture issues like what the opportunity set the decisions were made against and long term plans are usually ignored. Anybody can rip decisions without considering what the realistic alternatives we're or the long term ramifications of suggested moves. T he Sox did not take on big money, long term, high risk contracts and they did not lose draft picks or trade away young talent. Given the landscape and long term plan I think they did pretty well. it's obvious they are punting to 2-3 years down the road and counting on the prospects to develop, so all these moves were made to spend money just for the sake of spending it as none of them (sans maybe Drew) provide any potential for upside in the future. The prospects better pan out. Total waste of an offseason and money.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 28, 2012 15:29:23 GMT -5
Interesting from Lindbergh/BP:
Ethier-Bourn-Victorino across the OF for the next few? And before the JBJ advocates start circling, it would provide a transition in 2014 before taking over fully in 2015 when Victorino most likely is better suited as a 4th OF. Gomes complements Ethier nicely. Outstanding outfield defense overall. A little left-handed, especially if Napoli falls through and they go with LoMo at first (that's my own feeling, not from the article).
It's at least an interesting consideration, though it would depend on Bourn's price.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 28, 2012 15:53:11 GMT -5
Interesting from Lindbergh/BP: Ethier-Bourn-Victorino across the OF for the next few? And before the JBJ advocates start circling, it would provide a transition in 2014 before taking over fully in 2015 when Victorino most likely is better suited as a 4th OF. Gomes complements Ethier nicely. Outstanding outfield defense overall. A little left-handed, especially if Napoli falls through and they go with LoMo at first (that's my own feeling, not from the article). It's at least an interesting consideration, though it would depend on Bourn's price. Why? Why keep pushing major league ready bats/gloves down to the bottom of the pile? Bradley can play right now. On many teams he'd be penciled in as the starter from day one of spring training. Why is Boston different? Why does he have to wait two years to get a shot? He's Michael Bourne with less speed, just as much plate discipline, and more power - and he has a better glove. All that at one-tenth the cost. I understand none of this and I never will.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 28, 2012 16:13:04 GMT -5
Bradley can play right now. On many teams he'd be penciled in as the starter from day one of spring training. If he can, they should do that instead. JBJ's got 1 year of full season ball under his belt. It may be a little premature to put him into that role, especially if you're dealing Ellsbury and putting all the weight of replacing him (media/fan scrutiny, etc) directly on JBJ's shoulders. Based on what's transpired this offseason it seems like at least a possibility they'd consider a known quantity like Bourn and continue to stockpile & develop assets like JBJ. At the very least, worthy of discussion....
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Dec 28, 2012 16:32:25 GMT -5
The problem with most criticism from fans and the media is judging moves in a vacuum. Sure there is a lot of validity in most POVs but taking into account big picture issues like what the opportunity set the decisions were made against and long term plans are usually ignored. Anybody can rip decisions without considering what the realistic alternatives we're or the long term ramifications of suggested moves. T he Sox did not take on big money, long term, high risk contracts and they did not lose draft picks or trade away young talent. Given the landscape and long term plan I think they did pretty well. it's obvious they are punting to 2-3 years down the road and counting on the prospects to develop, so all these moves were made to spend money just for the sake of spending it as none of them (sans maybe Drew) provide any potential for upside in the future. The prospects better pan out. Total waste of an offseason and money. Classic. Did actually read any of the post? Instead of churning out rhetoric how about offering some alternatives to these moves? Moves that have immediate benefits while keeping the long term health of this club in mind. Signing compensation linked FAs would not only cost the team a draft pick but the allocated money to sign that pick. Signing Hamilton and Greinke might, might make the Sox a contender in the short run but would be risky and almost certainly cause long term budgetary problems. There are no quick fixes that were ignored. You response is just ripping moves for the sake of ripping moves. Offer some legitimate feed back or none at all.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Dec 28, 2012 16:54:05 GMT -5
it's obvious they are punting to 2-3 years down the road and counting on the prospects to develop, so all these moves were made to spend money just for the sake of spending it as none of them (sans maybe Drew) provide any potential for upside in the future. The prospects better pan out. Total waste of an offseason and money. Classic. Did actually read any of the post? Instead of churning out rhetoric how about offering some alternatives to these moves? Moves that have immediate benefits while keeping the long term health of this club in mind. Signing compensation linked FAs would not only cost the team a draft pick but the allocated money to sign that pick. Signing Hamilton and Greinke might, might make the Sox a contender in the short run but would be risky and almost certainly cause long term budgetary problems. There are no quick fixes that were ignored. You response is just ripping moves for the sake of ripping moves. Offer some legitimate feed back or none at all. "For the here-and-the-now crowd, the importance of holding onto the draft pick is hard to grasp. But there are some slap-in-the-face reminders about how necessary compensation draft picks can be for a team:" fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2012/12/28/why-is-this-draft-pick-so-important-to-red-sox/
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Dec 28, 2012 19:32:43 GMT -5
Ethier-Bourn-Victorino across the OF for the next few? ... It's at least an interesting consideration, though it would depend on Bourn's price. Not sure where Ethier enters into it. The reference was to the Dodgers dumping Ethier and signing Bourn, or the Sox trading Ellsbury & signing Bourn. Not a horrible idea over a 3-year time frame, but makes a lot more sense for a team like the Mariners who are a better fit.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 28, 2012 21:37:47 GMT -5
Ethier-Bourn-Victorino across the OF for the next few? ... It's at least an interesting consideration, though it would depend on Bourn's price. Not sure where Ethier enters into it. The reference was to the Dodgers dumping Ethier and signing Bourn, or the Sox trading Ellsbury & signing Bourn. Not a horrible idea over a 3-year time frame, but makes a lot more sense for a team like the Mariners who are a better fit. My assumption if that was the case is that the sentence would have been "The Los Angeles Dodgers and Boston Red Sox have reportedly toyed with the idea of trading Andre Ethier and Jacoby Ellsbury, respectively, which could free up space for Bourn in Boston or L.A.". Phrased simply as "free up space for Bourn in Boston" it sounds as if the author is pointing to an Ellsbury/Ethier swap. On the whole I appreciate Bourn's game, which is different from JBJ's and closer to Crawford's. For those who were fans of Crawford's talent (not his contract), then the possibility to acquire 90% of the same skill set (from a CF rather than LF) at possibly a fraction of the cost is at least worth investigating. Either way, Ethier's splits, the loss of the draft pick, etc probably make it less likely of an option. That being said, the team still looks like it has something in the works....
|
|
|
Post by qutennis5 on Dec 28, 2012 21:44:50 GMT -5
it's obvious they are punting to 2-3 years down the road and counting on the prospects to develop, so all these moves were made to spend money just for the sake of spending it as none of them (sans maybe Drew) provide any potential for upside in the future. The prospects better pan out. Total waste of an offseason and money. Classic. Did actually read any of the post? Instead of churning out rhetoric how about offering some alternatives to these moves? Moves that have immediate benefits while keeping the long term health of this club in mind. Signing compensation linked FAs would not only cost the team a draft pick but the allocated money to sign that pick. Signing Hamilton and Greinke might, might make the Sox a contender in the short run but would be risky and almost certainly cause long term budgetary problems. There are no quick fixes that were ignored. You response is just ripping moves for the sake of ripping moves. Offer some legitimate feed back or none at all. Calm down, Consuela. This team isn't making the playoffs next year, so they could equally miss out on October without paying over $120M in contracts to a bunch of players in their early/mid 30's whose best years are behind them and will provide little improvement and won't be around when the team is ready to be relevant again. Guess they need to look like they're trying so they can keep the pink hats in the seats and the so important "sell out streak" going, but that still is money spent poorly for a team that is in obvious transition. Give Kalish, Nava, Iglesias, Lavarnway 500 at bats and see what they got instead of spending millions on marginal players to take AB's from them. Heck, get JBJ a cup of MLB coffee to start the season. I rather see what Morales and Dubront can do starting 25-30 games rather than give innings to a 35yo Dempster who has no long term future with this team. Working with what they already had doesn't mortgage the long term health and keeps the precious picks, but these signings are spending money for the sake of spending it. To me that's a poor offseason considering where the team is now and where they're very likely to finish next year (watching the playoffs from their couch).
|
|
|