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 jmei on Dec 28, 2012 23:03:36 GMT -5
Kalish and Nava should already be in line for significant MLB at bats as the backup RF/CF (conservatively, 100 PAs) and the left-handed side of a LF platoon (400 PAs), respectively. Lavarnway might also be in line for 300+ PAs if Saltalamacchia is traded, which still has a good shot of happening. Doubront is the fifth starter and Morales just needs to beat out Lackey for a full-time rotation spot and is at the very least likely to be the first starter called upon when injuries inevitably strike.
If you think giving a full season of ABs to Iglesias and a few more ABs/starts to non-elite post-prospects should be a priority and is worth punting the next two-plus seasons for, at a time when the Yankees are hamstrung by budget problems and the Rangers took a clear step back, this offseason won't make you happy. This is particularly true if you believe the ownership/front office's motivations are nefarious, and not a bona fide attempt to rebuild a broken clubhouse and contend for the playoffs while preserving future assets.
Meanwhile, ZiPS projects the current roster (pre-Hanrahan trade) at 85 wins, which is well within the range where Wild Card contention should be the goal and winning the division outright is a legitimate possibility. All this without trading any significant prospects, giving up a draft pick, or signing a free agent to a contract longer than three years. You can make the case that a full rebuild, complete with trades of Lester (for Myers) and Ellsbury (for Bauer) may have been a better idea, and I would agree with you had those trades been on the table. But other than that, what the Red Sox actually did was pretty clearly the next best option, no?
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 28, 2012 23:12:02 GMT -5
The FO has made the team relatively competitive without sacrificing any part of the future. They certainly won't be favorites or anything to win the WS, or even to make the playoffs. But talent wise, they should be in the hunt for at worst a WC spot in September.
They didn't have many options without sacrificing the future unless you wanted a full rebuild, which I don't think would have been the best move, but I know there are people that wish they went that route
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 28, 2012 23:15:18 GMT -5
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 l ook 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). Right, the Red Sox signed Victorino, Napoli, Drew, and Dempster to get the "pink hats", as we all know the casual bandwagon fans will love those names. The "real fans" talk in absolutes about how this team has no chance at the postseason, anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly a pink hat. Perhaps the most baseless part of this is how they've spent the money poorly, as if they've had better available options. The new CBA restricts allocating tons of money to IFA and the draft. They either had to trade for guys on bad deals/sign non elite free agents (like they've done), sign a risky big ticket guy, or pocket the majority of the savings and field a noncompetitive team. You can argue they've overpaid on AAV for a few guys, but the worst case scenario is the team is completely noncompetitive the next 1-2 years and the wasted cost isn't going to impact the long term future regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 29, 2012 1:38:36 GMT -5
Took a lot of the words out of my mouth, Beasley. A much as anyone, I've pushed the idea that the young talent be given a path to the big leagues. Realistically, the team has set the stage for that with this off season.
It might also be good to remember that the team has some of the highest ticket prices in the majors, and that the franchise and its assets are a cash machine. Hoarding that cash like some maple syrup-swilling version of the kleptocracy in South Florida isn't a viable option.
There are also logical holes in a lot of the chatter on the board, big ones you could stuff a 5 year contract through. When you offer big money for that long, you don't just take those 30 somethings over the hill, you take them right down the slope on a gold plated toboggan.
Check my math here but $39 million is less than a third of $125 millon, and for only three years, not 5, of a younger player to boot. Did I mention that Napoli's two best seasons carry a higher OPS+ than Hamilton's? Injuries? You don't want to go there do you? Conventional wisdom be damned, I can see for myself where the value is.
In a rapidly changing marketplace with limited options, the Sox made quite a few smart choices. These choices won't get them a world championship, in all probability. But the fact I can even write that, given the horrid state of the team at the end of last season, is a marker for how far the team has travelled.
If things fall right, they do have a chance to compete for the wild card. How about a September call up for Barnes, Bradley, and maybe even Xander, say with the team two games off the pace for one of those spots? Don't know about you but I could live with that.
|
|
jdb
Veteran
Posts: 2,321
Member is Online
|
Post by jdb on Dec 29, 2012 10:09:54 GMT -5
I've got no complaints. If guys like Lester, Buch, Victorino, Ells, Napoli and Drew get back to career norms,not career years, we should compete. If not the FAs were short term deals and we held onto our prospects. Let's not forget Beckett, Cook and Dice K had 50 combined starts and each had an Era over 5.00 That's 31% of our starts. I just don't and can't buy that we were as bad as our record. After the trade along with injuries it was a AAAA lineup for 6 weeks.
If we're out of it next July I hope we sell. We can't be on the fence. Sell Ells, Drew and Hanrahan if they're attractive. Guys like David Price and Giocarlo Stanton are going to hit the trade market soon and I want to be in the conversation.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Dec 29, 2012 10:45:44 GMT -5
I am actually looking forward to these (new) characters this year. Their personalities, at the least, will be entertaining. Our line-up, especially with Napoli hopefully being part of it, will be much more relentless.
If you take all of the options open to Ben C. this off-season, I doubt you could have asked for much more. Yes we shied away from the 2 biggest free-agents, but the depth Ben has put together in Boston and at the AAA level is quite well done.
Now if it was only February!!
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Dec 29, 2012 11:54:46 GMT -5
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. Article over at BP pointed this out, but I'm not sure the M's want to give up the 12th pick in the draft for Bourn. If you're giving up top talent like that, maybe you chase an Ellsbury who could prove himself for a year then return a draft pick if he doesn't re-sign (which would be surprising if he didn't). If that move gets you a piece to use in a bigger deal to acquire a RF from Miami..... Bourn would still be a nice fit for the proxySox, aka the Dodgers, allowing Kemp to move to RF.
|
|
|
Post by bighead on Dec 29, 2012 16:47:54 GMT -5
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). Settle down Beavis. The Sox not making the playoffs is not a certainty. It may not be likely but it is not impossible. But that is beside the point. You rip the pink hats but you sound like the opposite end of the spectrum. One of the people calling the "whiner line" to explain how you are smarter than the front office. Its a toss up on which group of fans are worse. I've got news for you, if you think giving Nava 500 ABs then you definitely are not smarter than the front office. Starting JBJ's clock out of the gate this season when he's had only a half season of AA also probably ain't the greatest idea either. If the Sox played that crew and pocketed as much money as possible the media would start lobbing molotov cocktails over the green monster. The rest of the Sox roster is not currently strong enough to absorb Iglesias' bat, Lavarnway's defense, Nava's lack of ability to hit LHP and chance that Kalish will be healthy for a full season all at the same time. Unless I am missing something, Doubront WILL be getting 30 starts this season. He's currently slated to be their third or fourth starter. Morales may get a good amount of starts this season too since Lackey is coming off a major injury and his production is a question mark. Buchholz was injured last year, Doubront pitched by far the most innings in his career, unforeseen injuries,... Signing Dempster was a safe move to tie down some innings. Also, I don't know if you've been keeping up on the new rules in the collective bargaining agreement but draft picks are "precious". So is the money budgeted to sign those picks. Keeping your picks will possibly reduce the need to sign 30 something FAs. The Sox did well this offseason based on the opportunities that were available.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 29, 2012 17:45:02 GMT -5
Bighead, your position is essentially identical to my stated one.
Re playoff chances, I don't think that the Sox will make it all things being equal (i.e. if their close competitors play to their collective team abilities). And, you know, I am more than willing to have patience rather than instant grat. for the greater long term good. A couple of good and/or lucky drafts, especially if we lose a few guys in FA, would be good medicine. We envy Tampa Bay and their seemingly endless supply of pitching prospects...Well, they built thru the draft. It doesn't mean we give up in the interim of course.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Dec 29, 2012 19:14:11 GMT -5
So two things I've noticed
1. if the sox didn't want to give up a second rounder this year for either Greinke or Hamilton then how many players are there that you think they'd give up a first rounder for? Keep in mind the chances of us getting a protected pick again aren't that great. I suppose other things could factor in like how close we are to being a major competitor instead of just having an outside chance and what the possibilities are of us getting other picks from players we made a QO to but still I think there are very very few.
2. There seems to be a lot of hostility this off season. Even members that I've never seen "lose it" have been seemingly very irate this year.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 29, 2012 19:43:50 GMT -5
So two things I've noticed 1. if the sox didn't want to give up a second rounder this year for either Greinke or Hamilton then how many players are there that you think they'd give up a first rounder for? Keep in mind the chances of us getting a protected pick again aren't that great. I suppose other things could factor in like how close we are to being a major competitor instead of just having an outside chance and what the possibilities are of us getting other picks from players we made a QO to but still I think there are very very few. 2. There seems to be a lot of hostility this off season. Even members that I've never seen "lose it" have been seemingly very irate this year. The second round pick for Greinke and Hamilton was a minor consideration within the entire acquisition cost. It's not like the Red Sox liked them for the market price and simply passed BECAUSE of the compensation attached. If they could've signed them at the value they set, I'm sure they would've been willing to part with the pick, regardless of their current talent. I just don't see any evidence that would suggest these guys were off limits strictly because of the compensation, if anything the Red Sox reportedly ruled out Greinke a while ago and were involved in Hamilton if he was willing to sign a shorter contract.
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Dec 29, 2012 19:49:36 GMT -5
I am completely supportive of Sox management's determination to avoid long-term contracts. Very few ever work out for the team. I favored signing Hamilton and Greinke, but not for the terms they got. Beyond those two the pickings of FAs were not all that great.
I'm not particularly excited by the players they have signed, or traded for. None are game-changers. They just fill in spots that needed to be filled in, but they won't provide the performances needed for a championship team. The Sox will be more competitive, but not one of the top teams, assuming they don't do some blockbuster transactions, or get career years out of several players.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Dec 29, 2012 20:10:34 GMT -5
04 I would like the Sox to keep their allotted picks every year unless something extremely unusual and advantageous materializes. Let's hope that the Sox are better talent evaluators and trust in that. In fact, under the new CBA, I hope the Sox maneuver for more picks as a fundamental practice. In that vein, I would offer Ells (if not traded) and Hanrahan (depending on performance) qualifying offers to potentially secure additional picks.
Beasley, this year our second rounder was less significant in the overall equation than the 2012 premier FAs demanded (years/price) especially given their perceived imperfections. Obviously, another year may present differently based on the FAs available, our record/position in the draft, the status of our farm, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 29, 2012 20:27:21 GMT -5
I believe a much larger issue is contract length, and that the draft pick is secondary, only part of a much larger picture. The pronouncements from ownership were crystal clear: no contacts in the 5 to 6 year range. Given the great fortune they had in slipping the noose on Crawford and Beckett, that's very understandable isn't it?
The team has a plan, they told us that, and they've stayed with it. Being up front counts for something, especially when we survey this landscape. Trading away a significant number of prospects for short term gain presents them with a downside risk they are unwilling to accept at this point.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Dec 29, 2012 21:27:39 GMT -5
Oregonnorm
"The team has a plan, they told us that, and they've stayed with it. Being up front counts for something, especially when we survey this landscape. Trading away a significant number of prospects for short term gain presents them with a downside risk they are unwilling to accept at this point."
Great feeling when a "plan" works.... as planned. Problem is they rarely do, as witnessed by the Napoli negotiations. Still a "plan" is better than no plan. For those who want to add celebrity "game changers" to the roster, please keep in mind 2 things: A) It's not your money being spent and B) "Game Changers" rarely work as advertised. See ARod, Pujols, Texiera,etc.
To answer the question posed by this thread.... I am not so much satisfied as I am engaged with the offseason so far. The Sox administration gives the appearance of being forthcoming and transparent. Qualities I find refreshing. They don't seem to get rattled easily by a relentless and clueless local media onslaught (although this could be only a function of timing). All things considered, I am more "engaged" and curious about this upcoming Spring Training than in recent years, which is a positive, for this fan.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 29, 2012 22:53:14 GMT -5
What should be clear to everyone at this point is that there were little to no options this year, not if you value the talent in your system and if you have a clear understanding of the changes that have been wrought by the CBA. There will be no more collecting of talent at the bottom end of the draft. It isn't going to happen. And for all those who seem so disappointed, feel free to lay out how you would have changed this off-season. Napoli was easily the best hitter not looking for a king's ransom and willing to work it out over a shorter period of time. The dropoff from that is quite steep. That's the reality.
Once the team made clear that they weren't going to put themselves in the same hole they were very fortunate to dig themselves out of, the options were limited. Moreover, I honestly don't think that having both Hamilton - who's at least as iffy a proposition as Napoli - and Greinke would have guaranteed them anything except a few more wins. And at what cost? So that they could be staring into the same dark waters as they were in 2012 a few years down the road? No thanks.
They've done what I thought they might, fill in the blanks with the best choices they could short of starting from square one again. I don't blame the Sox' potential trade partners when they ask for the world. And I celebrate when the Sox refuse to give it to them.
There are quite a few starters working their way through this system. I'm going to sit back and enjoy watching them be brought up to play.
|
|
|
Post by seattlesoxfan on Dec 31, 2012 3:53:22 GMT -5
What should be clear to everyone at this point is that there were little to no options this year, not if you value the talent in your system and if you have a clear understanding of the changes that have been wrought by the CBA. There will be no more collecting of talent at the bottom end of the draft. It isn't going to happen. And for all those who seem so disappointed, feel free to lay out how you would have changed this off-season. Napoli was easily the best hitter not looking for a king's ransom and willing to work it out over a shorter period of time. The drop off from that is quite steep. That's the reality. Once the team made clear that they weren't going to put themselves in the same hole they were very fortunate to dig themselves out of, the options were limited. Moreover, I honestly don't think that having both Hamilton - who's at least as iffy a proposition as Napoli - and Greinke would have guaranteed them anything except a few more wins. And at what cost? So that they could be staring into the same dark waters as they were in 2012 a few years down the road? No thanks. They've done what I thought they might, fill in the blanks with the best choices they could short of starting from square one again. I don't blame the Sox' potential trade partners when they ask for the world. And I celebrate when the Sox refuse to give it to them. There are quite a few starters working their way through this system. I'm going to sit back and enjoy watching them be brought up to play. Thank you!! I cant believe how many people are still complaining out there! I know that I'm glad once the fo asked Hamilton and Greinke what they wanted they moved on. Greinke is probably the only one I would have given up a draft pick for but no way for that many & years. That second round pick plus the slot money that goes with it is valuable! I think they have done the best they could while still keeping the years down, not giving up picks and fielding a competitive team. If the minor leaguers keep progressing at this pace next year Jacoby leaves and you slide victorino to center and Brentz to rt. The next year Bradley might be ready to play center and shift victorino to left unless Kalish can take over then he's a 4th outfielder... or something like that. The next few years are simply a bridge to see who is ready from the minors and turn the team back over to what it should be and that is a program that can be self sufficient and only use Free agency sparingly to plug a few holes. This team needed a huge douching so that is what we have this year. They will be a decent team this year and better the next and so on.... Now, step back from the ledge...
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Dec 31, 2012 12:56:55 GMT -5
The simple fact is that blowing up a team has consequences. The Sox blew up their team in August, and there's no guaranteed quick fix out there. This hasn't been a great, game-changing offseason for the Sox, but there's probably no way it was going to be, given the talent available. Some people seem to look at the Sox and say, "They're not that great," and conclude the Sox have had a bad offseason. But it's really that they had a terrible couple of offseasons before (and a lull in internal talent development), and it'll take a while to dig out.
This all seems obvious, right? But some folks seem to forget it ...
Personally, I think Ben has done a good job getting the team to the point of having a puncher's chance at a post-season run. I also don't think it was very creatively done. That's not really a criticism; maybe there wasn't a creative way out there that worked. But, so far, a solid offseason, nothing more than that. My early read on Ben is that he's smart and methodical, probably very good over the long haul for a team with the resources of the Sox, but I don't know that we'll be blown away by the creativity of it all very often.
Altho, the Punto Trade really was pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jan 1, 2013 14:24:48 GMT -5
So this is the way I see it; I know it's probably over simplified, but I don't think it's a totally unreasonable way to look at it, at least for a quick evaluation.
Over the last three years Crawford has averaged 2.7 WAR, Beckett has also average 2.7 WAR, and Gonzalez has averaged 5.0 WAR. Call it 3.0 WAR for Crawford and Beckett, and that adds up to 11 WAR. For the same amount of money, Cherington has added Napoli (tentatively), Victorino, Drew, Gomes, Ross, Dempter, and Uehara: Napoli has averaged 3.5 WAR, Victorino 4.3, Drew 2.3, Gomes 1.2, Ross 1.5, Dempster 3.0, and Uehara 1.0, which adds up to 17 WAR
Now, I don't think Victorino is going to be a 4+ WAR player, and Napoli is going to lose some value moving from catcher to 1B (although he likely plays more games, and possibly hits better not having to play catcher, so I'm not sure how much value he loses), but Ross and Gomes are both supposed to see more playing time, and Drew missed a full season in there, so he may be closer to 3 WAR than 2, so I'm not sure that that 17 WAR estimate is too far off for the group as a whole.
Even if you want to go with a best case scenario for the players they gave up (4 WAR each for Crawford and Beckett, and 6 WAR for Gonzalez) they would be worth 14 WAR total next year, and if you assume the players they signed play to last year's level (ie. no bounce backs - Napoli is league average, Victorino is a below league average hitter, Drew is a 0 WAR player, etc.) they would be worth 13 WAR, so pretty much worst case scenario they are 1 Win worse than they would have otherwise been, while adding future payroll flexibility, roster flexibility, and very good prospects in Webster and RDLR.
Feel free to tell me where I'm going wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 1, 2013 14:54:01 GMT -5
One quick criticism is that you assume that in the old scenario, that SS/RF/C/RP would be played by replacement-level players, which is unlikely to be true. Even assuming that the Red Sox don't sign any outside players because of budget issues, it isn't just Gonzalez/Crawford/Beckett versus the new guys, but rather those three plus some combination of Iglesias/Kalish (or Brentz)/Lavarnway/Mortensen (or Wilson or Bard or Carpenter) versus Napoli/Gomes/Dempster/Drew/Victorino/Ross/Uehara. Iglesias/Kalish/Lavarnway/Mortensen aren't world-beaters, but they aren't quite replacement-level, either.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Jan 1, 2013 15:15:11 GMT -5
Oh, good call, I completely overlooked that. So would it be unreasonable to assume that Iglesias, Kalish, Lavarnway, and a reliever might add 6 WAR total? That would bring their "likely" scenario to about even, which would make the worst case start not looking so good (maybe 4-5 WAR worse, worst case).
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Jan 1, 2013 16:34:02 GMT -5
Cash:- Beckett (2/$17M) = Dempster (2/$13.25) + Dodgers cash ($3.9M)
- Crawford (5/$21M) = Victorino (3/$13M) + Gomes (2/$5M)
- Gonzalez (5/$22M) = Napoli (3/$13M) + Drew (1/$9.5M)
Personnel:- Beckett-Dempster
- Crawford-Victorino
- Ross-Gomes
- Gonzalez-Napoli
- Iglesias-Drew
Offseason looks good for Sox if: Crawford declines a la Shannon Stewart, Victorino/Napoli/Drew play up to past performances on team/park suited for them, and Webster/De La Rosa develop into good-or-better major league players. Offseason looks bad for Sox if: Crawford returns to Tampa form, Victorino/Napoli/Drew play to their 2012 levels, and Webster/De La Rosa flame out as prospects. random: -LAD trade was essentially the beginning of the offseason for this team -most likely outcome is middle point between good/bad scenarios -is Dempster-Napoli-Drew-Victorino the best assembly of talent that was possible this offseason?
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Jan 1, 2013 18:31:36 GMT -5
I still can't believe we gave that kind of money to Crawford.
I was for the Gonzo deal at the time but felt as though it was unnecessary with probably Pujols, Fielder and Gonzo heading to free agency and the Yankees having Teixeira and at least at the time the Tigers looking out of it because of Cabrera. Gonzo had shown a desire to play in Boston and I think we could've signed him easily with fall back plans in case something went wrong. The actual value of that trade is one more year of him plus what turned out to be a somewhat team friendly contract. I was never a huge Casey Kelly fan and always viewed him as trade bait but having him and Rizzo back in the system would be nice especially with Gonzalez now gone.
As far as this year goes I'm satisfied. We did the best we could with what we had and the only sacrifice is money that's not mine anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 1, 2013 20:02:56 GMT -5
I was for the Gonzo deal at the time but felt as though it was unnecessary with probably Pujols, Fielder and Gonzo heading to free agency and the Yankees having Teixeira and at least at the time the Tigers looking out of it because of Cabrera. Gonzo had shown a desire to play in Boston and I think we could've signed him easily with fall back plans in case something went wrong. The actual value of that trade is one more year of him plus what turned out to be a somewhat team friendly contract. I was never a huge Casey Kelly fan and always viewed him as trade bait but having him and Rizzo back in the system would be nice especially with Gonzalez now gone. Look at it this way: the Gonzo trade got the Sox a player attractive enough to the Dodgers that they took the Crawford and Beckett contracts AND sent back two very good players.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Jan 1, 2013 21:26:55 GMT -5
I was for the Gonzo deal at the time but felt as though it was unnecessary with probably Pujols, Fielder and Gonzo heading to free agency and the Yankees having Teixeira and at least at the time the Tigers looking out of it because of Cabrera. Gonzo had shown a desire to play in Boston and I think we could've signed him easily with fall back plans in case something went wrong. The actual value of that trade is one more year of him plus what turned out to be a somewhat team friendly contract. I was never a huge Casey Kelly fan and always viewed him as trade bait but having him and Rizzo back in the system would be nice especially with Gonzalez now gone. Look at it this way: the Gonzo trade got the Sox a player attractive enough to the Dodgers that they took the Crawford and Beckett contracts AND sent back two very good players. And I do view it that way. My frustration level on this one is very low but I do still wonder "what if"?
|
|
|