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.
How do you improve the Red Sox
|
Post by mgoetze on May 23, 2016 12:36:29 GMT -5
The offense is top notch as it is, but that's exactly why improving it would be even better. Offense improves non-linearly so adding a good hitter to a good offense makes an even bigger impact. Further, it doesn't matter where we upgrade, a run scored is as valuable as a run saved, so if we can score more runs by improving LF than we'd save by improving the rotation that's what we should do (assuming equal cost). This is an excellent post and I have nothing to add to it. It's sad that this thread is going to continue with dozens of posters ignoring these points.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on May 23, 2016 12:44:51 GMT -5
I like the idea that we couldn't give out extensions if we have Mike Trout (with a team-friendly contract btw) on the books. Since when did we become the Kansas City Royals? The reason why the Red Sox can spend what seems like an unlimited amount of money is precisely because they have so much home grown talent on cheap contracts. If they traded for Trout, it would take all four of the top four plus at least one current cheap player like JBJ if not Betts or Bogaerts. The price would likely be so insane that it could never work out. And then they'd be in the position of filling positions through free agency which doesn't seem to work out too well. That has nothing to do with what I said or what I was responding to. I don't disagree with you at all.
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on May 23, 2016 12:58:26 GMT -5
This team started poorly because of our shaky starting rotation, not LF or C. Unless everything falls apart we should give Swihart every opportunity we can until the Bust 2-15 Benny Bombs (lol, the world is falling if we dont have an All Star in every position) or Moncada get here in September or next year. Blake was awesome in the 2nd half of last year and I think he'll be fine. All this fascination with Trout (greatest player since Ted Williams, /sarcasm) has to stop. What we need to do, is focus on our starting 5, since it has been the only weak link on this "First Place" Red Sox team. If who we have doesn't work then we need to find a decent #2 - #3 or an inning eater.
And one more thing, I am a New Yorker, Born and raise (my Dad is from Boston), I have been a Sox (Bruins, Celts, Pats) fan for over 40 years and I smile every time I hear the NY fans complain about our homegrown-ed talent in the Bigs and still have a top 5-10 Farm System. Even with 2 back to back last place finishes and losing MF Ortiz (as he is called around these parts), I have to wear shades.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 23, 2016 13:02:30 GMT -5
This team is not doing poorly because of our LF or C, its because we have a shaky starting rotation. Unless everything falls apart we should give Swihart every opportunity we can until the Bust 2-15 Benny Bombs (lol, the world is falling if we dont have an All Star in every position) or Moncada get here in September or next year. Blake was awesome in the 2nd half of last year and I think he'll be fine. All this fascination with Trout (greatest player since Ted Williams, /sarcasm) has to stop. What we need to do, is focus on our starting 5, since it has been the only weak link on this "First Place" Red Sox team. If who we have doesn't work then we need to find a decent #2 - #3 or an inning eater. And one more thing, I am a New Yorker, Born and raise (my Dad is from Boston), I have been a Sox (Bruins, Celts, Pats) fan for over 40 years and I smile every time I hear the NY fans complain about our homegrown-ed talent in the Bigs and still have a top 5-10 Farm System. Even with 2 back to back last place finishes and losing MF Ortiz (as he is called around these parts), I have to wear shades. Didn't realize the team was doing poorly. I do agree that the need is probably greater for a #2 type starter, but if the cost of improving that is more prohibitive than improving LF, then I don't make a move for a starter - I'd improve LF. A smaller move that could help the Sox is getting another setup man if Carson Smith doesn't look like a good bet to be healthy. I'd be very worried about Uehara and Tazawa if they don't get more help (and that's not a slam against Ross, Barnes, or Hembree, or even Layne) - it's just that when the Sox are tied or ahead Uehara and Tazawa get heavily leaned upon. They need another reliever that can be heavily leaned upon, somebody who should not cost them much in talent.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 23, 2016 13:20:21 GMT -5
The offense is top notch as it is, but that's exactly why improving it would be even better. Offense improves non-linearly so adding a good hitter to a good offense makes an even bigger impact. Further, it doesn't matter where we upgrade, a run scored is as valuable as a run saved, so if we can score more runs by improving LF than we'd save by improving the rotation that's what we should do (assuming equal cost). This is an excellent post and I have nothing to add to it. It's sad that this thread is going to continue with dozens of posters ignoring these points. Yep. In addition to this are two main points: it's cheaper to improve a weakness than a strength, and LF is the weakest link, and the problem with the team is the depth on the position players, not just what's happening now. The drop off from any regular to the replacement is too large right now (except, coincidentally, Holt to Swihart). If Holt is the replacement, that's a lot better. If there are no injuries, you don't need anything on this team that'd be worth the cost. I mean, sure, you could use always come up with an upgrade at pitching on any team ever. But it's just not worth the cost to get a top-level arm, if any was even available.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by radiohix on May 23, 2016 13:35:34 GMT -5
This team is not doing poorly because of our LF or C, its because we have a shaky starting rotation. Unless everything falls apart we should give Swihart every opportunity we can until the Bust 2-15 Benny Bombs (lol, the world is falling if we dont have an All Star in every position) or Moncada get here in September or next year. Blake was awesome in the 2nd half of last year and I think he'll be fine. All this fascination with Trout (greatest player since Ted Williams, /sarcasm) has to stop. What we need to do, is focus on our starting 5, since it has been the only weak link on this "First Place" Red Sox team. If who we have doesn't work then we need to find a decent #2 - #3 or an inning eater. And one more thing, I am a New Yorker, Born and raise (my Dad is from Boston), I have been a Sox (Bruins, Celts, Pats) fan for over 40 years and I smile every time I hear the NY fans complain about our homegrown-ed talent in the Bigs and still have a top 5-10 Farm System. Even with 2 back to back last place finishes and losing MF Ortiz (as he is called around these parts), I have to wear shades. Didn't realize the team was doing poorly. I do agree that the need is probably greater for a #2 type starter, but if the cost of improving that is more prohibitive than improving LF, then I don't make a move for a starter - I'd improve LF. A smaller move that could help the Sox is getting another setup man if Carson Smith doesn't look like a good bet to be healthy. I'd be very worried about Uehara and Tazawa if they don't get more help (and that's not a slam against Ross, Barnes, or Hembree, or even Layne) - it's just that when the Sox are tied or ahead Uehara and Tazawa get heavily leaned upon. They need another reliever that can be heavily leaned upon, somebody who should not cost them much in talent. How? My understanding is that if you lean on a guy, that guy is reliable meaning valuable meaning he will cost you. Think Ken Giles, are you confortable with that price tag? I'm certainly not. And seriously, why people think so little of Robbie Ross? He strikes out 11.12 batters per 9 innings and he generates an above avg number of groundballs (53.5%) and has no splits (2.88 xFIP vs LHB and 2.83 vs RHB). He's very very good. ADD: I know lots of guys here LOVE gun readings: Adrew Miller avg FB velocity 93.9 Robbie Ross avg FB velocity 94.1
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 23, 2016 13:43:50 GMT -5
How do you improve the Red Sox?Add another Ace to the rotation, another Ace to the Bullpen & a Left Hand Power Hitter to Left Field. Maybe we can add 5 aces and 8 elite closers and hall of fame players at every position and on the bench.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 23, 2016 14:03:05 GMT -5
They need another reliever that can be heavily leaned upon, somebody who should not cost them much in talent. How? My understanding is that if you lean on a guy, that guy is reliable meaning valuable meaning he will cost you. Think Ken Giles, are you confortable with that price tag? I'm certainly not. And seriously, why people think so little of Robbie Ross? He strikes out 11.12 batters per 9 innings and he generates an above avg number of groundballs (53.5%) and has no splits (2.88 xFIP vs LHB and 2.83 vs RHB). He's very very good. Layne hasn't been bad at all either, though he has been used mostly in LOOGY situations. In fact, our strong middle-relievers have allowed us to back off of our three set-up men whenever they have shown any issues (fatigue, injury, overuse, underperformance, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 23, 2016 14:06:10 GMT -5
I really find this statement incomprehensible. Five years is not long enough to restock a farm that is currently most talented at the A ball level with one exception (Benintendi)? Really!? So no draft picks, international signings or other trades for the next five years develop and pan out? That seems like a gross exaggeration of reality. Will, say, dealing four or five of the Sox best prospects (if one includes Swihart in that group) for Trout, or 3 of the best 5 plus one from 5-10 for a pitcher such as Nola, Fernandez, Velasquez, or Salazar, Kluber or Carasco if Cleveland falls out of contention, drop the farm's overall rating to below top 20 - definitely. But given the young MLB core and that there are still some players of note who would remain (likely Travis, Dubon, Longhi, Kopech, and a few others) there is ample opportunity to continue success or make more deals. Also consider the haul they would get if, say, Boras and Xander say they are definitely going to Free Agency the winter before his walk year and the Sox decide to trade Xander rather than give him a 10 year deal. The prospect haul would be significant. I am not saying the Sox should definitely make a big-time deal at the deadline - though I am on record as saying I would trade the top 4 guys (Moncada, Espinosa, Benintendi and Devers) right now for Trout. But if there was a time to make such a deal, it would be now/this winter when you have young, good, controllable guys at RF, CF, 3rd, SS, C and long term guys signed for 2nd and 1st/DH and some good pitching signed for at least three years (Price, Rodriguez, Kelly, Wright, Porcello), this would be that time. I am less enthusiastic about "blowing up the farm" for pitching, but again, not all these prospects - even our best and our binkies - are going to be MLB players. Dealing when the value is high can have its benefits as well - especially with all the opportunities to restock while the core is still young. If the team is picking (near) last in the first round every year, and trying to sign FAs to fill the spots of inevitable attrition? When it's 5-6 years minimum to develop international talent, and 4-5, if lucky, for HS talent? Unless Nostradamus is your scouting director, no. If you find that incomprehensible, look at the Sox ca. 2012, after years of winning, late picks, and difficult drafts. Or, the Yankees right now. Where do you propose to find low-cost players to fill the many, many spots you'll need to fill in this team in 3-5 years? Unless you're advocating a $250-$300M payroll... 5-6 years minimum to develop international talent??? Hmm didn't take Bogaerts or ERod that long. Would bet it won't take Moncada that long either. You also act like a trade would wipe out the whole system, it wouldn't. We would have tons of players from recent drafts that are still developing. What's wrong with were Sox were in 2012? ? They won a championship in 2013. You get most of the young talent on this team was here in 2012 right??? I just don't see what your point is. As to Yankees it sure wasn't trades that made them a mess. More like letting Cano go while signing Ellsbury, an aging roster, player development that hasn't produced, and them not going after elite free agents the last few years .
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 23, 2016 14:06:25 GMT -5
It's a shame they don't trade with the MFYs because Miller or Gardner would fit possible current and next couple year needs nicely.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 23, 2016 14:16:06 GMT -5
If the team is picking (near) last in the first round every year, and trying to sign FAs to fill the spots of inevitable attrition? When it's 5-6 years minimum to develop international talent, and 4-5, if lucky, for HS talent? Unless Nostradamus is your scouting director, no. If you find that incomprehensible, look at the Sox ca. 2012, after years of winning, late picks, and difficult drafts. Or, the Yankees right now. Where do you propose to find low-cost players to fill the many, many spots you'll need to fill in this team in 3-5 years? Unless you're advocating a $250-$300M payroll... 5-6 years minimum to develop international talent??? Hmm didn't take Bogaerts or ERod that long. Would bet it won't take Moncada that long either. You also act like a trade would wipe out the whole system, it wouldn't. We would have tons of players from recent drafts that are still developing. What's wrong with were Sox were in 2012? ? They won a championship in 2013. It does take time though, and we did have a huge drought. Look back at the rankings history and realize how many of the Sox top prospects either didn't come to fruition, or did so for other teams. ADD: It's the gap between Ells/Lowrie/Buchholz/Masterson in 2007/8 and Betts/Bogaerts/JBJ/Barnes/Vasquez/Marrero/Workman in 2013/4 In there we missed on, lost or traded Almanzar, Vinicio, Beltre, Bowden, Anderson, Reddick, Kelly, Westmoreland, Fuentes, Kalish, Rizzo, Ranaudo, Price, Dent, Hagadone, Place, KJohnson, CClay, Vitek and Brentz. And that's without counting Bard, Iglesias, Middlebrooks and Doubront who legitimately helped the team, but briefly. Successes in that stretch include Tazawa and who?
|
|
|
Post by classylefthander on May 23, 2016 14:16:55 GMT -5
Rusney's glove may provide more value than the combined efforts on offense and defense that the 2016 LFers have contributed. At this stage all you need to beat is replacement level, and Castillo is capable of that with his D. Holt and Rutledge/ Swihart can PH later in games if the Sox need offense.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 23, 2016 14:26:50 GMT -5
I really find this statement incomprehensible. Five years is not long enough to restock a farm that is currently most talented at the A ball level with one exception (Benintendi)? Really!? So no draft picks, international signings or other trades for the next five years develop and pan out? That seems like a gross exaggeration of reality. Will, say, dealing four or five of the Sox best prospects (if one includes Swihart in that group) for Trout, or 3 of the best 5 plus one from 5-10 for a pitcher such as Nola, Fernandez, Velasquez, or Salazar, Kluber or Carasco if Cleveland falls out of contention, drop the farm's overall rating to below top 20 - definitely. But given the young MLB core and that there are still some players of note who would remain (likely Travis, Dubon, Longhi, Kopech, and a few others) there is ample opportunity to continue success or make more deals. Also consider the haul they would get if, say, Boras and Xander say they are definitely going to Free Agency the winter before his walk year and the Sox decide to trade Xander rather than give him a 10 year deal. The prospect haul would be significant. I am not saying the Sox should definitely make a big-time deal at the deadline - though I am on record as saying I would trade the top 4 guys (Moncada, Espinosa, Benintendi and Devers) right now for Trout. But if there was a time to make such a deal, it would be now/this winter when you have young, good, controllable guys at RF, CF, 3rd, SS, C and long term guys signed for 2nd and 1st/DH and some good pitching signed for at least three years (Price, Rodriguez, Kelly, Wright, Porcello), this would be that time. I am less enthusiastic about "blowing up the farm" for pitching, but again, not all these prospects - even our best and our binkies - are going to be MLB players. Dealing when the value is high can have its benefits as well - especially with all the opportunities to restock while the core is still young. If the team is picking (near) last in the first round every year, and trying to sign FAs to fill the spots of inevitable attrition? When it's 5-6 years minimum to develop international talent, and 4-5, if lucky, for HS talent? Unless Nostradamus is your scouting director, no. If you find that incomprehensible, look at the Sox ca. 2012, after years of winning, late picks, and difficult drafts. Or, the Yankees right now. Where do you propose to find low-cost players to fill the many, many spots you'll need to fill in this team in 3-5 years? Unless you're advocating a $250-$300M payroll... It's been done several times before - look: '04 draft, Pedroia starting in 07, Clay Meredith in 06 www.soxprospects.com/dh0403.htm05 Draft Ellsbury 07, Buchholz cup of coffee and a No-No in 07, Starter 08, Lowrie 250 PAs in 08, Bowden 8 games in 09, Starter in 10 (and, hey, I won't even count Hansen) www.soxprospects.com/dh0605.htm06 Draft Bard 09, Masterson 08, Kalish 10, Richardson 10, Reddick, cup of coffee 09, latte in 10, the Man in 11. www.soxprospects.com/dh0605.htm07 Draft Hagadone 11, Middlebrooks 12, Rizzo 11 www.soxprospects.com/dh0807.htmYou can do the rest but, as you can see, even drafting low in the first it's more than possible to get MLB players to the bigs within 3 years. Sometimes less if you have an advanced college reliever. Development is not a steady slope. And as was pointed out the international path can also yield results sooner from time to time. Part of the Yankees' problem is that they kept signing FAs and trading away whatever position player values they had at the time for some immediate return or not traded when the opportunity was at it's zenith (something that bites every team, including the Sox - Anderson, Cecchini, Middlebrooks, etc).
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on May 23, 2016 14:30:13 GMT -5
This team is not doing poorly because of our LF or C, its because we have a shaky starting rotation. Unless everything falls apart we should give Swihart every opportunity we can until the Bust 2-15 Benny Bombs (lol, the world is falling if we dont have an All Star in every position) or Moncada get here in September or next year. Blake was awesome in the 2nd half of last year and I think he'll be fine. All this fascination with Trout (greatest player since Ted Williams, /sarcasm) has to stop. What we need to do, is focus on our starting 5, since it has been the only weak link on this "First Place" Red Sox team. If who we have doesn't work then we need to find a decent #2 - #3 or an inning eater. And one more thing, I am a New Yorker, Born and raise (my Dad is from Boston), I have been a Sox (Bruins, Celts, Pats) fan for over 40 years and I smile every time I hear the NY fans complain about our homegrown-ed talent in the Bigs and still have a top 5-10 Farm System. Even with 2 back to back last place finishes and losing MF Ortiz (as he is called around these parts), I have to wear shades. Didn't realize the team was doing poorly.I do agree that the need is probably greater for a #2 type starter, but if the cost of improving that is more prohibitive than improving LF, then I don't make a move for a starter - I'd improve LF. A smaller move that could help the Sox is getting another setup man if Carson Smith doesn't look like a good bet to be healthy. I'd be very worried about Uehara and Tazawa if they don't get more help (and that's not a slam against Ross, Barnes, or Hembree, or even Layne) - it's just that when the Sox are tied or ahead Uehara and Tazawa get heavily leaned upon. They need another reliever that can be heavily leaned upon, somebody who should not cost them much in talent. You're right, edit my 1st line.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 23, 2016 15:05:51 GMT -5
5-6 years minimum to develop international talent??? Hmm didn't take Bogaerts or ERod that long. Would bet it won't take Moncada that long either. You also act like a trade would wipe out the whole system, it wouldn't. We would have tons of players from recent drafts that are still developing. What's wrong with were Sox were in 2012? ? They won a championship in 2013. It does take time though, and we did have a huge drought. Look back at the rankings history and realize how many of the Sox top prospects either didn't come to fruition, or did so for other teams. ADD: It's the gap between Ells/Lowrie/Buchholz/Masterson in 2007/8 and Betts/Bogaerts/JBJ/Barnes/Vasquez/Marrero/Workman in 2013/4 In there we missed on, lost or traded Almanzar, Vinicio, Beltre, Bowden, Anderson, Reddick, Kelly, Westmoreland, Fuentes, Kalish, Rizzo, Ranaudo, Price, Dent, Hagadone, Place, KJohnson, CClay, Vitek and Brentz. And that's without counting Bard, Iglesias, Middlebrooks and Doubront who legitimately helped the team, but briefly. Successes in that stretch include Tazawa and who? Most just didn't pan out, you can argue that if you had traded more of those players you would have gotten a lot more value out of them. By my count we lost Rizzo and Reddick that we could have used by way of trade. Now Gonzalez who was acquired for Rizzo was key to restart trade that won us a championship and the Iglesias trade turned into Hembree. So I can live with those trades as much as Rizzo helping Theo kills me. The one really bad trade is Reddick as we got almost nothing for him. My point is that it wasn't trades that led to a lack of talent. It was more scouting, player development, bad luck or the rule of averages coming into play.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 23, 2016 15:19:41 GMT -5
If the team is picking (near) last in the first round every year, and trying to sign FAs to fill the spots of inevitable attrition? When it's 5-6 years minimum to develop international talent, and 4-5, if lucky, for HS talent? Unless Nostradamus is your scouting director, no. If you find that incomprehensible, look at the Sox ca. 2012, after years of winning, late picks, and difficult drafts. Or, the Yankees right now. Where do you propose to find low-cost players to fill the many, many spots you'll need to fill in this team in 3-5 years? Unless you're advocating a $250-$300M payroll... 5-6 years minimum to develop international talent??? Hmm didn't take Bogaerts or ERod that long. Would bet it won't take Moncada that long either. You also act like a trade would wipe out the whole system, it wouldn't. We would have tons of players from recent drafts that are still developing. What's wrong with were Sox were in 2012? ? They won a championship in 2013. You get most of the young talent on this team was here in 2012 right??? I just don't see what your point is. As to Yankees it sure wasn't trades that made them a mess. More like letting Cano go while signing Ellsbury, an aging roster, player development that hasn't produced, and them not going after elite free agents the last few years . It took 5 years to develop ERod. And five for Bogaerts. Or did you forget that they were signed at 16? What's wrong with 2012? They finished last, and would 3/4 years. 2013 was great, but there was a fair amount of luck involved. And this year's recovery required signing Price and trading for Kimbrel. And the rules that allowed them to have that fantastic draft in 2011 are now defunct. And if you're using Moncada as an example of typical international talent, your premise is entirely specious. He'll take probably 2.5 years to develop, but there isn't likely to be another version of him available (unless you want to talk Otani) all that soon, and I'm not sure the Sox are going to want to drop $63M again.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 23, 2016 15:22:23 GMT -5
If the team is picking (near) last in the first round every year, and trying to sign FAs to fill the spots of inevitable attrition? When it's 5-6 years minimum to develop international talent, and 4-5, if lucky, for HS talent? Unless Nostradamus is your scouting director, no. If you find that incomprehensible, look at the Sox ca. 2012, after years of winning, late picks, and difficult drafts. Or, the Yankees right now. Where do you propose to find low-cost players to fill the many, many spots you'll need to fill in this team in 3-5 years? Unless you're advocating a $250-$300M payroll... It's been done several times before - look: '04 draft, Pedroia starting in 07, Clay Meredith in 06 www.soxprospects.com/dh0403.htm05 Draft Ellsbury 07, Buchholz cup of coffee and a No-No in 07, Starter 08, Lowrie 250 PAs in 08, Bowden 8 games in 09, Starter in 10 (and, hey, I won't even count Hansen) www.soxprospects.com/dh0605.htm06 Draft Bard 09, Masterson 08, Kalish 10, Richardson 10, Reddick, cup of coffee 09, latte in 10, the Man in 11. www.soxprospects.com/dh0605.htm07 Draft Hagadone 11, Middlebrooks 12, Rizzo 11 www.soxprospects.com/dh0807.htmYou can do the rest but, as you can see, even drafting low in the first it's more than possible to get MLB players to the bigs within 3 years. Sometimes less if you have an advanced college reliever. Development is not a steady slope. And as was pointed out the international path can also yield results sooner from time to time. Part of the Yankees' problem is that they kept signing FAs and trading away whatever position player values they had at the time for some immediate return or not traded when the opportunity was at it's zenith (something that bites every team, including the Sox - Anderson, Cecchini, Middlebrooks, etc). How many were impact players, or even regulars, in that time frame?
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on May 23, 2016 15:31:52 GMT -5
This thread is what you get when the Sox are trotting out a lineup of 7 or 8 homegrown above average talent: People thinking that good prospects grow on trees and you can get them any time you want.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by radiohix on May 23, 2016 15:45:36 GMT -5
This thread is what you get when the Sox are trotting out a lineup of 7 or 8 homegrown above average talent: People thinking that good prospects grow on trees and you can get them any time you want. QFT Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 23, 2016 15:55:19 GMT -5
Didn't realize the team was doing poorly. I do agree that the need is probably greater for a #2 type starter, but if the cost of improving that is more prohibitive than improving LF, then I don't make a move for a starter - I'd improve LF. A smaller move that could help the Sox is getting another setup man if Carson Smith doesn't look like a good bet to be healthy. I'd be very worried about Uehara and Tazawa if they don't get more help (and that's not a slam against Ross, Barnes, or Hembree, or even Layne) - it's just that when the Sox are tied or ahead Uehara and Tazawa get heavily leaned upon. They need another reliever that can be heavily leaned upon, somebody who should not cost them much in talent. How? My understanding is that if you lean on a guy, that guy is reliable meaning valuable meaning he will cost you. Think Ken Giles, are you confortable with that price tag? I'm certainly not. And seriously, why people think so little of Robbie Ross? He strikes out 11.12 batters per 9 innings and he generates an above avg number of groundballs (53.5%) and has no splits (2.88 xFIP vs LHB and 2.83 vs RHB). He's very very good. ADD: I know lots of guys here LOVE gun readings: Adrew Miller avg FB velocity 93.9 Robbie Ross avg FB velocity 94.1 I'm not talking about acquiring a closer. We already know that's an expensive proposition. I'm talking a reliable middle reliever (maybe somebody making $3 million on a bad ball club nearing the end of his contract.) That shouldn't be as prohibitive or as rare to acquire. I'm concerned that Tazawa and Uehara will be used and abused by August and have little left for Sept and Oct. I'm also concerned Carson Smith doesn't come back healthy. I totally agree with you that Robbie Ross should earn the benefit of trust. Lovullo, given limited options last Aug and Sept, was unafraid to use Ross with the lead. For whatever reason, Farrell normally doesn't use Ross in tie games or with the lead and I have absolutely no idea why. I think, like you, he should get that trust. Basically this would be an acquisition that would be an upgrade on Barnes, Hembree, and particularly Noe Ramirez, but wouldn't cost them a lot in talent. I think it's something that's doable and pays benefits to the rest of the pen. It's a small move, but one that could be useful. If Carson Smith comes back healthy, we're not having this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 23, 2016 15:57:37 GMT -5
It's been done several times before - look: '04 draft, Pedroia starting in 07, Clay Meredith in 06 www.soxprospects.com/dh0403.htm05 Draft Ellsbury 07, Buchholz cup of coffee and a No-No in 07, Starter 08, Lowrie 250 PAs in 08, Bowden 8 games in 09, Starter in 10 (and, hey, I won't even count Hansen) www.soxprospects.com/dh0605.htm06 Draft Bard 09, Masterson 08, Kalish 10, Richardson 10, Reddick, cup of coffee 09, latte in 10, the Man in 11. www.soxprospects.com/dh0605.htm07 Draft Hagadone 11, Middlebrooks 12, Rizzo 11 www.soxprospects.com/dh0807.htmYou can do the rest but, as you can see, even drafting low in the first it's more than possible to get MLB players to the bigs within 3 years. Sometimes less if you have an advanced college reliever. Development is not a steady slope. And as was pointed out the international path can also yield results sooner from time to time. Part of the Yankees' problem is that they kept signing FAs and trading away whatever position player values they had at the time for some immediate return or not traded when the opportunity was at it's zenith (something that bites every team, including the Sox - Anderson, Cecchini, Middlebrooks, etc). How many were impact players, or even regulars, in that time frame? And now you're moving the goal posts but OK, off the top of my head from that list: Pedroia (rookie of the year), Ellsbury ("impact player" in half of 07 and WS, starter in 08; Buchholz starter in 08, and Masterson, Rizzo, Bard. Not too shabby.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on May 23, 2016 15:57:45 GMT -5
I can certainly understand not wanting to trade for Trout and/or Gray, but how can you say pretty much no young talent to speak of in 5 years ? You overlook 5 years worth of drafts and international signings. I love the core of this team and prospects, but do you really believe that all we need to do is re-sign our guys to compete for 10 years? Come on, you know David Ortiz is retiring right? Those Yankee teams made trades and signed free agents. Oh not saying we shouldn't have more young talent in the future, I'm not against having a kickass draft this year or the next. What I meant is that if at any point Mike Trout becomes available, which he isn't, that's the kind of guy you trade the farm for. Think about it this way: do you think a guy like Benintendi is ever going to produce like Mike Trout? I don't advocate trading everyone for every random Joe that hits the market, but let me be specific again: that's Mike Trout. You're not ever messing with that core for the next 10 years when by that time we might have won 10 WS in a row.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 23, 2016 16:05:25 GMT -5
I can certainly understand not wanting to trade for Trout and/or Gray, but how can you say pretty much no young talent to speak of in 5 years ? You overlook 5 years worth of drafts and international signings. I love the core of this team and prospects, but do you really believe that all we need to do is re-sign our guys to compete for 10 years? Come on, you know David Ortiz is retiring right? Those Yankee teams made trades and signed free agents. Oh not saying we shouldn't have more young talent in the future, I'm not against having a kickass draft this year or the next. What I meant is that if at any point Mike Trout becomes available, which he isn't, that's the kind of guy you trade the farm for. Think about it this way: do you think a guy like Benintendi is ever going to produce like Mike Trout? I don't advocate trading everyone for every random Joe that hits the market, but let me be specific again: that's Mike Trout. You're not ever messing with that core for the next 10 years when by that time we might have won 10 WS in a row. Endorse.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 23, 2016 16:16:48 GMT -5
When it comes to the draft, we should all remember that the rules are a lot different now than they were. The Sox used to have a huge advantage with their financial resources, but the slot system has taken that away. It's harder for them to dominate the draft like they used to. And now with the Int'l bonus rules, it cuts down (but doesn't eliminate) their advantage there, too.
The current wave of talent from that 2011 draft was the last from the old system.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by radiohix on May 23, 2016 16:24:10 GMT -5
Ichiro is sporting a 144 wRC+ (63 PAs and a .404 BABIP though), he's walking more than ever and striking out less than ever before. But him aiming for the 3000 hits and Papi farewell tour would be just awesome for us fans and the young guns playing next to 2 future HOFer. I love Ichiro
|
|
|