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 jimed14 on May 23, 2016 16:50:58 GMT -5
This thread is eerily similar to the "What can be done to fix the Sox?" thread when the answer was basically to just wait. Don't screw this up by trading everyone. We don't need a super team and we don't need Trout.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 23, 2016 17:17:21 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? I also specified HS/int'l players. Yeah, a collegiate pick can make the majors in 2-3 years, but "success" rate for collegiate 1st-rounder position players is about 50-60%. It's 2016, and the 2011 crop is just becoming productive this year (the one precocious player being Mookie, who's been productive since recall). If you emptied the system, more or less (top-4), yeah, you might develop a few contributors (Travis, Lakins, Chavis, Kopech, Ockimey), but really nobody who would be an impact player. So what happens when Ortiz leaves? Buchholz? Porcello? Maybe Price? Pedroia declines? Hanley leaves? You probably won't have any impact internal options (and almost assuredly none who are impact right away), you'll be thin on trade chips, and you'd need to spend a ton of money to replace your FAs above, not to mention pony up a bunch more to extend your young players. Are you really going to want to pull the plug and trade Bogaerts in two years because you acquired Trout and obliterated your minor league system (and can't afford your own player?) We just fundamentally disagree on present vs future value here, win-now vs. patience. They're opinions, and I can accept the idea of wanting to get Trout and make an uber-team, I just think it's an enormous unnecessary expense for a relatively small increase in chances of winning now. The Sox have a league-leading offense and are in first place. What exactly are you hoping to gain?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 23, 2016 17:26:47 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. 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. It took Bogaerts less then 4 years of minor league ball to reach majors. He was signed end of August in 2009 never played a game in 2009 and still reached majors in 2013. That's less then 5 years even if you count 2009 as a developmental year. ERod took just over 5 years. The point is that any trade made now doesn't mean the system will have no talent in 5 years. If you can make a trade and your going to have enough young talent for the next 5 years, then worry about 5 years from now is not a reason to not make that trade. You keep talking about no young talent in 5 years and we'll be like 2012. Yet in 2012 we had a ton of young talent in the minors. Did we trade someone that could have become Price and Kimbrel? That's what you do in free agency and trades, you fill the holes your farm system can't. As to Moncada, obviously he's not a normal international guy, but with the Red Sox budget they can go after a guy like that once every 5 years or so if they wanted to. Right now the international market is the last way for Sox to use its large budget to out spend most teams and I'm glad they are doing just that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 23, 2016 17:27:41 GMT -5
The Red Sox could go 5 years without a single prospect that could make the top 4 now. Assuming you can just replace them in 3 years through drafting and signing international guys while under the penalty is absurd.
This team is setup so unbelievably well that I have no idea why people want to destroy it. You're also putting all of the risk into a single player who while one of the best ever, is just as much at risk for injury or decline as anyone else.
I'm sure people would have jumped all over a JBJ/Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart for Trout deal a few years ago, but what the hell would the team look like now? It's not like Trout can win by himself, which is why he's available for trade.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 23, 2016 17:29:41 GMT -5
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. It took Bogaerts less then 4 years of minor league ball to reach majors. He was signed end of August in 2009 never played a game in 2009 and still reached majors in 2013. That's less then 5 years even if you count 2009 as a developmental year. ERod took just over 5 years. The point is that any trade made now doesn't mean the system will have no talent in 5 years. If you can make a trade and your going to have enough young talent for the next 5 years, then worry about 5 years from now is not a reason to not make that trade. You keep talking about no young talent in 5 years and we'll be like 2012. Yet in 2012 we had a ton of young talent in the minors. Did we trade someone that could have become Price and Kimbrel? That's what you do in free agency and trades, you fill the holes your farm system can't. As to Moncada, obviously he's not a normal international guy, but with the Red Sox budget they can go after a guy like that once every 5 years or so if they wanted to. Right now the international market is the last way for Sox to use its large budget to out spend most teams and I'm glad they are doing just that. Are you assuming that they can just find players like Bogaerts without any trouble? I say this year, they should sign 12 of those guys. The problem in 2012 is that they had no prospects close to the majors who could step in when other players got hurt or were terrible. I mean think about this year if we were counting on Sandoval and didn't have Shaw.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 23, 2016 17:30:49 GMT -5
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. Where did I "set" the goalposts to begin with? You're the one talking about "restocking the farm." To me, that's not a farm system full of Nick Hagadones. Then you're just the LA Angels.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 23, 2016 17:39:22 GMT -5
How many were impact players, or even regulars, in that time frame? I also specified HS/int'l players. Yeah, a collegiate pick can make the majors in 2-3 years, but "success" rate for collegiate 1st-rounder position players is about 50-60%. It's 2016, and the 2011 crop is just becoming productive this year (the one precocious player being Mookie, who's been productive since recall). If you emptied the system, more or less (top-4), yeah, you might develop a few contributors (Travis, Lakins, Chavis, Kopech, Ockimey), but really nobody who would be an impact player. So what happens when Ortiz leaves? Buchholz? Porcello? Maybe Price? Pedroia declines? Hanley leaves? You probably won't have any impact internal options (and almost assuredly none who are impact right away), you'll be thin on trade chips, and you'd need to spend a ton of money to replace your FAs above, not to mention pony up a bunch more to extend your young players. Are you really going to want to pull the plug and trade Bogaerts in two years because you acquired Trout and obliterated your minor league system (and can't afford your own player?) We just fundamentally disagree on present vs future value here, win-now vs. patience. They're opinions, and I can accept the idea of wanting to get Trout and make an uber-team, I just think it's an enormous unnecessary expense for a relatively small increase in chances of winning now. The Sox have a league-leading offense and are in first place. What exactly are you hoping to gain? I'm on record saying I wouldn't trade for Trout, as it would take young players on roster like Betts. Now say you get him without touching major league roster. You could have the best offense in Baseball history. An offense so good that it could make an Ace look like a #3. Look at the current offense and now add best player in game to it. A guy that hits for average and power. If I was a pitcher that would scare me to death.
|
|
|
Post by dnfl333 on May 23, 2016 17:46:21 GMT -5
I'm on record saying I wouldn't trade for Trout, as it would take young players on roster like Betts. Now say you get him without touching major league roster. You could have the best offense in Baseball history. An offense so good that it could make an Ace look like a #3. Look at the current offense and now add best player in game to it. A guy that hits for average and power. If I was a pitcher that would scare me to death.
Right on brother.. Trout to be had for anyone not on the 25 man roster.. I trade the farm if that could get him.
You would have to think Moncada Benny Devers Longhi Espinoza and this year's #1 pick as the player to be named later gets u a seat at the table?
Perfect salary dump OF, Markakis Atlanta. That obpct would look fine in the 2 hole
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 23, 2016 17:52:51 GMT -5
Perfect salary dump OF, Markakis Atlanta. That obpct would look fine in the 2 hole Holt is a better option for 1/10th the money. Markakis has zero power like Holt.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 23, 2016 17:59:34 GMT -5
It took Bogaerts less then 4 years of minor league ball to reach majors. He was signed end of August in 2009 never played a game in 2009 and still reached majors in 2013. That's less then 5 years even if you count 2009 as a developmental year. ERod took just over 5 years. The point is that any trade made now doesn't mean the system will have no talent in 5 years. If you can make a trade and your going to have enough young talent for the next 5 years, then worry about 5 years from now is not a reason to not make that trade. You keep talking about no young talent in 5 years and we'll be like 2012. Yet in 2012 we had a ton of young talent in the minors. Did we trade someone that could have become Price and Kimbrel? That's what you do in free agency and trades, you fill the holes your farm system can't. As to Moncada, obviously he's not a normal international guy, but with the Red Sox budget they can go after a guy like that once every 5 years or so if they wanted to. Right now the international market is the last way for Sox to use its large budget to out spend most teams and I'm glad they are doing just that. Are you assuming that they can just find players like Bogaerts without any trouble? I say this year, they should sign 12 of those guys. The problem in 2012 is that they had no prospects close to the majors who could step in when other players got hurt or were terrible. I mean think about this year if we were counting on Sandoval and didn't have Shaw. Never said that, but you can't overlook all the international talent we have brought in. Bogaerts, Margot, Moncada, Espinoza, Devers and Basbe just to name a few. Using Shaw as an example of why not to trade prospects is really not proving your point. They never would have traded him because he had no real value till this offseason, when they determined moving him to 3B was best as insurance for Pablo. I think we all agree Sox just got lucky with Shaw and thank God for that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 23, 2016 18:07:08 GMT -5
Are you assuming that they can just find players like Bogaerts without any trouble? I say this year, they should sign 12 of those guys. The problem in 2012 is that they had no prospects close to the majors who could step in when other players got hurt or were terrible. I mean think about this year if we were counting on Sandoval and didn't have Shaw. Never said that, but you can't overlook all the international talent we have brought in. Bogaerts, Margot, Moncada, Espinoza, Devers and Basbe just to name a few. Using Shaw as an example of why not to trade prospects is really not proving your point. They never would have traded him because he had no real value till this offseason, when they determined moving him to 3B was best as insurance for Pablo. I think we all agree Sox just got lucky with Shaw and thank God for that. The point with Shaw is that he was a prospect at or near the majors. We had none of those in 2012 and were stuck with horrible fill-ins like Pedro Ciriaco, Ryan Sweeney and Aaron Cook instead of prospects with possible upside. And another major factor there is that prospects have options so they don't have the waivers issues. It sucks that so far Elias, Owens and Johnson haven't served as useful depth, but that can change so we don't have to use the 2012 type of answer to a spot start in O'Sullivan.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on May 23, 2016 20:44:12 GMT -5
Perfect salary dump OF, Markakis Atlanta. That obpct would look fine in the 2 hole Holt is a better option for 1/10th the money. Markakis has zero power like Holt. Markakis would be an upgrade in the 9 hole, and then the bench gets a big upgrade, which I think is more important. But it's a lot of salary to take on. OTOH, it means there's no need to rush Benintendi, and that's good. There's an argument for filling the position for a year or a year and a half with a 1.0 - 1.5 WAR guy. I think he's in the discussion with Reddick and Bruce.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 23, 2016 21:09:19 GMT -5
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. Where did I "set" the goalposts to begin with? You're the one talking about "restocking the farm." To me, that's not a farm system full of Nick Hagadones. Then you're just the LA Angels. My only response was to your statement that trading away top prospects for Trout or Gray would mean that there wouldn't be any talent in the system in 5 years. My contention is 5 years. My response is that 5 years is more than enough time to replenish the farm system. Also, I wouldn't just trade prospect to do it. Trout is a 24 year old transformational talent. So, yeah, I'd do that. But short of that, which I doubt is happening, I'm looking for a platoon mate for Young in LF and perhaps a starter and/or reliever depending on the health/performance of those constituencies between now and July 31. Of course, that said, if Cleveland falls and one of Kluber/Salazar/Carrasco or a similar pitcher from another team becomes available, a GM who thinks his team is bound for the playoffs needs to see what the bidding price is and make an assessment. But no, I don't want to trade blue chips just to trade them.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 23, 2016 21:10:42 GMT -5
Holt is a better option for 1/10th the money. Markakis has zero power like Holt. Markakis would be an upgrade in the 9 hole, and then the bench gets a big upgrade, which I think is more important. But it's a lot of salary to take on. OTOH, it means there's no need to rush Benintendi, and that's good. There's an argument for filling the position for a year or a year and a half with a 1.0 - 1.5 WAR guy. I think he's in the discussion with Reddick and Bruce. Reddick would've been the perfect guy. Now we have to see what happens with that thumb.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 23, 2016 22:35:25 GMT -5
Never said that, but you can't overlook all the international talent we have brought in. Bogaerts, Margot, Moncada, Espinoza, Devers and Basbe just to name a few. Using Shaw as an example of why not to trade prospects is really not proving your point. They never would have traded him because he had no real value till this offseason, when they determined moving him to 3B was best as insurance for Pablo. I think we all agree Sox just got lucky with Shaw and thank God for that. The point with Shaw is that he was a prospect at or near the majors. We had none of those in 2012 and were stuck with horrible fill-ins like Pedro Ciriaco, Ryan Sweeney and Aaron Cook instead of prospects with possible upside. And another major factor there is that prospects have options so they don't have the waivers issues. It sucks that so far Elias, Owens and Johnson haven't served as useful depth, but that can change so we don't have to use the 2012 type of answer to a spot start in O'Sullivan. Sure that was one reason why 2012 was so bad, but would a Shaw type player have saved that season? I don't think so, to many players having down years all at same time if I remember right . That team had a ton of issues.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 24, 2016 1:05:57 GMT -5
I also specified HS/int'l players. Yeah, a collegiate pick can make the majors in 2-3 years, but "success" rate for collegiate 1st-rounder position players is about 50-60%. It's 2016, and the 2011 crop is just becoming productive this year (the one precocious player being Mookie, who's been productive since recall). If you emptied the system, more or less (top-4), yeah, you might develop a few contributors (Travis, Lakins, Chavis, Kopech, Ockimey), but really nobody who would be an impact player. So what happens when Ortiz leaves? Buchholz? Porcello? Maybe Price? Pedroia declines? Hanley leaves? You probably won't have any impact internal options (and almost assuredly none who are impact right away), you'll be thin on trade chips, and you'd need to spend a ton of money to replace your FAs above, not to mention pony up a bunch more to extend your young players. Are you really going to want to pull the plug and trade Bogaerts in two years because you acquired Trout and obliterated your minor league system (and can't afford your own player?) We just fundamentally disagree on present vs future value here, win-now vs. patience. They're opinions, and I can accept the idea of wanting to get Trout and make an uber-team, I just think it's an enormous unnecessary expense for a relatively small increase in chances of winning now. The Sox have a league-leading offense and are in first place. What exactly are you hoping to gain? I'm on record saying I wouldn't trade for Trout, as it would take young players on roster like Betts. Now say you get him without touching major league roster. You could have the best offense in Baseball history. An offense so good that it could make an Ace look like a #3. Look at the current offense and now add best player in game to it. A guy that hits for average and power. If I was a pitcher that would scare me to death. Oh, absolutely. They'd have an awesome offense, as in historic. But the Indians had one of those recently, and it didn't last very long, and didn't win them a WS. I get the temptation to add Trout if the Sox could get him for their top-4. That trade would have everything the Angels need: a nearly MLB-ready CF, a supreme INF batting prospect who's fairly close, a potential ace (and I mean ace, not just "#1 starter on a mediocre staff"), and a potential middle-order 3b. I just don't think it would be at all in the Sox's best interest, because of the long-term fallout: salary restriction, inability to promote from depth to fill injury holes, loss of homegrown players due to inability to extend them, loss of ability to trade from depth to fill injury needs (or FA losses), etc. It would be fun to watch (pretty sure my millennium club thread would become obsolete), but I'd rather they be patient than shoot for the moon. They're in first place...how much more offense do they need? They already lead the AL in scoring and run differential.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 24, 2016 1:29:38 GMT -5
The point with Shaw is that he was a prospect at or near the majors. We had none of those in 2012 and were stuck with horrible fill-ins like Pedro Ciriaco, Ryan Sweeney and Aaron Cook instead of prospects with possible upside. And another major factor there is that prospects have options so they don't have the waivers issues. It sucks that so far Elias, Owens and Johnson haven't served as useful depth, but that can change so we don't have to use the 2012 type of answer to a spot start in O'Sullivan. Sure that was one reason why 2012 was so bad, but would a Shaw type player have saved that season? I don't think so, to many players having down years all at same time if I remember right . That team had a ton of issues. I think you're 100% right that no one player would've fixed things. Probably no two players. What I'm trying to get at is that, if in 2008-9, the Sox had built (and patiently maintained) the system they had in, say, 2014, then 2012 never would've happened. That was my point about 4-5 years...that's how far ahead (or how far back, depending on your question) you need to look to gauge a minor league system's "value." Sure, you might have one Ellsbury or Pedroia college draftee shoot through in two years, but *most* draftees take 4-5 years to be *productive* major leaguers, and 5-7 years for international signees (at least, the 16-17 y/o cohorts). It's like our discussion on the dead spot in the Sox's development pipeline from 2008-2010. We may have disagreed (to some extent, though not that much, really) on the reasons, but look where that showed up: 2012-2015. In 2013, they had some terrific (if expensive) FA signings to fill those holes, but immediately the next year those signings stopped producing, and there were no young players stepping in to pick up the slack. Think of it this way: to build a 50-WAR team on FA signings alone, your outlay is $400M based on the market rate. That's prohibitive. So a team like the Sox needs a *minimum* of about 70% of that on low-cost (or near no-cost) players. The 15 WAR from FA costs you $120M, and if you played your minor league development cards right (or made a few savvy FA signings/trades), the remaining 35 WAR costs you $70M. That's more in line with "reasonable" spending. It's an oversimplification, but the theory holds: only a small proportion of a team's production can be FA-produced. It's just not cost effective. Even if you're incredibly smart, and sign a bunch of Shane Victorinos ca 2013 (and keep in mind, there may not be that many available) you're signing on for probably $4M/WAR. That's good enough to build your 50-WAR, $200M team...but presumes you'll have NO injuries and NO underperformances, and NO dead salary from guys like Panda. It's young guys like Bogaerts, Bradley, and Betts throwing up 6-WAR seasons for $600K that make $95M mistakes like Panda or $217M gambles like Price possible.
|
|
|
Post by braziliansox on May 24, 2016 3:23:22 GMT -5
The point with Shaw is that he was a prospect at or near the majors. We had none of those in 2012 and were stuck with horrible fill-ins like Pedro Ciriaco, Ryan Sweeney and Aaron Cook instead of prospects with possible upside. And another major factor there is that prospects have options so they don't have the waivers issues. It sucks that so far Elias, Owens and Johnson haven't served as useful depth, but that can change so we don't have to use the 2012 type of answer to a spot start in O'Sullivan. Sure that was one reason why 2012 was so bad, but would a Shaw type player have saved that season? I don't think so, to many players having down years all at same time if I remember right . That team had a ton of issues. That team was managed by Bobby Valentine, nobody could've saved them.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 24, 2016 7:04:17 GMT -5
I'm on record saying I wouldn't trade for Trout, as it would take young players on roster like Betts. Now say you get him without touching major league roster. You could have the best offense in Baseball history. An offense so good that it could make an Ace look like a #3. Look at the current offense and now add best player in game to it. A guy that hits for average and power. If I was a pitcher that would scare me to death. Oh, absolutely. They'd have an awesome offense, as in historic. But the Indians had one of those recently, and it didn't last very long, and didn't win them a WS. I get the temptation to add Trout if the Sox could get him for their top-4. That trade would have everything the Angels need: a nearly MLB-ready CF, a supreme INF batting prospect who's fairly close, a potential ace (and I mean ace, not just "#1 starter on a mediocre staff"), and a potential middle-order 3b. I just don't think it would be at all in the Sox's best interest, because of the long-term fallout: salary restriction, inability to promote from depth to fill injury holes, loss of homegrown players due to inability to extend them, loss of ability to trade from depth to fill injury needs (or FA losses), etc. It would be fun to watch (pretty sure my millennium club thread would become obsolete), but I'd rather they be patient than shoot for the moon. They're in first place...how much more offense do they need? They already lead the AL in scoring and run differential. Don't think you can be patient this year as its Ortiz last year and he is playing at MVP level. This is your last chance with the heart and soul of team. Don't think Trout trade has any chance of happening, but I for sure think DD trades for a LF and it's going to cost some prospects. If we need a pitcher he will get us one. We are going all in this year and I love it. It's the right thing to do. I love the idea of getting Reddick if he comes back healthy and shows no ill effects. The asking price shouldn't be that much, thinking a package of guys outside top 6.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 24, 2016 7:46:20 GMT -5
Sure that was one reason why 2012 was so bad, but would a Shaw type player have saved that season? I don't think so, to many players having down years all at same time if I remember right . That team had a ton of issues. I think you're 100% right that no one player would've fixed things. Probably no two players. What I'm trying to get at is that, if in 2008-9, the Sox had built (and patiently maintained) the system they had in, say, 2014, then 2012 never would've happened. That was my point about 4-5 years...that's how far ahead (or how far back, depending on your question) you need to look to gauge a minor league system's "value." Sure, you might have one Ellsbury or Pedroia college draftee shoot through in two years, but *most* draftees take 4-5 years to be *productive* major leaguers, and 5-7 years for international signees (at least, the 16-17 y/o cohorts). It's like our discussion on the dead spot in the Sox's development pipeline from 2008-2010. We may have disagreed (to some extent, though not that much, really) on the reasons, but look where that showed up: 2012-2015. In 2013, they had some terrific (if expensive) FA signings to fill those holes, but immediately the next year those signings stopped producing, and there were no young players stepping in to pick up the slack. Think of it this way: to build a 50-WAR team on FA signings alone, your outlay is $400M based on the market rate. That's prohibitive. So a team like the Sox needs a *minimum* of about 70% of that on low-cost (or near no-cost) players. The 15 WAR from FA costs you $120M, and if you played your minor league development cards right (or made a few savvy FA signings/trades), the remaining 35 WAR costs you $70M. That's more in line with "reasonable" spending. It's an oversimplification, but the theory holds: only a small proportion of a team's production can be FA-produced. It's just not cost effective. Even if you're incredibly smart, and sign a bunch of Shane Victorinos ca 2013 (and keep in mind, there may not be that many available) you're signing on for probably $4M/WAR. That's good enough to build your 50-WAR, $200M team...but presumes you'll have NO injuries and NO underperformances, and NO dead salary from guys like Panda. It's young guys like Bogaerts, Bradley, and Betts throwing up 6-WAR seasons for $600K that make $95M mistakes like Panda or $217M gambles like Price possible. Yea I see the lack of talent as a result of 2006-2010 drafts. They missed on a ton of high picks.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,017
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 24, 2016 8:34:51 GMT -5
The problem with Trout is the cost to get him would outweigh his benefit. The Angels have a long rebuild in front of them and no farm system which makes it more likely they wouldn't need major league players back for him. However, he's so good that the volume of those players needed isn't worth the move if you are the Red Sox. Young players are more valuable than ever and this team is set up very well for the furtive. HOWEVER, part of that future is going to be stacking the next contracts of the current young players with a new wave of cheap guys. You cannot afford to trade your entire next wave for one guy. That's putting way too much risk on one position. It's easy to say now is the perfect time because of the young players but I look at it the other way. Because or the current group and the seeming next wave I think now is the perfect time to let them mostly play and develop and hope to be able to have something extremely special for the next 15 years.
Hate to play small market money but this is partly why, unless he's so dominant they can't help it, AB stays in the minors until at least June of next year. Sorry, delay that clock. Now let me be clear, I won't sacrifice this team winning for that, but he's going to need to be tearing **** up and forcing the hand.
|
|
rjp313jr
Veteran
Posts: 14,017
Member is Online
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 24, 2016 8:37:01 GMT -5
As far as improving this team. If you can get a left fielder without giving up too much on the farm then go for it. Like I've said, I'd trade Owens and not lose any sleep over it.
I'd really like another Tazawa or Ross type or better for the bullpen.
I think the starters will cost more than they are worth.
And trade Buccholz for prospects.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on May 24, 2016 8:37:54 GMT -5
Yea I see the lack of talent as a result of 2006-2010 drafts. They missed on a ton of high picks. IIRC, they actually did well relative to the league with those drafts, grabbing some good talent (Anthony Rizzo, Ryan Westmoreland, Travis Shaw[eventually], Christian Vazquez, Casey Kelly, Ryan Kalish, Josh Reddick, Daniel Bard, etc, etc). Missing picks is just part of the game. To me, the bigger problem was a complete lack of international talent during the Theo/Shipley era. Unless I'm forgetting someone, they got essentially nothing from the time Anibal Sanchez & Hanley Ramirez were traded to Xander Bogaerts debuting in the major leagues (unless you count Felix Doubront, which is fair).
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on May 24, 2016 8:55:13 GMT -5
Yea I see the lack of talent as a result of 2006-2010 drafts. They missed on a ton of high picks. IIRC, they actually did well relative to the league with those drafts, grabbing some good talent (Anthony Rizzo, Ryan Westmoreland, Travis Shaw[eventually], Christian Vazquez, Casey Kelly, Ryan Kalish, Josh Reddick, Daniel Bard, etc, etc). Missing picks is just part of the game. To me, the bigger problem was a complete lack of international talent during the Theo/Shipley era. Unless I'm forgetting someone, they got essentially nothing from the time Anibal Sanchez & Hanley Ramirez were traded to Xander Bogaerts debuting in the major leagues (unless you count Felix Doubront, which is fair). It was partly missing picks, and partly trading the two guys who were successful in Reddick and Rizzo. That would have changed the game to some degree, although it probably would not have brought another championship. Shaw was 2011 (with several other current big-leaguers). And I don't know when the Shipley era started and ended, but other than Engel Beltre (traded away) we got nothing from 2002 to 2007 int'l signees.
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on May 24, 2016 9:20:23 GMT -5
As far as improving this team. If you can get a left fielder without giving up too much on the farm then go for it. Like I've said, I'd trade Owens and not lose any sleep over it. I'd really like another Tazawa or Ross type or better for the bullpen. I think the starters will cost more than they are worth. And trade Buccholz for prospects. It may be just me, but I sense we are very deep in the bullpen & that is one area of not needing anything. Especially as volatile as relievers are. As bad as Buch has been, I don't think we have the luxury of trading any starters with our sudden depth problem in AAA. I do agree that any SP (aside from Hill) will cost too much, hence the need to keep Buch. Still think Reddick is the perfect fit.
|
|
|